After Election Week, SF Continues to Support Muni over Cars

After Election Week, SF Continues to Support Muni over Cars

By: Andrew Noerr

            With yet another key city election concluded, San Francisco voters made their voices heard on many of today’s important issues impacting the city. Two propositions in particular that seemingly had contradictory goals, Proposition A and Proposition L, were voted upon in last Tuesday’s city election. Voters approved of Proposition A that calls for significant financial resources to be dedicated to improving transit life along with biker and pedestrian safety. However, San Francisco citizens also rejected Proposition L that would have declared a new policy concerning numerous demands to make driving cheaper and allocate more funds to make driving a more desirable option in the city.

            Proposition A specifically needed a 2/3 majority vote, and it achieved that. The city will be borrowing $500 million through the issuing of bonds in order to improve infrastructure and transit life in San Francisco. These changes include building transit-only lanes, separate bike lanes, new traffic signals, and many improvements to Muni facilities across the city. San Francisco’s Transportation Task Force disclosed that $10 billion are needed to spur the necessary advancements for these goals, and in a state that is trying hard to whittle down its debt, it can sometimes be hard to convince voters that increasing debt is a solution to any problem in San Francisco.

            “(Two-thirds) is a very high threshold. It was not for sure that it was going to pass,” said Corey Cook, a political science professor at USF. “Even when you have the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and everybody on board, 66% is still a tough number to reach because there are people who don’t like to pay taxes, who don’t like to borrow money… eventually that’s 25% of the electorate right there.  The wiggle room is pretty small.”

Nevertheless, Proposition A passed with a 71.3% of the votes. This outcome clearly shows that voters care about transit in San Francisco, Cook says, noting that San Francisco has always been a transit-first city.

To fund the bonds that are being issued to pay for those changes, the city will be increasing the property tax that landlords must pay. Landlords are then allowed to make tenants financially responsible for 50% of the increased property tax. However, Cook doesn’t believe that the potential increases to tenants’ rents will be large, as he guessed that landlords will receive a $500 property tax at most over a span of a year.  Half of that could be shifted towards tenants. That financial burden would then be distributed among all of the tenants in a living area in the form of rent increases. It would be less than $100 per person, guessed Cook.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if rents went up, but I don’t think it will be a lot. I wouldn’t urge panic for students, but part of the tax can be spread along (to tenants),” said Cook.

Even with the proposed increased property tax, Proposition A was successful in this year’s city election. The same cannot be said for Proposition L though, as 62.42% of San Francisco voters rejected it. That proposition did not advocate for changes to be made to Muni and the welfare of pedestrians and bikers, but rather it wanted to make San Francisco more car-friendly.

Specifically, Proposition L would have created a new declaration of policy that addressed potentially changing regulations concerning parking meters, parking tickets, and traffic flow throughout San Francisco. The policy would have called for parking meters to not function on Sundays and holidays, and meters would not operate outside of 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Also, the city would stop enacting fees related to parking garages, meters, late parking tickets, and neighborhood parking permits for five years starting in 2015. While all of that would make driving a lot cheaper, this proposition also triggered strong reactions about how the lack of enforcement on parking could actually make driving a lot more chaotic in San Francisco as well.

“I don't think SF should make itself more car-friendly but more public transportation- friendly,” said Anthony Castro, a senior undergraduate at USF who drives to school every day. “The city is congested enough and parking is a rarity in some neighborhoods, so I think making the city more car-friendly would add to the problem.”

It is then clear that San Francisco voters voiced their sentiments clearly through the previous city election. The success of Proposition A and the subsequent rejection of Proposition L confirmed the notion that San Francisco is indeed a transit-first city. San Francisco may have more citizens driving cars these days, but the citizens of the city still value public transportation more than ever.

“I think San Francisco is going to stay transit-friendly for a really long time,” noted Cook. “Giving the growing density of San Francisco, anticipating a million people in the next 20 years, we can’t get there with cars.”

