Does Legal Make It Right?
Dear Friends & Neighbors,
Last night at our West of Twin Peaks Central Council (WTPCC) meeting, we had the pleasure of speaking with D1 Supervisor Connie Chan, who is Chair of the Budget & Finance Committee. She spoke about the city's budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2023. It seems one of the roles of the Board of Supervisors in managing our budget is to audit and screen the expenditures from varying departments and commissions within the city's government, such as Planning.
Well, during our campaign to stop the Gold Mirror cannabis dispensary, we became very intimate with the inner workings of Planning, and they are, to put it bluntly, a highly incompetent organization that does more harm than good for the residents of San Francisco. Supervisor Chan cautioned us not to judge the entire city government by the performance of one department, but that's not what we are doing. We are judging the city government by one example we have seen in our experience with Planning. What about the countless other examples of dysfunction that happen everyday that we do not catch or see? Or that no one talks about or brings to the attention of our supervisors? Or, how do you explain a massive budget deficit? This is not due to a one-off episode of bad performance or mismanagement on the part of a single department. It is due to widespread, deep-rooted, systemic dysfunction within our entire city's government.
To be honest, we were not expecting Supervisor Chan or anyone else inside city hall to defend the performance of Planning or any other public agency. Instead, we just want our supervisors to be honest and transparent and upfront. For example, when asked about her vote to deny the appeal for the conditional use cannabis permit at 800 Taraval Street (Gold Mirror restaurant), Supervisor Chan defended her decision by claiming "it's a legal business." But she failed to acknowledge the fact that this so-called "legal business" violated Planning Code 306.1(d) when the Gold Mirror owners presented false statements in their application for the conditional use permit, which according to this code, is grounds to reject the application.
So, why did Supervisor Chan and her other 8 colleagues, who denied the appeal, fail to uphold the Planning Dept's own rules and regulations? Why the collusion? Just because Planning deemed the Gold Mirror cannabis dispensary to be a "legal business" does not make it legal or even right. For example, if the Gold Mirror owners lied in their application they submitted to Planning, in order to get the green light from Planning to open their dispensary, then they are guilty of perjury. Plain and simple. There is nothing legal about this act or business.
Moreover, when 100% of the public comments from the appeal hearing were in support of the appeal, then that tells you something. If the public is not behind the dispensary, then there is something not quite right about it. After all, that is the whole purpose of public comments: to let the board know that despite the legality or illegality of the business or permit in question, there is something else going on that must be looked at in order to have a full picture. In our case, that something "else" was the 600 foot buffer zone, which unfairly excludes preschools. The cannabis permit laws were obviously created to favor the dispensaries, which we all know, but Supervisor Chan would not admit to this. Instead, she resorted to the same rehearsed, canned response we heard from our own D7 Supervisor Melgar numerous times before: it's a legal business.
We don't buy it. No matter how many of our supervisors call the Gold Mirror cannabis dispensary "legal" does not make it right, especially when the Gold Mirror owners broke the rules, and even more importantly, when the safety and protection of our 3 and 4 year olds are at stake.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment