Introducing
Monique MeyerPort of San
Francisco’s New Executive Director
![](Monique%20Meyer%20photo.jpg) |
Monique
Meyer, newly appointed Executive Director of the
Port of San Francisco. |
Bay Crossings: It’s no secret that the
Port of San Francisco is facing pretty big challenges. How
did Mayor Newsom talk you into taking this job?
MONIQUE MOYER: I don’t think I can reveal
that. But it took a lot of back and forth with the Mayor;
I’ll admit to that.
BC: You’ve had a chance to get your
feet on the ground. How’s the Port doing—better or worse
than you expected?
MM: That’s an interesting question. The
Port is a very complex entity, as is anything related to San
Francisco. Aspects have surprised me positively, and one of
those is the immense number of disparate people who are
totally engaged in the Port. Many are cheering for the
Port’s success, maybe not for me personally, but for a
vision of what the Port might be. I have not seen that so
consistently in other departments of the city where I’ve
worked. On the organizational side, I have been disappointed
with the lack of coherent policies and procedures. So we’re
working hard to fix that.
BC: First came SBC, now the Ferry
Building is all the rage and more snazzy projects are coming
soon for the central waterfront. What are the implications
of this movement for Fisherman’s Wharf?
MM: I don’t think that the implications
are negative. The tremendous historic streetcars up and down
the waterfront are packed. I think it just means more people
are coming to the waterfront, which is our goal.
BW: How does the southern waterfront area,
including Hunter’s Point, figure in your plans?
MM: For me personally the southern waterfront is extremely
important, particularly the area from Pier 48, which is
right across from SBC Park, down to Pier 98. As Mission Bay
continues to develop and the Third Street Light Rail gets
going, that whole area of town is getting a face-lift. And
our piers will need a face lift, as well, since we will soon
have 6,000 new people as our neighbors at Mission Bay.
BC: Former San Francisco mayor, now
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, has publicly called for
regionalizing all the Bay Area’s seaports and airports. Your
thoughts?
MM: That would be very interesting. I do
think that the Port of San Francisco and the Port of Oakland
are good counter-ports, if you will, to each other. We do
different things. I think the Port of Oakland has been
extremely successful in not trying to be all things to all
people, and they have utilized their resources to excel at
what their particular topography offers. And I would like to
think that the Port of San Francisco is moving in that
direction, as well. Would one regional port make sense? Hard
to say. You know, as we have found with transportation,
that’s not always the panacea that we want it to be.
BC: Short of outright regionalization,
should the Ports of Oakland and San Francisco be cooperating
wherever possible?
MM: Oh, I absolutely think so, and I’ve
already met with the outgoing director, and have offered to
meet with the incoming director, Jerry Bridges. We already
consult with them at the middle management level, and I
would like to see us do more at the senior management level.
BC: The Port of San Francisco is a
so-called “enterprise agency,” meaning it must pay its own
way. It does so mostly by renting space. Yet the Port’s
relationship with its tenants is frayed by infrastructure
problems, which will take big sums of money to fix. How do
you explain to the voters of San Francisco that they need to
make this investment?
MM: Well, I think that you don’t do it in
a vacuum. San Francisco is a mature city with a mature
infrastructure, i.e., sewers, the water system, roads. And
obviously the Port’s infrastructure is no exception. So I
think you have to talk about that in context. I don’t think
that this particular generation needs to pay for everything
that future generations will benefit from. We need to think
about that obligation, and that’s why debt makes sense.
Lastly, I think the Port has to raise its
credibility. That’s my goal, that’s my first responsibility,
before we can begin to seek the generosity of the voters to
help with our problems.
BC: Frankly, for generations, the Port
has been a glad bag of patronage jobs and politically
motivated deal making. How do you change that? Is it
realistic to think that anyone can?
MM: I ask myself that question over and
over. The Port is expected to be a lot of things to a lot of
people yet it in reality it has very little in the way of
resources, however you measure them. We manage 18.6 million
square feet of facilities and piers, with just 200 people.
It’s an amazing feat. We can’t go through life being on the
defensive; that just won’t work. It’s my job to make sure
that the Commission of the Port and the Board of Supervisors
are seeking the same direction, and stop having such
fractionalism.
BC: Finally: the Port staff has been
through a lot. What can you do to improve morale?
MM: We’re doing it. It was unfortunate but
unavoidable that I had to do layoffs right away, but I
definitely made sure that the layoffs were not at the lowest
level of the organization. People in the organization have
been through a lot because they have an intense attachment
to the Port. And they are hopeful, with good reason, that
there is a new day ahead. I’ve already met with more than
half of the employees on a one-to-one basis. Everyone has
great ideas and the people of the Port know the Port better
than I ever will. Together, we’ll make it work.