Re-elect City Attorney Dennis Herrera: News Articles

Judge Orders Pink Diamonds Strip Club Closed for One Year

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch ordered today that the Pink Diamonds be closed for one year, a victory for City Attorney Dennis Herrera in his efforts to crack down on the notoriously violent strip club.

"I am gratified that Judge Busch clearly recognized the significant threat to public safety Pink Diamonds posed," Herrera said in a statement. The judge also imposed fines of at least $690,000 on the club's owners.

The strip club at 220 Jones Street has been linked to numerous shootings in the Tenderloin, including a June incident when a patron was killed on the sidewalk outside the venue. According to the complaint filed with the court by Herrera's office, Pink Diamonds has also been the site of illicit drug deals, prostitution, and extended-hours permit violations. The city attorney's office says it has required more than 230 service calls by police in the past six months alone.

The club is co-owned by Entertainment Commissioner Terrance Alan, who also owns the building in which the club operates -- an interesting twist, since Pink Diamonds has been accused by the San Francisco Police Department and city attorney's office of operating without required permits from the commission Alan sits on.

City takes aim at hotel plagued with police calls

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

SAN FRANCISCO — A Marina district hotel allegedly crawling with bedbugs, rats and criminals is the target of a lawsuit by City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

The Bridge Motel, a single resident occupancy hotel on Lombard Street, was the site of 91 police calls in the last seven months alone, according to Herrera. Among the calls were incidents involving violence, drugs, grand theft, weapons possession and terrorist threats.

The lawsuit, filed Monday, details dozens of troubling incidents since August 2008, including a tenant throwing hypodermic needles into neighboring yards and arrests for armed robbery, burglary, domestic violence, car theft, failure to register as a sex offender, vandalism and multiple drug offenses.

The owners of the hotel — Tarunkumar, Vindodkumar, Vyomesh and Sangita Patel — regularly flouted fire and public safety codes, according to the lawsuit. Hotel operators-managers Mohammed and Nasir Shaikh are accused of locking residents out of bathrooms and a community shower, letting the building go without heat and maintaining filthy conditions that included rat, cockroach and bedbug infestations.

“This establishment’s owners and operators have demonstrated a shocking disregard for health and safety, and a defiant attitude toward the city inspectors who pushed them to obey the law,” Herrera said. “We have no choice but to seek a tough, enforceable court order to end this public nuisance, and to impose penalties to ensure it never happens again.”

Attorney Rich Stratton, who represents the Patels and the Shaikhs, said he was surprised by the lawsuit, because his clients had been working diligently with the City Attorney’s Office over the past several months to clean up the Bridge, evicting problem tenants and reviewing the hotel’s management.

“I think we’ve made considerable progress already, so I’m disappointed they filed the suit,” Stratton said. “I don’t think the owners and current managers are in any way defiant. They’re quite anxious to resolve these issues in a long-term way that benefits the neighbors and The City.”

Part of the hotel’s problems stem from being an SRO surrounded by mid-range and upscale tourist hotels, Stratton said.

A front-desk clerk named Toby at the neighboring Marina Motel said the Bridge attracts a rough, loud clientele.

“There is a lot of drinking, drugs, people yelling at night in the back parking lot,” he said.

Oh, Snap: City Attorney Demands Proof of Cocoa Krispies' Immunity-Boosting Claim

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Kellogg's just can't get a break. First, one pissed-off cereal consumer realizes thatFroot Loops cereal contains no actual fruit and decides to sue for false advertising. Now Kellogg's is dealing with more false advertising claims, this time from San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, who just announced that he has written a letter to the CEO of the cereal company demanding evidence that Cocoa Krispies really "helps support your child's immunity" as it purports to do on the front of the box.

Herrera claims that the company is playing to the public's fears about the recent swine flu epidemic by insinuating that eating Cocoa Krispies is analogous to, say, getting a flu shot. "The immunity claims may also mislead parents into believing that serving this sugary cereal will actually boost their child's immunity, leaving less likely to take more productive steps to protect their children's health," reads Herrera's letter.

Herrera's spokesman, Matt Dorsey told SF Weekly that although other cereals
may make similar medicinal claims, oftentimes those companies will include "language that adds 'truthiness,'" he said. "The content and prominence of the line 'now helps support your child's immunity' is a significant departure from normal marketing-speak." Kellogg's has not yet returned SF Weekly's calls.

