SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - San Francisco snuffed out smoking in bars, restaurants and transit stops, but now a whole new set of locations — from ATMs to concert lines — could join The City’s no-smoking zones.

A law expected to be introduced Tuesday to the Board of Supervisors does, however, stop short of stricter bans that have been enacted in other Bay Area cities.

The legislation would make secondhand smoke a “public health nuisance” and grant residents living above or adjacent to a business the right to go to small-claims court if bothered by secondhand smoke wafting in from an establishment. A judge could impose fines or prohibit smoking near the business.

The San Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition worked on the legislation with Supervisor Chris Daly and other interested parties. Daly told the Examiner on Thursday that he plans to introduce the bill at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

“Cigarette smoke kills,” Daly said. “It’s important we make sure people have clean air to breathe.”

The coalition’s co-chair, Alexandra Hernandez, said the legislation is modeled after smoking restrictions adopted recently in other California cities such as Emeryville, Belmont, Santa Monica, Davis and Oakland.

Usually ahead of the curve when it comes to health and environmental policies, “For the first time, San Francisco has fallen behind,” she said.

The draft legislation, which was obtained by The Examiner, does not include any clause that is as strict as the groundbreaking smoking law passed by Belmont that requires landlords to put no-smoking clauses into new or renewed leases at most apartments. Nor does it include an outright ban on smoking in all commercial areas, an ordinance that Berkeley’s City Council approved Tuesday.

Hernandez said that everyone should have the right to smoke-free air, and the legislation would further help protect that right.

The American Lung Association estimates that secondhand smoke causes the death of 3,000 nonsmokers annually from lung cancer and about 50,000 deaths from heart disease in adults.

The bill received mixed reviews from outdoor smokers The Examiner asked for comment.

Ryan Edwards, who was sitting at a cafe along Market Street, said the law goes too far.

“It’s still America. We do have freedoms,” he said. “I thought they took it too far when they banned it from bars and restaurants.”

Smoker Gretchen Gerhard said it’s a “tough call” if the law should be adopted.

“It’s generally rude to smoke where people don’t want you to, but I like to smoke everywhere,” she said. “People should just be polite.”

jsabatini@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

9:16 PM MST on Wed., May. 14, 2008 re: "Power, police may go to voters"

Examiner Reader said:
"Supervisor Chris Daly introduced one charter amendment that would allow the Board of Supervisors to approve large-scale redevelopment plans without sending the legislation to the Mayor for final approval. EXAMINER.COM RELATED ARTICLES Community funds to bridge economic gaps in SoMa Decision on Potrero power plant delayed CitiApartments� conduct comes under fire � again New blue lines touted to streamline force Plastic bags on their way out of The City Daly is currently backing a June ballot measure requiring the redevelopment of the Bayview-Hunters Point area to include 50 percent below market rate housing, a measure that the developer and city officials, including Mayor Gavin Newsom said will not pencil out financially and would kill the project." This Supervisor is transparent. How did he ever get elected? Geeze the people there must be dumb.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:18 PM MST on Wed., May. 14, 2008 re: "City introduces $887.4 million bond"

Carl said:
When SFFD lowers the "noise" level of their sirens I can park on my street without waiting an hour to get a spot because DPT wont enforce area I then maybe you'll get my vote.. Ahh Who we kidding. City govt in SF won't change. I have health insurance and I've been to SFGH one time in ten years. Tell my why again I should give SFGH one dollar? Better yet-- Put SFGH in the hands of private business. They seem to have a better idea about where their money is going.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:01 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 26, 2008 re: "Property leases costing millions"

Examiner Reader said:
Josh, good article. Would you please do a follow up article and let your readers know who the property/building owners are? Thanks.

3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:54 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008 re: "Property leases costing millions"

Examiner Reader said:
stop free parking for police and fire. The DPH employees are forced to pay for their parking, who note police and fire?

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:26 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 15, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
Once again the citizens of San Francisco have to deal with yet another Board comprised mostly of people like Peskin - reactionary, vain, unfocused, tempermental autocrats. And these very same citizens need to take a long hard look at why they keep electing incompetent politicians like this.