Matt Bai: The Tabloidization of Politics Story

Matt Bai: “Ethos of Political Journalism Shifts in the Years after Hart (Scandal)”

By: Andrew Noerr

            There was once upon a time when political journalism didn’t seem to focus on the private lives of the politicians and leaders of the United States. Rather, the media attention that politicians would receive would be dedicated to how they would perform their jobs in office. However, this all seemingly changed not after the immense Watergate snafu in the 1970s, but instead when the scandal surrounding Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Gary Hart and model Donna Rice was revealed to the public in 1987 that completely altered the impending presidential race in 1988.

            All of that was the subject of a riveting talk done by Yahoo! News columnist and former New York Times chief political correspondent Matt Bai at the Commonwealth Club on October 20. Dressed professionally in a black suit, Bai detailed the sequence of events that comprised the Gary Hart sex scandal, as that is the main subject of his new book titled All the Truth is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid. Out of all the things that Bai mentioned in his talk, one moment that stood out the moment was when he discussed how the Hart scandal transformed political journalism in the late 1980s.

            “The ethos of political journalism shifts in the years after Hart,” Bai noted in the middle of his speech. “It changes from illumination of worldviews and ideas and agendas to principally trying to find the lie.”

            The lie that was discovered in 1987 would end up shocking the nation. As Bai stated in his talk, Hart was a strong candidate for the presidency in 1987 before the scandal erupted. He was leading in the polls by over 20 points in the Democratic primaries at one point, and he was far ahead of the eventual 41^st President of the United States George H.W. Bush.

            However, if there was one thing Gary Hart couldn’t do, it was that he couldn’t foresee what Bai described as “the convergence that was happening in society between politics and journalism and entertainment.” Many news outlets started chasing Hart amidst rumors that he was a “womanizer.” Well-known newspapers such as the Miami Herald and The Washington Post would soon be the main sources for what became the Gary Hart sex scandal.

            Bai mentioned that a reporter from the Miami Herald named Tom Fieldler would be one of the first writers to witness firsthand what was occurring between Hart and Donna Rice. On May 2, 1987, Fieldler and some other reporters ended up staking out near Hart’s townhouse in Washington D.C. After they witnessed a woman enter and leave his townhouse, Hart was later bombarded in an alley near his home by Fieldler and the other reporters with questions about the identity of the woman and why she was there. Bai emphasized how that moment would be an indicator of the transformation that was developing in political journalism.

            “In that oil-stained alley, on that ground, I think the ground of American politics and journalism shifted,” Bai said.

            The drama didn’t end there. Three days later, Hart was having a press conference in New Hampshire in front of a large group of reporters. A writer from The Washington Post named Paul Taylor attended the event, and he ended up asking the questions that shook Hart’s psyche enough to cause him to drop out of the race. Bai recited the interview between Taylor and Hart that day.

            “Senator, do you consider yourself a moral person?” Taylor asked Hart back in 1987.

            “Yes,” Hart responded.

            “Do you consider adultery immoral?” Taylor then asked.

            “I suppose so,” Hart replied.

            Taylor’s next inquiry would metaphorically drop a bomb on Hart’s life.

            “Senator, have you ever committed adultery?”

            Hart was stunned, even though he had been rehearsing his answers to questions like that on the plane ride to New Hampshire. Bai specifically mentioned how Hart knew that the reporters knew the answer to that question, and they all wanted him to say something on-the-record about the affair.

            “I don’t think that’s a fair question,” Hart said, and he has responded the same way to that question ever since, according to Bai.

            The media scrutiny dominated Hart and Rice from that point going forward. Rice in particular didn’t know how to deal with the astronomical amount of media attention that she would receive. All Rice wanted to do was go home after the news of the scandal were revealed to the public, but she wasn’t able to do so. She was forced to give a press conference in Florida before being able to somewhat return to her own life. According to Bai, reporters from all over the country paid lots of money to live in the homes nearby Rice so that they could cover the aspects of her day-to-day life while the scandal dominated the news.