Cocoa Krispies' ingredients do not include flu vaccines (and the "immunity" cereal is 40 percent sugar by weight). Yet, according to Kellogg's Web site, the breakfast cereal is laden with high-fructose corn syrup, which is apparently very healthy --if you believe corn syrup advertisements sponsored by corn farmers.

UPDATE: A Kellogg's company spokesperson, Susanne Norwitz, responded to SF Weekly's inquiries in an email this morning. Norwitz wrote that Kellogg's Krispies cereals provide consumers with 25 percent of their daily value of vitamins A, C, and E, which play an important role in boosting immunity according to peer-reviewed, published, scientific research.

Herrera Deserves a Third Term

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

In a meeting with our editorial board Tuesday, Dennis Herrera was careful to remind us that he's running for a third term as San Francisco's city attorney, even though his robust campaign in the absence of opposition is stoking speculation about his mayoral ambitions.

Since his first election in 2001, Herrera has been an indefatigable public servant who has kept his focus on issues large and small. Name the high-profile local issue - same-sex marriage, gang injunctions, the Mirant power plant, the "sanctuary" policy for illegal immigrants - and he has been there, putting his stamp on it. Even when we disagree with him, as we did with his original proposal for Mirant, it's hard to fault his professionalism or his passion.

"Our office has been in the forefront of local, state, and national issues," Herrera said.

He's right. The lack of a challenge in a city full of politically ambitious lawyers is a testament to Herrera's skills and achievements. He has earned a third term.

Herrera's power play - on video

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is running unopposed for a third term and hopes to become mayor in a couple years, unveiled a new commercial this weekend (view it at www.cleanairsanfrancisco.com) that mentions neither election.

Instead, the 30-second video - which he e-mailed to supporters Saturday and will begin airing Monday - asks people to sign a petition urging state regulators to shut down a polluting San Francisco power plant.

"Huh?" you ask. The Insider is here to explain.

Basically, the city - pushed by neighborhood activists - has been working for years to shutter Mirant Corp.'s fossil fuel plant on the southeastern waterfront. Who has done the most to forward this goal is a politically loaded question around City Hall, where a number of officials clash over who deserves credit.

What's not up for debate is this: After years of pushback from the plant's owners and state regulators, Herrera announced a settlement last month with Mirant. Under the terms, the city agreed to drop a lawsuit against the company and Mirant agreed to shutter the plant by the end of 2010.

But it's not over, because the city and company don't have the final word - state regulators do. And recently, those regulators said they don't think the 2010 timeline can be met.

Looks like Herrera is attempting to capitalize on that reticence - and the palpable community outrage over the plant's continuing pollution - to garner support. We'll let you decide which election it's about.

State owes district $100K judge rules

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Kudos to City Attorney Dennis Herrera for getting the state to meet its financial obligations for student health services.

In May, Herrera filed a lawsuit accusing the state's Medi-Cal program of withholding reimbursements for more than $100,000 worth of medical services like eye exams through a defunct federal policy.

Medi-Cal had asserted that the policy allowed them to withhold the money because the services the San Francisco Unified School District provided its students were available for free in The City otherwise.

According to Herrera's office, the act of withholding the money was through a federal policy that was invalidated in 2004.

Superior Court Judge Peter Busch today gave the state 60 days to decide whether to pay back the district with its own money or seek the money from the federal government, according to Herrera's office.

City asks court to move forward with bike plan

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco -- San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a motion in San Francisco Superior Court on Friday, asking a judge to lift the 3-year-old injunction that's stalled the city's bike plan.

The motion was filed after the city completed a court-ordered environmental review of the projects outlined in the plan, and opponents exhausted their options to block the plan at City Hall.

Two groups, the Coalition for Adequate Review and Ninety-Nine Percent (led by local blogger Rob Anderson), are behind the lawsuit that led to the injunction.

The San Francisco Bicycle Plan calls for the expansion of San Francisco's network of bike lanes, the installation of more bike racks, and other projects intended to make cycling safer and more convenient.

If the motion to dissolve the injunction is granted, city officials say they are ready to move forward with 45 projects.

Critics, concerned over what they view as a detrimental impact the bike-friendly initiatives will have on traffic and parking, called the environmental review flawed and have vowed to challenge the city in court. The Planning Commission certified the adequacy of the analysis and the Board of Supervisors backed that decision earlier this summer.

"After years of environmental review and public participation, the San Francisco Bicycle Plan reflects an unprecedented consensus to create a city that is safer, healthier and more environmentally responsible," Herrera said.

A hearing has been set for Sept. 24.