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:30 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
In March, Peskin said he was looking to ax city workers "who earn more than $150,000 annually in base pay." heheheh Mr. Peskin please sharpen your No.2 pencil and check the Board of Stupervisors too...how much are tax payers on the hook for, for you lot?

4 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:44 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
Well maybe the Board of Stupidvisors can give up their assistants (I think they have 2 or 3?) in the name of closing up the budget? Really they don't need 3 people for a part time job anyway. While they're at it, they can also cut their salary in half. The voters were stupid to give them that $90K+ raise.

4 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:19 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
Peskin is a hypocrite and an idiot. Early in the article it states "In March, Peskin said he was looking to ax city workers who earn more than $150,000 annually in base pay. This week, Peskin introduced his legislation, which, if approved, would send 84 city workers packing." Then he is quoted as saying that the cost cutting from within The City�s legal offices �doesn�t have to come in the form of bodies.� except for police. Here is where Peskin is an idiot. When they pink slip the cops, they will still get at least 90% of their salary plus benefits in the form of pension. So where is the savings? Peskin is as naive as Newsom. He envisions himself as "Da Mayor" of North Beach, next in line to be "Da Mayor" of SF. Another idiot.

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:26 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
I have never once have agreeded with Peskin, but do give him credit for cutting from the top. Good Job

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:42 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 2, 2008 re: "Cap proposed for city overtime"

Examiner Reader said:
So its the smoking and not the drinking that is unhealthy in bars? Who goes to a bar because they are seeking a "healthy" enviroment? Come on people.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:35 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 2, 2008 re: "Cap proposed for city overtime"

Born, Raised and Educated in San Francisco said:
Instead of just eliminating 300 jobs why not start by reducing the number of Board of Supervisors we have. Lets be real. Does it take 11 members plus a mayor to run this small City? In order to justify large expenses such as wages and number of employees, the City will compare itself with other Cities. Well how about the County of San Francisco comparing itself with other Counties in the State? How many Board members does San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin County have? Lets take a look and start from there. Lets reduce excessive spending by starting at the top and work our way down. That'll take care of some of the problem.

4 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:31 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Bonfiglioli Alberto pipemaker of the world. said:
Is very bad for us. In Italy with the streets narrow we have the incredible smoke of cars busses and bikes,but we can't smoke in peace our pipes and cigars,things they coming from the earth,means natural. Take a conclusion with these my words. The Lobby of Cars and trucks are more and more power then Tobacco's companies. Is my opinion. Sincerely Alberto Bonfiglioli pipemaker of the world.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:24 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 31, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Grant's Tobacconists said:
I am an owner of a tobacco shop (not head shop), this is not an issue of "seconded hand smoke", anti's, this is an issue of "Your Civil Rights and your Freedom of Personal Choice". Its the governments responsibility to protect the interest of there citizens, but not control there behavior, especially when they are trying as far as banning smoking in a tobacco shop (if you are not a Premium Cigar smoker or Pipe smoker you will not be visiting a tobacco shop, right�right!). It would be the same if you were a wine shop owner and was told that you could not have a wine tasting in your own store. We feel we are Honest, Hardworking, Tax Paying Small Business owners and some of the locations listed in this new proposal is a outrageous violation of freedom that is based on distorted claims and inconclusive evidence perpetuated by a �Emotional Political Topic�. Is this still America?

3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:08 PM MST on Sat., Mar. 29, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
My spiteful neighbor chain smokes in an enclosed common area of our building directly outside our apartment exit and our windows, filling up our home with smoke all day. It is very scary to be denied the basic right to breathe clean air, in your own home, every day, while a person like this says it's his "absolute right" to smoke there. Every year thousands of Americans that don't smoke cigarettes are killed from exposure to secondhand smoke. This law would stop people like me from being poisoned by smokers who live in their building. Smokers would have to go to an open, unenclosed area, or do it within their own apartment. Sure, you have an absolute right to be reckless with your own health, but you don't have a right to be reckless with MY HEALTH. All we're asking is that smokers smoke somewhere that doesn't expose us, too. It's not such a hardship to walk a few feet away to respect someone's health. Gasping in San Francisco

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:07 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 29, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

rfkolbe said:
Smoking bans in California it is important to note were legislated to protect the workers of those establishments. I worked in restaurants for years and was very thankful when Pete Wilson signed it into law. These new ideas sound good too. I am tired of breathing foolish smoker fumes.

