San Francisco political hotshot and WTA Board member Gavin Newsom is indeed in love and about to be married. But, to her heartbreak, it won’t be to Fishermen’s Wharf street performer Polyster69. Newsom, a favorite to succeed Mayor Willie Brown, weighs in with some trenchant opinions about regionalism, the environment and waterfront development.
Published: September, 2001
Gavin Newsom, on the eve of his pre-wedding honeymoon, talks about his love for San Francisco’s waterfront (but not Fishermen’s Wharf), regionalism and the environment
Fair to say that you love Fisherman’s Wharf?
I love the waterfront, but I don’t love Fishermen’s Wharf. I remember walking down here with my grandfather when it was a working wharf. Now it has become primarily tourist based and we are losing the working waterfront. I was concerned enough about it that I put a ballot initiative in November’s ballot here in San Francisco against the prospect of taking another one of our piers, Pier 45, and turning it into a theme park. The point is we’ve got a lot of work to do down at the waterfront to return it to what it was and to allow more than just tourists to enjoy this magnificent and spectacular area of the world.
You are a hot political item and a hot political item like you must have a schedule that’s a nightmare. Why did you agree to join the WTA?
I guess because as a fourth generation Bay Area resident, I feel an obligation to the region. I think WTA is going to be fruitful and long lasting. It’s embarked on a dialogue that confounds all 9 Bay Area counties, and that is how do we deal with a growing population that has provided us this economic benefit but also such great transportation concerns? We simply have to reduce use of the automobile.
Many people are queasy about filling in two square miles of San Francisco Bay to expand the San Francisco Airport, and they worry that not enough consideration has been given to making the best possible use of the region’s other airports, like Oakland International. Wouldn’t a regional approach to governing the area’s seaports and airports make sense, on the model of the Port Authority in New York?
At first blush, I think the answer is yes, and regardless of what happens at the airport, I think there are going to be some lessons about regional process and dialogue, and I’d expand that beyond Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco airports. At the hearings we’ve held there’s consensus on that point, not only from environmentalists but the business community as well. Obviously where there’s not consensus is on whether or not we go forward with Bay fill. But utilizing technologies, maximizing efficiencies as it relates to cargo as well as passenger traffic by organizing in a way that’s more efficient with the airports working in common, I think is only appropriate. Of course, it is difficult. The primary focus of the San Francisco International Airport is the San Francisco International Airport. The primary focus of Oakland Airport is Oakland Airport and ditto San Jose. So the challenge is to organize a dialogue that’s constructive and not just a surface dialogue that doesn’t produce any results. And right now I suggest that we haven’t engaged in very constructive or fruitful dialogue, it’s more just been along the lines of trying to assuage the concerns of environmentalists. But clearly with regional transportation issues like ferry service, regionalism is critical..
So whatever happens with airport expansion, you would encourage discussion of a regional approach to governing the seaports and the airports?
Indeed, I think it is critical. The fact that we have gone our separate ways has produced an untenable result. Continue to do what you’ve done, you’ll get what you’ve got. It’s time for an order of magnitude change. I mean you look at any MTC study, any of these studies, and you do the modeling out 20-25 years, what they show is that we are going to stifle ability for this region to prosper in the long run unless we change the way we do business and the order of magnitude change and not incrementally. Now with the WTA we have a unique opportunity to start with that knowledge in hand and not make the mistakes that have been made in the past.
The Port of San Francisco is what is called an enterprise agency, meaning it has to earn its own way. Can the economic needs of the Port of San Francisco be reconciled with the esthetic and recreational aspirations that San Franciscans have for their waterfront?
No question about it. We have seen a renaissance of sorts economically for this port in the last decade or so. We’ve turned the port into an economic engine. But it doesn’t mean you have to trivially go out and define the highest and best use as that which brings us the most money. You have to look at the highest and best use in a much more layered way and that’s why I’ve been a big advocate of enhancing our fish processing industry. Here in San Francisco is where you’ll find the largest fishing operation on the West Coast of the United States. It’s a vibrant industry that brings stable jobs, one that carries San Francisco through good times and bad. It’s not just a tourist destination. So the answer is yes. You can balance this huge economic resource with local support and involvement.
Do you favor higher bridge tolls as a way of discouraging automobile use and funding public transportation?
I think it is critical. The fact is we can’t encourage, as we do now, 80% of our commuters to use the automobile and have just 4/10th of one percent using ferry service and expect to survive in the long run with the projected increases in the population. I’ve always been for peak pricing. I’ve never necessarily been with those who feel that peak pricing is particularly unfair and I have no problem with increased tolls. It’s the carrot and the stick. You have to concurrently provide options for people to get out of their automobiles. But we have to be more aggressive. And yes, we have to be punitive of those who want the privilege of being a single occupant driving along commute corridors where there is a viable public transportation alternative.
Getting in and out of San Francisco is a deeply dispiriting experience. Before the bridges were built, that wasn’t the case. For example, you’re a restaurateur, you may be surprised to know that some of restaurants were on the ferry boats. Did you know that?
I did not know that. That’s fascinating.
Was building the Bay Bridge in the first place a mistake? Serving rather to divide the Bay Area instead of uniting it?