            The affair certainly impacted the 1988 presidential election, but it also confirmed the extreme alteration that political journalism was undergoing at that time. Reporters started to look for ways in which political candidates may be lying to the media or ways in which they were potentially hiding something from the public. Bai admitted that this was the environment that he lived in when he first become a political journalist, and it has caused all aspects of politicians’ lives to be thrust in the spotlight.

            “(We) set up a process in which all context was lost,” Bai said about what political journalists did after the Hart scandal. “You were always the one flaw that we needed to find in order to beat our competitors and get some level of acclaim.”

            As Bai talked about all of the captivating details that he uncovered from the Gary Hart scandal, the audience in attendance often reacted in awe or shock. Even though most of the members of the audience were seemingly alive during the scandal, it’s as if they had completely missed how influential the affair would be to the realm of politics and journalism. They seemingly only remembered how the scandal impacted their decision at the polls.

            “It was captivating,” Judith Heggie, a San Francisco citizen who attended the talk, said. “I didn’t know anything about Gary Hart except that he was a possible candidate for President. When I heard about the scandal, I was like everybody else… I judged him on his one-known affair rather than all the other things he had done.”  

            Ultimately, Bai noted that this kind of political journalism that now exists can cause politicians to not be defined by the positive aspects of their work or their agendas, but rather they would be judged by the worst thing that they’ve ever done. The trickle-down effect of this is that the public’s trust in politicians diminishes greatly, and in return politicians tend to not want to open up about their lives to the media. Still, a lot more scandals were disclosed to the public after the Hart affair. In the words of Bai, politicians shifted from being hunters to being the hunted in the eyes of political journalists, and that still holds true today. 

Airbnb Legislation Story

New Airbnb Legislation Could Transform Character of San Francisco

By: Andrew Noerr

            After years of debate and protest in San Francisco, the city has finally acted upon the Airbnb crisis. Mayor Ed Lee on Monday signed a new law that makes Airbnb legal in San Francisco after the Board of Supervisors voted and approved of it by a tally of 7-4. It had technically been an illegal hotel business since it was first established in 2008.

            As noted by Patrick Hoge of the San Francisco Business Times, this comes at the heels of vigorous debate that had occurred between members of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco about whether to make Airbnb legal in a city that is suffering from an immense housing crisis. The San Francisco-based company serves as a middleman, allowing property owners, tenants, and landlords to rent out their space to anyone from all over the world. They would post the info about potential vacancies on the Airbnb website, and then people seeking to temporarily stay in the city can rent out rooms or even entire homes for whatever price is demanded by the person allowing the space to be rented.

            However, this new legislation has not resolved the controversy that has surrounded this issue in San Francisco. Tim Redmond of 48hills.com has noted numerous times that a combination of landlord groups, tenant protection activists, and hotel workers have all opposed the Airbnb legislation due to the potential impact that the new legislation could have on the housing crisis in San Francisco, the ability of the city to collect taxes from Airbnb, and the concept of community that is lost when rooms or apartments are rented out by tourists instead of being occupied by long-term residents.

            Mara Math, a counselor at the San Francisco Tenants Union, said, “I’m disappointed about the legislation. It does not address the fundamental problems of Airbnb. It didn’t even include the proposed amendments that we wanted.”

            There were numerous amendments that were proposed to the legislation. One would be that all rooms on Airbnb could only be rented out for 90 days per year. Another proposed amendment was that Airbnb would only become legal if they paid their back taxes first, as they owe approximately $25 million. Those taxes would be the money that they owe to San Francisco that they haven’t paid since the company was first established in 2008.

Ultimately, these amendments were not passed, although the Board of Supervisors did agree to some other suggested amendments. One is that neighborhood groups, tenants, and non-profit organizations are allowed to sue Airbnb if they are not following the law. Examples of this include someone on Airbnb renting out an entire home for less than 30 days, as that is still forbidden in San Francisco, or if someone rents out a room in a building that has been subject to Ellis Act evictions in the past.

Still, the failed attempt to limit rentals to 90 days per year has alarmed many people who are concerned about the health of the housing market in San Francisco. If one looks at the Airbnb website and checks how expensive it is to rent a room in the city, one will notice that prices range anywhere from $70-$199 per night, although they are usually on the more expensive side. Since there are no limits to how long a room can be rented, landlords or others could simply allow a room to be rented out all year by numerous customers through Airbnb instead of making the room available to residents of San Francisco.

“The San Francisco Tenants Union doesn’t like Airbnb because landlords have been evicting tenants so that their property can turn into Airbnb hotels,” Math said.

Indeed, it can be more lucrative for landlords to rent out rooms through Airbnb to tourists than to rent them out to long-term tenants. Through Airbnb, for example, if a private room is posted for $150 per night, the landlord could make $4,500 per month off that room. In comparison, if one looks at Craigslist and checks how much a private room costs for long-term renting, prices range from $700-$2,000 per month. This, according to Math, has instilled fear into many people about the motives of landlords for evicting tenants in San Francisco.

Another hot issue with the Airbnb legislation is the desire from many people for the company to pay its back taxes. According to Mai-Cutler, it owes around $25 million in taxes in San Francisco, as it should have been paying taxes that commercial hotels must pay annually. The amendment that would have forced Airbnb to pay those taxes was denied though, as it was ambiguous as to how the company would pay them and how long it would take. This issue has stirred its own controversy among many people in San Francisco.

“(San Francisco residents) inherit the financial burden from Airbnb not paying their taxes,” Math said. “That money would go into the General Fund to benefit the residents of San Francisco. Instead, we’ll get asked to sign on for bond measures for things such as libraries or roads that should have already been funded by those taxes.”
            One last protest that people have brought up is that the concept of having housemates in one’s home will soon cease to exist. Redmond of 48hills.com said that more homes could become Airbnb hotels and be filled with tourists looking to stay on a short-term basis, and the community feeling that is prevalent among long-term residents in San Francisco would diminish.

“I enjoy my housemates,” said Victor Gavallos, a senior undergraduate at USF who lives in the Richmond District. “Having housemates means that I always have people that I am close to at home. We have our own micro-community that is supportive, and I can turn to them when I need it.”

            After much debate, the Airbnb legislation was still passed by Mayor Ed Lee, and according to the CBS San Francisco report, it will be in effect starting on February 1, 2015. Other rules were included in the legislation such as people who allow their rooms to be rented out must be San Francisco residents, they must live in the unit for at least nine months per year, they must register with the city first, have liability insurance, and pay a 14% hotel tax in San Francisco. Even with these rules, some San Franciscans have lamented that the city has lost some of its character as a result of the new legislation.

            “It’s bad for community,” Math said. “The San Francisco Tenants Union is here to protect the interests of tenants, and we know that this is bad for what makes San Francisco a great city.”

Yet Another Source for My Political Beat

John W. Higgins has been associated with commercial and non-commercial media for over three decades. His experience includes work in production, management, performance and research; he has served on governing boards for community-based cable television and broadcast radio organizations. The author of several articles exploring community-based media, Higgins has served as a member and president of the board of directors of the San Francisco Community Television Corporation, the non-profit organization managing the city’s and county’s public access cable television facilities and channel from 1999 to 2009. He has been active in U.S. and international organizations practicing, promoting, and studying community-based media.

Dr. Higgins is a communications consultant in San Francisco and adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco. He has developed media facilities and educational programs and taught at colleges and universities in the U.S. and overseas. A former associate professor in communication and media at Menlo College in Atherton, California, he holds a Ph.D. in Communication, an M.A. in Telecommunications, and a B.A. in Communication Arts.

Dr. Higgins’ areas of expertise include community-based media; multi-media production; advanced media technologies and social networking; critical pedagogies; and storytelling and oral history as art and social science.