1 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:58 PM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
You people in California are frickin NUTS!

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:47 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Seven said:
San Francisco didn't eliminate smoking in bars; that's a myth. There's a bar owner smoking loophole in the law that's easy to exploit. On the west side, you'll always find plenty of smokers at Boomerang, Eagle's, Shannon Arms, and CyBar.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:55 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
This is too much. Stop with the smoking hysteria. If secondhand smoke in public areas (not workplaces or homes) killed as much as these lobbies and bans imply it does, everyone born before 1980 would be dead. Seriously. People who dislike smoke need to treat it as what it really is to them: a temporary annoyance. The correct behavior in that instance is to ask people to stop or move away from them. It's really easy and doesn't involve legislation, police, courts, fines, etc.

4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:38 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
They do this in many cities around the world including some in the East Coast have laws preventing owners for putting cement in front of their homes. If you talk to real estate brokers, neighborhoods with beautification in front of the homes have better rate in selling than having no beautification in front of the homes. The neighborhood value also goes up with lawns and trees but without, property value does not go up.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:42 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

L. Amiot said:
Who is Sandoval to tell property owners not to pave their patch of soil or lawn in front of their homes, on THEIR OWN PROPERTY? We already pay sky high property taxes. Maybe he would like to order us, by official supervisory fiat, to quarter homeless in our houses now, too. Is he the face of the new Green Nazis? These supervisors are absolutely ridiculous. They seem more like selfish, idealistic children then government leaders.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:35 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Examiner Reader said:
How about cutting the number of Supervisors!

7 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:08 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Examiner Reader said:
Agree - there are plenty of cuts to make, especially at the top. The bigger the problem, the higher up the chain you must go to find the source, and solution.

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:42 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Examiner Reader said:
Shouldn't new hires be the first to be let go? Then Gavin's stable of "boys" with six figure incomes should be shown the door no?

4 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:49 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Dorothy said:
SF Employees 27,000 people? This is not a country its a big town in a 49 sq. mile! CUT THE PAYROLLS NOW. They probably have 3 people doing the work 1 can do!!

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:51 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Examiner Reader said:
The only reason for the $1.75 million ramp was to keep the overpaid, union workers on the city payroll, nothing else.

5 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:18 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Unreal said:
I dont expect any of them to read this - but if you do... how can anyone in their right mind think a $1.75million dollar 10ft ramp is a step in the right direction? We elect idiots.

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:05 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Examiner Reader said:
I have no problem with "reasonable" access for anyone and everyone and, in fact, its the law. However, the only possible option to create "access" is a 1 million dollar ramp?

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:11 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Examiner Reader said:
$1m wheelchair ramp: How much time and and how many tax dollars are being spent even discussing this? What about options? Why can't presidents sit in a normal seat instead of on a podium? Or, why can't a couple of strong people boost a wheelchair onto the podium? Is this all about show? I'd admire a person who insists on equal access in the most low-cost, un-grand manner possible. I can't admire a person who doesn't recognise that the more other people have to pay, the less "equal" that access is.

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:46 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Fed Up said:
I'm fed up with the outrageous demands of disabled people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on access. Let's use some common sense. Remember the hundreds of millions we wasted across the U.S. on disabled access voting machines that were hardly ever used. I'm all for "reasonable" access, not "unreasonable" access.

7 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:19 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 3, 2008 re: "Should lobbyists receive a label?"

