Push For Maxwell Vote On Tenant Relief Could Have "unintended consequences"

Maxwell's service on the Land Use subcommittee was characterized by profound ignorance. She relied for her vote entirely on the misinformation of Jack Fleck, who by all appearances has never actually visited the city. Mr Fleck, in turn, seems to rely exclusively on long-obsolete aerial imagery when giving his advice to the subcommittee.

In other words, I challenge you to backup your statement that Maxwell was a progressive voice on Land Use and Planning.

Hi jwb:

Thanks for reading.

Take a peek at the minutes. 100 percent of the time, Maxwell's sided with Chiu and Mar thus far this year.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_meeting.asp?id=82143

Based on oral advice from the FPPC, the City Attorney advised Sup. Maxwell that she had a conflict on the Renter's Relief package. My reading of the conflict of interest code leads me to believe that she does not. That's why I asked the City Attorney to get a written opinion from the FPPC. I don't see any scenario where the FPPC's written opinion would further restrict Sup. Maxwell's participation on legislative matters at the Board, so I don't understand the premise of this posting.

Good morning Supervisor:

Total recusal is a worst-case scenario, one with "unintended consequences" for backers of the rent-relief package. It was my understanding the FPPC could advise Sophie Maxwell the landlord to recuse herself from a plethora of land-use legislation -- some is in the pipeline as we speak.

If I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time. I buy it that it's unlikely, but it seems possible.