Another of Higgins’s long-standing interests is storytelling and puppetry. As the creator and director of “Night Vision Puppets” he performed internationally utilizing a one-man, “street theater” approach to performance from 1974 to 2001. In the late 1970s the troupe appeared regularly on local children’s and late night television programs. For three decades the troupe conducted workshops and performed at art museums, universities, and outdoor festivals, including a 1995 performance at the United Nations' 50th anniversary celebration in Nicosia, Cyprus. In 2008 Higgins and the puppets returned to performances on occasion.

Higgins’ interest in narratives led to pursuits in electronic media and academia; it has always been focused on the stories told by people within communities. An outgrowth of this is “digital storytelling,” which fuses individual and group narratives of struggle and transformation, personal reflexivity, ethnographic research, and digital distribution. Digital storytelling is a natural extension of his experiences as a storyteller, street performer, and educator – blended with digital ethnographic methodologies.

Dr. Higgins is the recipient of a Fulbright Scholar grant from the Cyprus Fulbright Commission. He was in Cyprus in Fall 2010, utilizing digital storytelling, oral history . . . and puppetry . . . as methods of peace and community-building between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities.  He returned to the island for additional projects in 2011 and 2013 with groups across the island, including the US Embassy, the Cyprus Fulbright Commission, United Nations Development Programme-Action for Cooperation and Trust in Cyprus, and the Cyprus Community Media Centre.

Another Source for My Political Beat

Joe Murphy
Environmental Safety Manager

He has been the Environmental Safety Manager at the University of San Francisco for almost 20 years. His education includes the University of San Francisco and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne. He has advanced degrees in Biology, Toxicology, and Environmental Management.

As the Environmental Safety Manager he is responsible for the occupational and environmental regulatory compliance for the campus. This includes workplace safety, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management, as well as biological and radiological safety. In addition, he oversees the campus recycling program as well as direct some of the campus sustainability efforts which include coordinating events such as Recyclemania and Earth Day.

Another Source for My Political Beat

Michael Lenert. Professor Lenert teaches media law at the University of San Francisco as an adjunct in the Department of Media Studies. He recently completed a five-year term as a Professor at the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada at Reno. He has been a consultant on Internet and telecommunications issues for the Ford Foundation, The Asia Foundation, the City of San Francisco, the City of New York, and the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. He is past president of the New York State Communication Association and former co-chairman of World Wide Web Artists Consortium, a digital broadcasting special interest group. Lenert graduated magna cum laude from the University of California at Berkeley. He earned a doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin. He holds a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., and is licensed to practice law in California. 

USF Values Students over Government Compliance

USF Values Students over Government Compliance

By: Andrew Noerr

With all of the mayhem that has surrounded the National Security Agency and citizens’ invasion of privacy, there is perhaps one group of people that have been overlooked in all of this chaos, and that group is college students. Student data such as grades, health records, and housing information can all be seen as valuable in the eyes of the NSA. However, a careful examination of the policies that the University of San Francisco has in place considering data privacy would convince anyone that the school cares about its students more than complying with government requests for sensitive information.

            In fact, this issue could matter a lot more in the coming months. Later this fall, an international student-run organization called the Student Net Alliance will be grading universities on a myriad of topics such as how schools protect student data, whether universities have strong online privacy policies, how they support student developers, and other subjects as well. The grades will then be published in their “Campus Internet Policy Gradebook.”

            Even though the online group hasn’t released the gradebook yet, the criteria for it were released during the previous summer. Luckily, USF has posted some of their privacy policies online. An inspection of these policies and a discussion with the Information Security Officer of the ITS Department at USF named Walter Petruska has shed a lot of light on how USF could potentially be graded this fall.

            For starters, the Student Net Alliance advocates for universities to have policies considering encryption of data, free speech on campus, and cyberbullying. For the most part, USF does impose rules on those subjects. The university has its policy on data encryption posted online, and it specifically states that “Confidential or Highly Confidential” data such as academic, financial, and disciplinary data among other types are absolutely encrypted for the means of protecting it from unauthorized use. Encryption of data refers to the process of converting data into a code so that it can be protected from potential hackers.