M.S. Jackson said:
If most lobbyists were not such sneaky, sleazy, oily, lying cheating representatives of some of the worst companies and groups (enron, anybody? - christian coaltion, chevron, pfizer, etc) then I would agree that the badge would suffice. But things being as rotten as they are, I am afraid nothing less than an orange bag with holes cut out for the eyes, nose and mouth will be enough to protect the citizenry from the Axes of Evil (aka lobbyists)! As time goes by, Chris Daly is starting to seem like a decent guy who no longer cusses and screams his sometimes very good ideas in to view. He seems to be growing up, if slowly... and, very surreptitiously, his respectability is beginning to bloom, who knew?

21 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:14 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 3, 2008 re: "Should lobbyists receive a label?"

Paul said:
Yes, let's put a scarlet "A" on their backs. Whatever happened to free speech! Thank God Daly is term-limited, though SF is stuck with his asanine ideas for the next 2 1/2 years. Recall Daly!

10 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:46 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Departments� overtime may cost city big bucks"

Examiner Reader said:
Come on now, they canb't be THAT broke! They are now going to spend a million and something on billboards telling ILLEGAL ALIENS that they are welcome to come here and sponge off the rest of us...

18 agree | 22 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:40 PM MST on Wed., Feb. 27, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Change in retiree benefits will be up to voters in June"

Examiner Reader said:
No wonder the city is broke! you work 5 years and get you get full retiree benefits. The private sector you have to work 20 plus years and even though you may not get them. When will the Cities realize they have to start running like the private sector. Look at VAllejo, CA they are filing for bankrutpcy because of the same situation that is facing SF! I want a job with SF;

26 agree | 19 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:42 PM MST on Wed., Feb. 27, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Change in retiree benefits will be up to voters in June"

Examiner Reader said:
Perhaps a ballot admentment changing the charter to now allow Harvey Rose and staff to come in amd do an arbitrary administration and budgetary audit to make SF efficient,effective and productive again with NO APPeal by the supes,unions,downtown,sacramento or airport.Then hire young non political new MPA'with the non negotiable mandate to make SF "lean".No grants,loans,supplemental appropriations,no nothing. I certaintly would apply-anything to make waste,fraud,abuse,corruption go away !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

22 agree | 19 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:28 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "Supervisor looks to limit liquor licenses"

Examiner Reader said:
(Supervisor looks to limit liquor licenses) There is an easer way. Make sure that the ABC license on the new establishment is conditional. You have 30 days to Appeal the new license and request that ABC issue a conditional liquor license. It cost nothing to file the appeal and you get to dictate the conditions to the license holder. ABC will tell you if they can impose your restrictions on the license and help you to keep things legal. I have done this to over 12 new liquor licenses in my neighborhood. If the owner of the license violates the conditions ABC suspends their right to sell liquor for 30 to 60 days. No if's, and's or but's. Take control of your own neighborhood don't rely on city government to fix your problems. Local government is a waste of time. The state department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) is the best way to deal with this issue. You need a big hammer and local government is more like a pounding a nail with your hand. Use a sledge hammer.

41 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:44 AM MST on Thu., Feb. 14, 2008 re: "City�s budget cuts igniting criticism"

Examiner Reader said:
Hey Gretchen - I don't need a director of the environment - there are more than enough do nothing union employees already in this city - make them do their jobs. What needs to happen is a thinning of the ranks. Corporations do this - time for this government to get rid of all the fat useless lazy city employees who do nothing. Don't believe me just drive around and see all the city vehicles with employees sleeping in them.

60 agree | 50 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:18 AM MST on Thu., Feb. 14, 2008 re: "City�s budget cuts igniting criticism"

WDenton said:
Why don't we just start printing money out of thin air like our federal government does?

51 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:38 AM MST on Thu., Feb. 14, 2008 re: "City�s budget cuts igniting criticism"

The Hard Decisions said:
Peskins: 'wants to find money to ensure more directors are hired.' Umm, I think the whole point is that we have a budget deficit. Someone's got the make some hard decisions - no one wants to be the bearer of bad news - so the concept of cuts should not come as a surprise (at some point the concept of fiscal responsibility has to kick in). If cuts aren't made, then quality of life services are compromised or the other choice is for the City to file for bankruptcy - either way, not pretty. The budget is also less flexible when there are large set-asides, something like $4 or $5 for every $6 are set-asides - these $$ can't be touched and are mandated by voters, so no wiggle room there. It would be good to know what these set-asides are. Bottom line, cuts are never pretty, but they are necessary to maximize essential City services and it seems it has something to do with the large set-asides.

45 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:56 PM MST on Tue., Feb. 12, 2008 re: "Newsom salary spat may spawn tighter restrictions on city funds"

Gretchen said:
For heaven's sake, get a grip. The public outcry for more attention to quality of life issues and new environmental issues needed to be addressed. In order to address issues that voters and taxpayers demanded, Newsom hired additional staff. In order to add staff he needed funding so he spread the cost over departments that had some relation to the tasks. Since these were new functions, there was no existing budget line. Well, Duh! The voters demand action, Newsom acts, and all the whiny b*tches start yelling about it. Some of the comments make it sound like Newsom is pocketing the money himself instead of doing his job which is to be responsive to the voters and taxpayers. The board of Supes need to get a life. I just wish Newsom could have taken the cost of the new salaries out of the Supervisors' salaries since we voters sure don't get any value for that money we spend.

55 agree | 55 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:35 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 12, 2008 re: "Newsom salary spat may spawn tighter restrictions on city funds"

Examiner Reader said:
What a bunch of crooks. Lock Them all up in the County Jail. Stealing everyday from taxpayers is a crime. The Mayor and his staff will have a good time in lock down. What the Hell is in the punch @ City Hall?

55 agree | 55 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:00 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Newsom defends his staff payroll again"

Examiner Reader said:
I guess Mayor Newsom doesn't believe his actions reflect upon the S.F Board of Supervisors and vice-versa? Mayor Newsom's actions can compromise the board members' standing and then the mayor wonders why the board has issues with him and his policies? What is there to wonder about?

58 agree | 52 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:22 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Newsom defends his staff payroll again"

veronica dominguez said:
America is Losing over $5 Trillion Dollars for the War in Iraq. Money that could have been better spent in America, to Foster Jobs for Americans. America Need More Jobs Today. Let's Spend Trillions of Dollars on America, so we can then Help Other Countries that Need Our Help. A Father feeds himself, so he can than have the energy to feed his sons. That is the Logical Order of Things. A mother feeds herself, so she can than have the energy to feed her children. That is the Logical Order of Things. What is Happening to that Order?

64 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:55 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Newsom defends his staff payroll again"

veronica dominguez said:
When America is in a Financial Distress because money is being spent in other countries what is left for us Americans?

58 agree | 64 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:33 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Newsom defends his staff payroll again"

Examiner Reader said:
It is time to RECALL Mayor Newsom. We can't have a Mayor keeps breaking laws and gets away from it. He does not care about San Franciscans, and why do we care about him? The crime in the City is keep going up, and our Mayor and DA did not do enough to stop it. Our MUNI accidents are also on the rise. Businesses are moving out. The Mayor Welfare to Work Program didn't work to create jobs for Welfare Recipients, and taxpayers had spent $32 Million for failure people who in charge of this program. A lot of San Franciscans do not feel save and do not see any progress coming. Really, how many Department Heads and people Mayor appointed or gave jobs to really live in San Francisco? If they don't live here, they do not have a real interest in improving our City.

57 agree | 52 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:57 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Newsom defends his staff payroll again"

examiner reader said:
SAn Francisco politics have become so corrupt and the MAyor's arrogant behavior and sense of being above accountability to the tax payers is an embarrassment. Exactly what has this guy accomplished? Potholes everywhere. murder rate going up, homeless everywhere....How did he ever win? Recall time...........

61 agree | 64 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:27 AM MST on Sat., Jan. 19, 2008 re: "Power struggle for Planning Commission erupts"

Examiner Reader said:
I'm not sure its necessarily a good thing the planning commission is not a somewhat contentious panel. Some of the projects which come before it are likely controversial and should develop some spirited discussion on the panel and with city hall.

74 agree | 94 disagree
Vote on this comment: