Bay Area
Mayor Breed Proposes Waiving City Fees for Night Markets, Block Parties, Farmers’ Markets, Other Outdoor Community Events
Mayor London N. Breed introduced legislation on April 26 to encourage and expand outdoor community events. The first will waive City fees for certain events, making them less costly to produce. The second will simplify the health permitting for special event food vendors through the creation of an annual permit. Both pieces of legislation are part of the Mayor’s broader initiative to bring vibrancy and entertainment to San Francisco’s public right of ways and spaces.
Mayor’s Press Office
Mayor London N. Breed introduced legislation on April 26 to encourage and expand outdoor community events.
The first will waive City fees for certain events, making them less costly to produce. The second will simplify the health permitting for special event food vendors through the creation of an annual permit. Both pieces of legislation are part of the Mayor’s broader initiative to bring vibrancy and entertainment to San Francisco’s public right of ways and spaces.
Outdoor community events are integral to San Francisco’s vibrant culture and sense of community. These events include night markets, neighborhood block parties and farmers markets, and bolster the City’s economy by supporting local businesses and attracting tourists eager to experience San Francisco’s unique charm and food scene.
They offer residents, workers and visitors, opportunities to engage with local artists, musicians, and food vendors while enjoying the San Francisco’s stunning outdoor spaces and commercial corridors.
The legislation will allow for more and new community gatherings and for local food vendors to benefit from the City’s revitalization.
“San Francisco is alive when our streets are filled with festivals, markets, and community events,” said Breed. “As a city we can cut fees and streamline rules so our communities can bring joy and excitement into our streets and help revitalize San Francisco.”
Fee Waiver Legislation
The events that can take advantage of the new fee waivers are those that are free and open to the public, occupy three or fewer city blocks, take place between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., and have the appropriate permitting from the ISCOTT and the Entertainment Commission.
The applicant must be a San Francisco based non-profit, small business, Community Benefit District, Business Improvement District, or a neighborhood or merchant association. Fees eligible for waiver include any application, permit, and inspection/staffing fees from San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Department of Public Health, Fire Department, Entertainment Commission, and Police Department.
Currently, it can cost roughly anywhere between $500-$10,000 to obtain permits for organized events or fairs, depending on its size and scope. Organizations and businesses are limited to a maximum of 12 events in one calendar year for which they can receive these fee waivers.
Food Vendor Streamlining Legislation
The second piece of legislation introduced will help special event food vendors easily participate in multiple events throughout the year with a new, cost-effective annual food permit. Food vendors who participate in multiple events at multiple locations throughout the year will no longer need to obtain a separate permit for each event. Instead, special event food vendors will be able to apply and pay for a single annual permit all at once.
“Many successful food businesses either begin as pop-up vendors or participate in special events to grow their business,” says Katy Tang, Director of the Office of Small Business. “Giving them the option for an annual special event food permit saves them time and money.”
Currently, food vendors are required to get a Temporary Food Facility (TFF) permit from the Department of Public Health (DPH) in order to participate in a special event, among permits from other departments.
Currently, each special event requires a new permit from DPH ranging from $124-$244, depending on the type of food being prepared and sold. Last year, DPH issued over 1,500 individual TFF permits. With the new annual permit, food vendors selling at more than four to six events each year will benefit from hundreds of dollars in savings and time saved from fewer bureaucratic processes.
“This legislation is a step in the right direction to make it easier for food vendors like me to participate in citywide events,” said Dontaye Ball, owner of Gumbo Social. “It saves on time, money and makes it more effective. It also creates a level of equity.”
Alameda County
District Attorney Pamela Price Will Face Recall Election on November General Election Ballot
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election. The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.
By Magaly Muñoz
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election.
The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.
Recall proponents submitted 123,374 signatures before the March 5 deadline, which resulted in 74,757 valid signatures counted by the Registrar of Voters (ROV).
The recall election will cost Alameda County $4 million and will require them to hire hundreds of new election workers to manage the demand of keeping up with the federal, state and local elections and measures.
Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE), one of the two recall campaigns against Price, held a press conference minutes before the Board’s special meeting asking for the Supervisors to schedule the election in August instead of consolidating with the November election.
Supporters of the recall have said they were not concerned with the $20 million price tag the special election would’ve cost the county if they had put it on the ballot in the summer. Many have stated that the lives of their loved ones are worth more than that number.
“What is the cost of a life?” recall supporters have asked time and time again.
Opponents of the recall election have been vehemently against a special date to vote, stating it would cost taxpayers too much money that could be reinvested into social programs to help struggling residents.
A special election could’ve cost the county’s budget to exceed its current deficit of $68 million, which was a driving factor in the three supervisors who voted for a consolidated election.
“Bottom line is, I can’t in good conscience support a special election that is going to cost the county $20 million,” Board President Nate Miley said.
Many speakers asked Miley and Keith Carson to recuse themselves from the vote, claiming that they have had improper involvement with either the recall proponents or Price herself.
Both supervisors addressed the concerns stating that regardless of who they associate themselves with or what their political beliefs are, they have to do their jobs, no matter the outcome.
Carson noted that although he’s neither supporting nor opposing Price as district attorney, he believes that whoever is elected next to take that position should have a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the job before recalls are considered.
Reports of recall attempts started as soon as April 2023 when Price had only been in office three months.
Price and her campaign team Protect the Win have been adamant that the voters who elected her to office will not fall for the “undemocratic” practices from the recall campaign and they are prepared to put all efforts forward to guarantee she stays in office.