Herrera seeks no hearing for S.F. health plan

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, arguing the nation's highest court shouldn't hear the Golden Gate Restaurant Association's challenge of the city's requirement that employers provide health care.

Joining Herrera were the construction company Nibbi Bros. and the restaurants Medjool and Zazie, all arguing in amicus briefs that Healthy San Francisco and its employer spending mandate are working just fine.

GGRA supports national health care reform, but says local ordinances are burdensome and will create a confusing patchwork of regulations. It lost its case at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Nibbi Bros. argues that as a company providing health care, it "has an interest in not being at a competitive disadvantage when dealing with employers who choose not to bear any of that societal cost." Medjool and Zazie, in a joint brief, say healthy workers are especially important in a restaurant setting so as to avoid food contamination.

Kevin Westlye, director of GGRA, said it's great that some restaurants are making the employer mandate work - but that many smaller restaurants are struggling tremendously.

"Considering there are 4,000 restaurants (in the city), having two or three sign on in support of the program, to me, is not significant," he said.

Judge shuts Heaven's gates

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

You may have just missed your chance to get into Heaven.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera won a court order this morning shutting down Heaven Mini Theatre on planning code violations pending the outcome of a trial, a ruling that takes effect immediately. An attorney for the North Beach strip club said it will put Heaven out of business.

Heaven is part of a larger problem along Broadway, city officials say.

"Maybe there will be a youth hostel there tomorrow, I don't know," said Gregory Walston, an attorney for Heaven.

(Given the Yelp ratings, that may not be such a bad thing, even for connoisseurs of adult entertainment.)

Judge Charlotte Woolard's ruling in San Francisco Superior Court marked a victory for Herrera and police officials who are trying to crack down on nightlife-fueled violence along the Broadway corridor in North Beach.

Herrera contends Heaven is a front for prostitution that is linked to other violence and has been blatantly operating without permits.

"Today's ruling should send a message to other would-be operators of illegal businesses that even 'Heaven' is subject to temporal laws here in San Francisco," Herrera said. "I'm grateful to Judge Woolard for her thorough analysis of the facts, and to the Police and Planning departments for their efforts to enforce the law and help us build our case."

Walston, though, blasted Woolard's ruling as "asinine, ludicrous and absurd."

"I'm a pretty even-tempered guy," Walston said outside the courtroom. "But stupid is as stupid does, and this one is ridiculous."

The central argument was whether a court order closing the club pending the outcome at trial would result in "irreparable harm" to Heaven's owner, who says he's being targeted for not bribing city officials.

Ending a business was perhaps the very definition of irreparable harm, Walston argued. Deputy City Attorney Frank Brass said if the club prevailed at trial, its owners could be compensated. Woolard agreed.

Walston vowed to appeal immediately, but a ruling in that process could take several months, he said.

Brighter days ahead for Mirant power plant site

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Mirant power plant in Potrero Hill has been a blight on the city for decades. The plant is outdated and toxic, with turbines that still run on diesel fuel and an old-fashioned cooling system that's poisoning the bay. But even though everyone in the city knew it needed to go, it seemed like it was here to stay.

That's why City Attorney Dennis Herrera's agreement with the owner Mirant Corp. to permanently close the plant by the end of 2010 is nothing short of a miracle. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who has spent years working for the plant's closure, is introducing legislation today that asks for the supervisors' approval for the settlement. No responsible city official would even dream of voting against it.

"The bottom line is that the power plant will be closed," said Maxwell in a meeting with our editorial board on Monday. "Getting anything else out of this deal doesn't matter to me."

But there are a few other things that the city will get out of this deal: at least $1 million for pediatric asthma programs in the surrounding community, and about $100,000 in legal fee reimbursements. In exchange, Herrera will drop all pending lawsuits and permit review challenges so that the company can continue operating through 2010. Mirant will also get an expedited permit review when it comes time to redevelop the site. A site, we might add, which has been rezoned to prohibit housing.

Even if the supervisors approve the deal, it faces another potential hurdle. The California Independent System Operator is a little nervous about "reliability," so the city and the Public Utilities Commission will have to reassure it that the new Transbay Cable, which should be coming online next year, will be reliable enough to merit closing the Potrero plant. (It shouldn't be a tough sell - the new cable will be able to move hundreds of megawatts, more than enough to fill the gap.)

Much credit for this success should also go to Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier and Mayor Gavin Newsom, who recognized the danger of a dreadful 2008 "solution" that involved building fossil fuel-burning plants in exchange for shutting the Potrero one, and stood firm against it. Now that we have a real solution, their resistance looks visionary.

