Yesterday, Governor Schwarzenegger decided that he would ‘stick it in the eye’ of legislative Republicans by signing a bill authored by liberal Democrat Carol Migden of San Francisco, SB 376.
We’ve spoken here before about Schwarzenegger’s "bi-partisan, party of one" and signing this bill is a great example — in the State Senate, EVERY Republican voted against is, and in the State Assembly EVERY Republican voted against is, as did one Democrat. That’s right, SB 376 arrived on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk WITHOUT A SINGLE LEGISLATIVE REPUBLICAN VOTE. (Don’t take my word for it, the Senate and Assembly votes are attached below…)
What does the bill do? In essence it would give the authority to the City Attorney of the County and City of San Francisco to file "unfair competition actions" and "pursue recovery of a civil penalty therefor without authorization from the district attorney."
Given that particular city’s unique ability to elect total left wing nuts to office, why would we want to give more power to a City Attorney, power that could be used to harass those few businesses still brave enough to operate there?
That said, the underlying policy issue is important, but not as significant as the idea that the Governor would go AWOL on unified Republican caucuses.
Oh yes, as if discounting the votes of every Republican legislator wasn’t bad enough, the main opponent to this bill was the California Chamber of Commerce. So they take it in the shorts on this one, too.
Not a good sign as we go into the time for tense negotiations over a state budget that is way too big and spends way too much.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Maybe the Gov is going to follow the Bloomberg model.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
So the funny part of this, is that the district attorney is elected by exactly the same people as the city attorney in San Francisco because SF is both a city and a county. So, your argument that SF elects “left wing nuts” isn’t really relevant, as we could elect one of those left wing nuts to DA just as easily as city attorney.
Furthermore, under the current law, SF’s city attorney already has the power under the population rule (cities greater than 750K, SF’s population is 776733 per the 2000 census). This bill just allows the city attorney to avoid concerns about changing population totals in SF.
So, this is just clearing up a technicality, and actually changes nothing. So, why is this a big deal?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Brian, S.F. has elected far left winger to the DA’s office the last 3 terms. Neither the past nor the present DA will ask for the death penalty for cop serial killers. The fact is that for the last 12 or so years S.F. has had 2 Public Defenders and no District Attorney.
The current City Attorney is also a far lefty who, when given the power, will sue businesses and housing providers over things like carbon emissions, work rules, trumpted up building code violations, etc.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Howard, I live in SF, and I know both my city attorney and District Attorney. I don’t really think I need to debate Kamala Harris’s record, other than to say that it matches up favorably with the best in the business.
But it’s clear that you read neither my comment nor the bill. The current city attorney already has the authority that this bill grants under an already existing provision of the law which allows city attorneys of cities with populations greater than 750K (which SF is, just barely). The purpose of this bill is to maintain that power if the population dips below 750K for whatever reason during a particular year. The population of SF always hovers right around that 750K mark, so this eliminates the gray area if a suit is filed and the population dips.
As for the death penalty, did you ever stop and think that people are principally opposed to the death penalty? It’s more than a little ironic that those who scream most vigorously about the culture of life are ready to kill in the name of the state. Do you think the Pope would seek the death penalty? And does the fact that he wouldn’t make him a nut? I’m glad you feel that believe in the infallability of the justice system and the right of man to judge another man to death. As for me, I’ll leave that sort of judgment to those more equipped than man to make such decisions.
Finally, the economy in SF is humming, and we are a magnet for innovation from across the nation and world. I’d say there are a few businesses that like operating here.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Brian, I did read your comment. I’ve also read some of your stuff at your Calitics site and at Alice Reports, the newsletter of the very liberal Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club. You, like a lot of San Franciscans, are a liberal Democrat.
I stand by my comments on the DA and City Attorney. Everyone knows the DA Harris has a statically good record because she prosecutes relatively few cases. Ask any cop in the City. A poor conviction record by her predecessor is one of the main reasons she is in office.