That’s a good question. I will have to give that more thought. My first instinct, of course, is no, it wasn’t a mistake. I really have to consider that in a larger sense. I don’t necessarily see it as dividing the region. I think in many respects it unites it. But clearly what the bridge has done to me is analogous of what great economic times have done to our decision making process generally. It allows you not to make the tough decisions. Building a freeway allows you the privilege of not having to make the tougher long term decisions because you have in essence reduced the propensity for people complaining because it is easier for people to get from point A to point B for a period of time and then eventually things clog and you are back having to make those tough choices. But you are reacting as opposed to being proactive and the Bay Bridge I think is a good example of that. For many, many years it made this region I think move more efficiently and I think has been very advantageous, but for years and years we’ve been neglectful of alternatives.
Are environmentally friendly ferries possible?
Yes. There are examples all over the world. It’s a question of are they feasible in economic terms and I think that is the balance. You’ve got to provide an alternative that is efficient and meets the needs of the highly engaged economic engine which is the Bay Area region. It’s got to be a viable alternative to the automobile. I am convinced that there are those models that will provide us both environmental sustainability and the efficiencies of technologywe need.
Do you feel caught between environmentalists calling for expensive plans to improve the Bay environment and industry figures who are unhappy about those pressures?
Here’s my bias: the upfront costs of being environmentally considerate pale in comparison to the neglect of not considering the environmental consequences. I think it is an outrage, not a shame, an outrage that in San Francisco we have warnings against people eating more than four fish a month. The environmental impacts of dioxins, the environmental impacts of our neglect in terms of economic impacts, are extraordinary. But they are not felt immediately. So from our perspective the incremental costs upfront of being environmentally considerate are wildly inexpensive in comparative terms to the neglect of the environment in the long run. So those upfront costs are well served. They are great investments; they are great economic investments at the same time.
An analogy is the treatment and prevention in drugs. You can sit back and be punitive with this failed drug war and spend your time on that or you can spend your time on treatment and prevention and reap huge rewards, but the upfront costs people are constantly pushing people off because they don’t want to open up another treatment facility. The point is that our best economic calculus is to make the environmental investments upfront and not pay the price in the long run.
Are you satisfied with what the WTA is doing to address the issue of ferries and the environment?
Yes, we are too new to criticize, frankly. I mean we are just getting up and running. Consultants are just being hired. Consultant reports are not back yet. We will be looking forward to debating these issues in upcoming months. We’ll see. It’s too early to tell. But I think that you’ve got to keep an eye on us. The environmental community needs to keep an eye on us and now is the time to do it. Hold our feet to the fire.
The Ferry Building is being rebuilt and a new Ferry Terminal is opening soon. Do you think that the foot of Market might become a tourist attraction once all this opens and might this challenge the dominance of Fisherman’s Wharf as a tourist attraction?
I hope so and looking at the plans for what they are doing at the Ferry Building and the restaurants, the cafes, the other retail outlets, I think it promises to be more than just a tourist destination. I think it is going to bring a lot of residents of the City back to their waterfront and I hope it does provoke a new consideration of what a waterfront can be about. I mean if this vision is materialized I think it is a great model for the rest of our waterfront and a waterfront that continues to evolve and expand and make its way into the Bayview-Hunters Point area. So it’s an exciting prospect of things to come.
Is more waterfront development along the lines of the renovated Ferry Building, Pac Bell Park, multiple plans for arenas, is this simply inevitable?
It is inevitable. No one wants rotting, decaying piers. In the long run, some may, but there can be a balance of open space, a balance of recreation, a balance of industry and maritime use. Again, I want to stand up for a working waterfront as well as tourism. And, I think, in many respects we are seeing some good evidence that supports that from our Port. At the same time, we are seeing some projects that are not necessarily getting to the fore on their merits, but on political considerations and we are seeing the dominance of money influencing the process. There is no surprise there, but it seems to be disproportionate in our waterfront, and I think it raises a lot of questions and flags for those that are concerned about its future and viability, including my own.
Many people are surprised to learn that San Francisco doesn’t have legal title to the Port of San Francisco. It is owned by the state and the laws governing San Francisco stewardship of the Port of San Francisco require that the port be limited to maritime purposes. Is this obsolete?
No. I mean, it’s amazing if you read the Burton doctrine that governs our waterfront here and then you see the actions at times of the Port. They are in stark contrast. So there is a lot of interpretation that is afforded our Port Commission and Port Staff. Unfortunately, at times that interpretation I think takes liberties. But I think that in the margins a lot of good things are happening down here. San Francisco does need to influence the process because without that influence, I dare suggest that the Port may be venturing in areas that divide San Franciscans from their waterfront. There is evidence, like with our referendum on the Pier 45 development proposal that suggests San Franciscans can have a huge and profound effect. The Board of Supervisors still deals with economic considerations, leases must come in front of the Board, and policy decisions are left with the staff, and of course the Port Commission. But in terms of the economic considerations, the City and County of San Francisco does have tremendous amount of influence. We will be watching closely, for example, the Mills development and all the controversy around Chelsea and Mills.
