In a surprising decision yesterday, the Planning Commission voted to deny the demolition permit for 673-675 44th Avenue. The decision was unexpected given the preliminary recommendation from the Commission to not take the discretionary review and approve project.
Like something out of a Sopranos episode, Planning Commission President Ron Miguel announced at the very end of the hearing that he had been offered a bribe to vote yes on one of the hearing’s agenda items.
Miguel did not specify which item prompted the underhanded behavior, but stated “I just want it made quite public that anyone who’s going to attempt that is NOT going to get through by vote”. The video below shows this clip from the hearing.
When someone in the crowd asked if the bribe was related to the 44th Avenue agenda item, Miguel did not answer. Neighbors will never know but after a year of fighting the development, they are very happy with the Planning Commission’s latest ruling.
Black Sea Corporation, the developer of the 44th Avenue project, is expected to appeal.
UPDATE: In a September 28 SF Examiner story, Planning Commission President Ron Miguel confirmed that the bribe, which was a bottle of wine, was from the sponsors of the 673-675 44th Avenue project. Miguel said the gift “wasn’t legally a bribe,” and went on to say that it was not associated with a request to vote to approve the project. Miguel said he was angry over the incident at the time and shouldn’t have used the word “bribe”.
Sarah B.
Earlier stories on 44th Avenue:
44th Ave neighbors file appeal; continuance granted
Residents continue to fight 44th Avenue development
Residents fight to block unsuitable development
Great story. That doesn’t look like a teardown to me, either–never mind the bribe.
Excellent coverage of a neighborhood concern. Thank you.
It’s obvious that Ron Miguel used the term “bride” incorrectly:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/under-the-dome/Planning-commissioner-says-he-was-offered-bribe–then-changes-mind-62466552.html
Since when does offering wine, especially people living in the Sd Bay Area, anything related to a bribe or a quid pro quo?
The Commission’s decision was shocking, we’ll see what happens next…
@Jake – Thanks for the link; I’ve added an update to the article.
Miguel was clearly angered by the gesture, enough to call it a bribe (and possibly vote against the project to teach them a lesson). He probably did not like the media attention his end-of-meeting admission brought, hence his slight backpedal to the Examiner.
I’m still curious about the reason for being upset or angry about the gesture – it seems so nonchalant and innocent (I love wine and would have taken it!). When did politicians become so sensitive?
The proposed project is actually very nice, hopefully the developer appeals this strange decision.