Old-fashioned street fight

One of the most bitterly contested issues facing the voters of San Francisco will be resolved Nov. 7 -- Proposition O.

The initiative, which calls for Cesar Chavez Street (the three-mile long street that includes industrial areas, parts of the Mission District and Noe Valley) to be renamed Army Street, has struck some raw nerves; including race relations, taxation and the power vested in city government.

When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 11-0 on Jan. 9 to change the name of Army Street to Cesar Chavez Street, it seemed a done deal. The Board unanimously voted to change the street name in honor of the late civil rights leader after two months of hearings.

The name change won the endorsement of most of the city's prominent politicians and community leaders. But after 18,000 signatures and assorted acts of vandalism and intimidation, the issue is still very much alive.

Carlos Solomon, senior fellow at SF State's Cesar Chavez Institute, works on issues critical to the Chicano and Latino student body and the community at large.

Solomon sees Proposition O as "a huge slap in the face to the Latino Community."

"It's taking the legacy of Cesar Chavez, probably the most successful labor leader of this century and someone who is revered by our community, and turning it into a negative.

"Our community is facing many problems right now," Solomon said. "Naming a street after Cesar Chavez is one way of helping a community that is facing a lot of problems. It gives the youth in our community a positive role model.

"But a small group of people have decided to do something dangerous and divisive by ignoring majority opinion for their own self-interests," he said.

Mitch Friedman, of "San Franciscans to Save Army Street," agrees with Solomon that a small group of people have hijacked the city for their own self-interest. But Friedman thinks that group of people is the 11-member Board of Supervisors.

"I'm incensed at the way the Board of Supervisors rammed this thing down our throats," Friedman said. "This has nothing to do with the legacy or honor of Cesar Chavez, it has to do with common sense. The facts say it should remain Army Street. It's about the fundamental kernel of democracy -- about listening to the people affected. Our noses got pushed in the dirt by the Board of Supervisors."

According to Friedman, when the Board meeting was held to determine the fate of Army Street, the Board members all but refused to listen to their complaints.

"We outnumbered the other group by almost two to one," Friedman said, "but when it came our time, we were cut off.

"Bill Maher (the Board member who originally introduced the Cesar Chavez name change) completely turned his back to us when we talked."

Friedman, who said proponents of Proposition O have been subjected to acts of vandalism and intimidation, thinks the numbers all add up to a victory come Nov. 7.

Friedman said 93 percent of the businesses on Cesar Chavez Street were opposed to the name change. He also said the fact that over 18,000 people signed the petition to get the initiative on the ballot, almost twice as many as the 9,964 required, showed that the proponents of Proposition O are on the right side.

Lastly, Friedman said that 145 years of being part of the city's history and countless tax dollars should be enough to convince voters to restore Army Street.

Eva Royale, of the "NO on O" campaign, also came equipped with numbers -- primarily the number "zero." According to Royale, the cost of replacing the old Army Street signs with the new Cesar Chavez signs was nil.

Royale said the $23,000 originally allocated by the Board to rename the street hasn't been used, because the signs were due to be replaced by newer, reflective street signs, a fact confirmed by the Department of Parking and Traffic. Royale also said since the city no longer marks street names in concrete, cost is again a non-factor.

Royale said the majority of the $30,000 needed for changing the freeway signs would come from private donations. The only real cost in the entire campaign has been to put the initiative on the ballot, she said.

According to the Registrar of Voters, the initiative has cost the city about $25,000 to $50,000 - about average for a ballot initiative.

Royale also pointed out that merchants along Cesar Chavez Street will have a five-year transition period to order new stationery and business forms.

Royale's understanding of city history differs from Friedman's. To Royale, the old Army Street name sums up the entire bruising battle over Proposition O.

"First of all," Royale said, "Army Street was named by a private citizen (John Horner) with no intention of honoring the military, or any portion of it. It was just a name. So it has questionable historical significance.

"What's ironic is that Cesar Chavez advocated non-violence. So, it's fitting that a military name be replaced by a name dedicated to peace, but this campaign has been anything but peaceful."

Royale, who said opponents of Proposition O have received death threats and have had their tires slashed, recalls one incident she won't forget.

"We were campaigning for Cesar Chavez Street when this little old lady, probably in her 80s, came over to our booth that was set up, and yanked down a "No on O" sign. Then she started stomping all over it. After that, she crossed the street, and flipped me off. She was so angry. I couldn't believe it.

"I'm amazed that one group of people can cause so much pain," Royale said. "This is an opportunity for San Franciscans to do something positive for generations to come, and instead there's a huge battle going on. You have to wonder where people are coming from."

Bill Battell, a Noe Valley resident, who describes himself as a "newcomer to the neighborhood -- I've only lived here for 40 years," said he's disturbed by some of the allegations concerning supporters of Proposition O.

"I support Proposition O, and I admire Cesar Chavez and what he stood for. It's got nothing to do with racism," Battell said.

"What it has to do with is the fact that the supervisors in this city have way too much power. They're a bunch of babbling fools who are out of contact with the residents of this community.

"After all, the support we showed at the Board meeting for keeping the (Army) street name -- they just decided to ignore us," Battell said. "It's a total abuse of power. This isn't Russia, it's the United States, and we should have the right to be heard."

[ Golden Gater Online October 31, 1995 ]

[ back to top ]