RSC BLOG
This week, the Senate will take up the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, which the House passed last month. Should it pass, it will be the most expensive water projects bill that Congress has ever approved.
On Speaker Pelosi’s website, it says the following about WRDA: The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 will provide critical funding to small communities that have gone too long without assistance. To these communities, the projects and studies authorized by this legislation will have equally beneficial impacts on public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.
The Speaker has her own earmark in the bill (Sec 5054) that provides for the re-development of part of the San Francisco Waterfront. The Speaker, (and/or her husband) collects rent from four separate commercial real estate properties that are very close to the waterfront location that the earmark provides “critical funding” for. According to disclosure forms, these properties resulted in rental income as high as $3 million in 2005 for the Pelosi’s and could stand to benefit from improvement to the local neighborhood that the earmark supposedly provides.
*** UPDATE (5:15 PM) - Different version have the earmark(s) in SECTIONS 5050 and 5051 ****
The Pelosi properties, all located within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet of the WRDA earmark are:
1301 Sansome LLC
Pelosi Real Estate Partnership
Rent Income: $1 million (2005)
945 Battery LLC
Pelosi Real Estate Partnership
Rental Income: $1 million (2005)
901
Pelosi Real Estate Partnership
Rental Income: $15,000 (2005)
45 Beiden Place
Pelosi Real Estate Asset
Rental Incone: $1 million (2005)
You can find each of the properties on the Speaker’s disclosure forms here and the earmark language here.
Posted by Brad Dayspring (05-07-2007, 01:06 PM) filed under General
Comments
Comment by: fishbrake
May 08, 2007 04:53 PM
Nice try but this story has already been debunked. Here's the relevant quote from Brad Benson, special project manager from the Port of San Francisco:
"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
Comment by: Franco
May 08, 2007 05:11 PM
Umm...you realize, of course, that these improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco, and not the Pelosi's...and that 5400 feet is more than a mile away, making any benefit from these improvements miniscule, at best.
Comment by: Finns
May 08, 2007 05:30 PM
Um, DUH - San Francisco cannot request the funding, only a federal representative can. Speaker Pelosi did, as her office has stated. Whether they asked her to do it is irrelevant to House Rules.
$25 million to improve a local neighborhood would certainly be helpful, in some way, to the properties within 2 miles. And according to House rules, if a member "has a financial interest," they are in violation. Sorry, Franco. Back to lib school!
Comment by: mikey
May 08, 2007 05:52 PM
Hey Finns- Ever been to SF? Almost everything is within 2 miles of everything else.
Comment by: USAF_Vet
May 08, 2007 05:58 PM
@Finns
Some districts are very small. By your logic, any improvement made in a rep's district could be considered a violation of House rules if their residence happens to be in the middle of a small district. Taking it a step further, that logic would seem to preclude a congressman from making ANY improvements in their district lest they appera unethical.
Irregardless of party, representatives are supposed to work for improvements in their district. Agencies make requests to their reps, who then make the requests on their behalf.
Let's not make mountains out of molehills. Crying wolf devalues actual ethical violations.
Comment by: Finns
May 08, 2007 06:05 PM
Hey Mikey - whether "everything is within 2 miles of everything else" (It's not, it's approx 12 miles in size) is irrelevant to rules of the House.
`17. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who requests a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, including--
`(5) a certification that the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or spouse has no financial interest in such congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit.
Comment by: Jason
May 08, 2007 06:22 PM
Finns - Okay, San Francisco is 7 miles wide and 7 miles long. However, what Mikey has said is basically true. In the context of SF over a mile away does not constitute "nearby." Additionally, we are talking about residential rental properties, which in SF are already wildly overvalued. The idea that "port improvements" (I haven't seen it described anywhere what exactly that entails) would affect the rental value of those properties is pretty much ridiculous on it's face.
Nancy Pelosi has done nothing wrong in this instance. Or in her trip to Syria, or in her request for a plane that travel non-stop to the West Coast. These attacks are pathetic.
Comment by: Heh
May 08, 2007 06:36 PM
this is asshattery . The truth is 25 mil is a drop in the bucket. SF and the bay area has seen little of the money sent to DC from SF constituents and its about time.
quote:
Although the Water Resources Development Act is intended to be authorized every two years, the President has not signed one since 2000. WRDA of 2007 will fund projects and policy changes that have been awaiting authorization since 2000.
I'd like to know how this bill benefits her property? They are offices and not boats in the bay. Geez....give me a break! can we say desperation bay?
Comment by: heh
May 08, 2007 06:53 PM
http://tinyurl.com/23v2z4
now who has egg on their face? Mikey?
Comment by: LarryE
May 08, 2007 06:55 PM
Finns -
Why do you people even try when you are repeatedly undercut by your own arguments? The very rule you cite refers to having an interest *in the earmark*. There is no such interest here and no one, not even you, has claimed that there is.
It does *not* say anything about "could hypothetically derive some indirect benefit maybe," a reading which would make it almost impossible for any member of Congress to put forth any measure bringing any benefit to their district.
Your argument is bogus and self-refuting.
Comment by: Franco
May 08, 2007 06:55 PM
Umm...you left out this part:
"A financial interest would not include remote, inconsequential or speculative interests."
It doesn't include every vaguely defined, imaginary interest you can conjure up. Port improvements benefit every resident of San Francisco. Being one of them doesn't qualify. Unless you can show how having cruise ships docking a mile away increases the value of his leases, you're just blowing smoke.
Comment by: jim
May 08, 2007 08:05 PM
Oh, come on.
Besides the fact that the Port of SF did the requesting - what is possibly the financial interest here?
Can you show that this project will raise the property value of these buildings that are 1 to 2 miles away, as much as $5 in a year? No, you cannot.
Really. This is ridiculous.
Comment by: Marty
May 08, 2007 08:19 PM
Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco when asked said,
"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
Another GOP hit piece debunked.
Comment by: Bobby
May 08, 2007 08:21 PM
This just in:
President Bush ripped off the citizens of the US in billions of dollars to fund his illegal war.
Probably a more interesting read than the Speaker looking out for the district she represents.
Comment by: sf
May 08, 2007 09:58 PM
Anyone who knows San Francisco will laugh at this. The rental properties are near Telegraph Hill while the waterfront they're talking about is south of the bay bridge near the ball park. The two areas have no influence at all on each other.
Anyone who's walked along south Embarcadero knows that that waterfront is in extreme need of improvement, Pier 36 is literally rotting and falling into the bay! A nice waterfront from the Ferry building all the way to AT&T park would be a huge boon to all San Franciscans, which is who Nancy is supposed to be looking out for.
Comment by: uncle Bill
May 09, 2007 00:37 AM
Finns---you must have been a second Lieutenant in the army, because it is obvious you never learned to read a map. The Pier in question is being improved to operate as a Cruise ship docking terminal--something San Francisco has been working on for a number of years. It has no relation to any of the office buildings that are across the street (The Embarcadero) from the the pier. Secondly, the office buildings are several blocks inland from the waterfront, and any monies spent on the pier will have
no impact on them or on their value. Had you bothered to call one of the 3 or 4 remaining Republicans in SF to check this out, you may have found this out, instead of launching another attempt at Beltway Gotcha. Further, the City of SF is roughly a square--7 miles wide by 7 miles long. There are lots of projects that occur in SF that have no impact on other parts of the City. Next time you want to take a potshot at Pelosi, watch some old Dirty Harry movies first, and pay attention to the scenery --you might learn something--and you might not come off as the uninformed partisan hack that you are.
Comment by: Jim
May 09, 2007 08:58 AM
"Uncle Bill" - that's nice, smear and degrade our soldiers. Really appropriate.
Comment by: The Guy from TN
May 09, 2007 09:03 AM
SF -
Um, I'm sure there are a lot of places in the country that need improvement like Pier 36. That doesn't mean my tax dollars should pay for it. Are the no real estate developers who would invest in such a thing?
Comment by: Aaron
May 10, 2007 12:12 PM
Next time, try inches. It makes Pelosi's actions seem even more outrageous.
Within 64,800 and 108,000 inches of the earmark!
Comment by: Sharon Dupree
June 17, 2007 05:29 PM
If a story is going to be reported, then report all of the facts instead of those most likely to help one particular side. The writers of this blog by not checking the facts of the Washington Post writer, are engaging in the same type of dishonesty they are, themselves, accusing Pelosi of. It's been confirmed that the Port of San Francisco contacted Pelosi. Why don't they call them? Are we so hateful in our politics that we spread lies just like we accuse others of doing? When you get a bunch of people together who don't tell the truth, unless it's an opportune time to do so, when do you know when they're lying? You Don't.
Submit a Comment