            As for free speech on campus, USF does not have a specific policy for that, but freedom of students on campus is mentioned in the school’s core values. As listed on the USF website, one of the core values of the school is to promote “freedom and the responsibility to pursue truth and follow evidence to its conclusion.”

            Cyberbullying also does not have its own policy, but USF does have general rules concerning acts of harassment on campus. Specifically, according to the USF Fogcutter Student Handbook, acts of intolerance such as showing hatred towards a person for his or her ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other things is strictly forbidden, and that is especially true if it is done on the Internet.

            The Student Net Alliance also favors universities that notify their students when government agencies such as the NSA request any of their data. In most situations, USF does alert students if their data is requested by any outside organization. However, according to Petruska, not all students are granted full privacy when it comes to their sensitive data.

            “International students are treated differently,” Petruska said. “It’s all about them having visas. They have to be in school if they want to be in the United States. So, if a government agency requested data such as their academic records to make sure they’re in class, they would automatically get it.”

            Still, Petruska disclosed that in cases when a government agency requests data about students such as where they work or where they live on campus, then that data would not be disclosed without the consent of the student. Also, student data is generally protected by law under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). According to the National Law Review, FERPA doesn’t allow third parties to receive educational records of students over 18 years old without the consent of students and their parents, although there are many exceptions.

There is still more that the Student Net Alliance asks of colleges today though.  The group also hopes that colleges advocate for student developers who wish to develop technology such as apps to be allowed to release data about on-campus activities. For example, the Student Net Alliance favors colleges who allow students to make data sets about stats such as course registration and dining hall data. Afterwards, they would be allowed to make that data public.

            Fortunately, they are indeed allowed to do so at USF. According to Petruska, the ITS Department permits student developers to make technology such as apps that include USF data.

            Petruska said, “I definitely encourage our students to use USF data to make apps. The ITS Department hires students to work in our labs to work on projects like that. I’m all for it.”

            One example of an app that incorporates USF data is one called “USFmobile.” According to the webpage on the USF website dedicated to this app, USFmobile allows students to learn about campus events, check their schedules and their grades, and check registration holds. The app presents an example of USF data that can be accessed on mobile devices.

            All of the criteria previously described indicates that USF does value data privacy, but there is still another bar that schools are asked to climb. The Student Net Alliance also inquires about if schools allow students to install what has become notorious software called “Tor.”

            Tor has proven to be extremely useful while also controversial at the same time. According to the official Tor website, the software prevents outside people or organizations from learning users’ locations and from doing traffic analyses on users’ browsing habits. Outside groups such as the NSA would then theoretically not be able to discover how users of Tor use the Internet and what sites they check on a daily basis.

            The invention of this new software has raised some intriguing concerns. While it certainly is useful for online privacy, it can also help hackers and other criminals to commit crimes and not have their actions be detected by any outside organizations.

            With this in mind, Petruska revealed that USF still allows students to have the software on their computers, even though it may not be a popular decision.

            “USF students are allowed to have Tor. However, lots of colleges block Tor on their campuses,” Petruska disclosed. “Students are allowed to have it until they are caught using it illegally. I believe that I have a legal obligation to approach students in those cases.”

            Presumably, this hasn’t been a problem at USF since not many college students would know how to commit serious crimes online or do any serious hacking. Still, Tor has become an interesting option for those who truly value online privacy.

            Examination of all of these criteria would indicate that USF should be graded highly this fall in the Campus Internet Policy Gradebook. Although there were other small criterion such as school’s viewpoints on patent reform, training on how to use Tor, NSA recruitment programs, university transparency reports, and legal options for students who are threatened by outside hackers, Petruska noted that USF doesn’t have or need policies on those topics. He believes overall that the school does a quality job in valuing student data over government compliance.

“The ITS Department cares about privacy of student data greatly,” Petruska said. “We do whatever we can to protect the community.”