Bay Area
Radical Proposal to Limit the Power of Oakland’s Police Commission
Since February 2023, several stakeholders, including the Coalition for Police Accountability, began to work on amending the Enabling Ordinance of Section 604, Article VI of the Oakland City Charter. The Enabling Ordinance was approved by 83.19% of Oakland voters and established the civilian membered Police Commission (the Commission), the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The recent process to amend was focused on addressing some of the inefficiencies and disruptions that have occurred with the Police Commission and to establish guard rails and procedures to mitigate such issues in the future.
By Coalition for Police Accountability
Since February 2023, several stakeholders, including the Coalition for Police Accountability, began to work on amending the Enabling Ordinance of Section 604, Article VI of the Oakland City Charter. The Enabling Ordinance was approved by 83.19% of Oakland voters and established the civilian membered Police Commission (the Commission), the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The recent process to amend was focused on addressing some of the inefficiencies and disruptions that have occurred with the Police Commission and to establish guard rails and procedures to mitigate such issues in the future. Councilmembers Dan Kalb and Kevin Jenkins are the authors of this legislation which is still in process.
A counter proposal was presented by Councilmember Jenkins to drastically amend Article VI, Section 604 of the City Charter. The proposal would remove the selection process of the police chief from the Commission and give that power solely to the mayor. Currently, the Commission selects the candidates from which the mayor chooses the chief and presents them to the mayor who selects the final candidate. The proposal also moves the OIG to the Auditor’s Office. These proposals would rob the Commission and the OIG of independence from City Hall which 83.19% of Oakland voters sought in voting for Measure LL in 2016 and Measure S1 in 2018.
Our position is that the issues that have been raised about the hiring of the Chief, the appointment authority of Commissioners, and the scope of CPRA can all be incorporated into the ongoing collaboration of all the stakeholders working on the Enabling Ordinance. Those stakeholders are the two authors, the Coalition of Police Accountability, the Police Commission and the community members who have participated in this extensive work which has yet to be completed and approved by the City Council. The Charter is very clear that the Commission hires the IG and that the IG is supervised by the Commission. The ordinance cannot override that provision of the Charter.
Amending the Charter is not the vehicle that should be used to make amendments. The proposed Enabling Ordinance should be given a chance to effect positive change before making radical and undemocratic revisions.
For further information, please contact the Coalition for Police Accountability by reaching out to Mariano Contreras at puralata1@gmail.com.
Bay Area
Oakland International Airport Will Now Be Called ‘San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport’
The Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to rename the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport at their board meeting last week. Despite a six-week battle with San Francisco leaders, residents and even Oaklanders, the Port remained steadfast in their decision to change the airport name in order to bring more revenue to Oakland’s economy.
By Magaly Muñoz
The Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to rename the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport at their board meeting last week.
Despite a six-week battle with San Francisco leaders, residents and even Oaklanders, the Port remained steadfast in their decision to change the airport name in order to bring more revenue to Oakland’s economy.
The Port reassured all parties that the airport will continue to have its OAK three-letter code and ‘I Fly OAK’ phrases, to minimize confusion among travelers.
“Our Board came to these discussions with a shared love of Oakland and a desire to see our city and airport thrive. Since our initial vote, the Port has met with dozens of community leaders and stakeholders and heard their concerns. We are moving forward with a commitment to honoring our past while building a stronger, more inclusive future,” Board President Barbara Leslie said in a statement.
The Board had delayed their decision by a month in order to listen to community members’ concerns about the name change. Bay Area residents accused the Port of trying to rewrite history and hide their current problems with public safety and crime behind a big tourist attraction.
The Port stated that their intention is to boost the number of people who fly into Oakland, which will allow for travelers to get to know the city and spend their money in the local businesses.
According to reports, Oakland Airport (OAK) is the closest major airport to 58% of the Bay Area population.
In the days following the announcement for change consideration, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit against Oakland to protect San Francisco.
The lawsuit argues that Oakland airport’s attempt to “unlawfully incorporate” the San Francisco trademark leaves the city with no choice but to sue for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition.
San Francisco city leaders and Oakland residents have insisted that the new name will create confusion and chaos for travelers who are not familiar with the area or the distinction between the two airports.
The Port has since responded with a countersuit of their own, asking the courts to rule that their name change does not violate San Francisco Airport’s (SFO) trademark.
The counterclaim says that the Port “seeks to increase awareness of Oakland Airport’s geographic location on San Francisco Bay among potential travelers and thus increase passenger traffic at Oakland Airport, create jobs, and boost economic activity in Oakland and the wider San Francisco Bay Area.”
Two days before the Port meeting, Chiu sent another letter to the Port offering to collaborate with Oakland to find alternative names for the airport and avoid litigation.
Oakland Port Attorney Mary Richardson said in a statement the following day that the Port is willing to partner with SFO to bring as many options as possible to travelers and have an open dialogue on how to move forward, but ultimately will still change the Oakland airport name.
The ‘San Francisco Bay’ rebrand has already made its way to the airport’s website and physical changes such as signage will be coming in the following months. The name swap will cost Oakland about $150,000.
-
City Government2 weeks ago
Court Throws Out Law That Allowed Californians to Build Duplexes, Triplexes and RDUs on Their Properties
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of April 24 – 30, 2024
-
Community4 weeks ago
Oakland WNBA Player to be Inducted Into Hall of Fame
-
Community4 weeks ago
Richmond Nonprofit Helps Ex-Felons Get Back on Their Feet
-
Community4 weeks ago
RPAL to Rename Technology Center for Retired Police Captain Arthur Lee Johnson
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
An Oakland Homeless Shelter Is Showing How a Housing and Healthcare First Approach Can Work: Part 1
-
Business4 weeks ago
Black Business Summit Focuses on Equity, Access and Data
-
Activism2 weeks ago
S.F. Black Leaders Rally to Protest, Discuss ‘Epidemic’ of Racial Slurs Against Black Students in SF Public School System