S.F. makes deal to close dirty power plant

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The heavily polluting power plant on San Francisco's southeastern waterfront would close by the end of next year under a legal settlement announced Thursday between Mirant Corp. and City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

The 40-year-old fossil-fuel plant, which officials say is one of the dirtiest in the state, spews particles and chemicals from a bayside smokestack. Its cooling system, which sucks in millions of gallons of bay water per day, kills fish larvae and discharges heated water into San Francisco Bay.

The settlement appears to end a decadelong contentious debate among city officials, community leaders, energy providers and environmentalists about whether the plant, located south of Mission Bay, should be retrofitted or closed.

It is not yet certain, however, if state energy officials will allow it to be closed.

In April, Herrera sued Atlanta-based Mirant for failing to retrofit brick buildings on its property, but it was clear that the intent of the suit went beyond making the buildings safe.

"This is a major step forward for a San Francisco that will be cleaner, greener and healthier because of what we've achieved today," Herrera said of the settlement at a news conference Thursday.

The legal accord that would end the lawsuit obligates Mirant to shutter the plant by the end of 2010 and work with the city to overcome possible objections from state energy monitors. The company also would pay $1 million for health initiatives in the neighborhood, including possible asthma clinics.

In return for its pledge to close the facility, Mirant, which owns the property, will get expedited city review for any future development projects. Herrera also retracted his demand that the five unoccupied brick structures on the site be fixed.

Mirant spokesman Chip Little said the company agreed to the settlement because it wanted to end the lawsuit and saw benefits in the city's other promises.

The settlement must be approved by the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Yet a potentially much bigger hurdle for closing the plant is the California Independent System Operator.

The ISO ensures that cities have reliable energy supplies that can withstand power line failures and other emergencies. The agency has demanded that San Francisco have some power generation within city limits.

The city has told the ISO that it can meet the energy reliability requirements through multiple sources, including a 53-mile transmission cable that will run under the bay to Pittsburg. That line is scheduled to start delivering power from East Bay fossil fuel plants by spring. Renewable sources, including solar power, and greater energy efficiency would also help meet demands, city officials have said.

Herrera said the city would present a formal plan to the ISO in the coming months but did not commit to a date.

The power grid monitor reacted cautiously to news of the legal settlement.

The ISO's role "is to protect system reliability and safety for the citizens of San Francisco and California without regard to local politics or economic interests," ISO spokesman Gregg Fishman said in a statement. "The ISO will continue to require local measures to be available at the level necessary to ensure that San Francisco reliability is consistent with that of other major metropolitan areas."

Residents in the Dogpatch neighborhood, where the plant is located, said they have waited a long time for it to close. A Pacific Gas and Electric Co. plant near the shoreline in Hunters Point closed in 2006 after long-standing community opposition.

"We are thrilled and would like to see it shut down as soon as possible," said Janet Carpinelli, president of the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association. "The talk has gone back and forth as the pollution has continued all night long and every day."

Drug store tobacco sales ban in court

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Lawyers from the City Attorney's Office will be in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tomorrow to defend a 2008 San Francisco ordinance that bans the sale of tobacco in City pharmacies.

A U.S. District judge ruled against a petition by Philip Morris USA last December to invalidate the law on grounds that it violated the company's First Amendment right to free speech. The tobacco giant appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

"Consumers ought to have a reasonable expectation that drugstores will serve their health needs, not enable their deadliest habits," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is running for re-election unopposed this November.

The matter of Morris USA v. City and County of San Francisco will be heard in the James Ro. Browning Courthouse, 95 7th Street, courtroom #1, third floor.

San Francisco joins federal battle over Prop 8

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

SAN FRANCISCO -- The city of San Francisco has asked a federal judge to rule that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera argued in a brief filed in federal court in San Francisco late Thursday that the marriage ban enacted by state voters in November as Proposition 8 has no constitutionally legitimate purpose.

Herrera wrote that the goal of Proposition 8 was to express "moral disapproval" of homosexuals and said that such a purpose is discriminatory.

The city attorney wrote, "Feelings of antipathy or discomfort toward a group of people - no matter how deeply felt or widely held - are not a legitimate purpose for singling that group out for unequal treatment by the law."

The city's argument was submitted as a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit filed last month by a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is scheduled to hold a hearing in San Francisco on July 2 on the couples' bid for a preliminary injunction that would reinstate gay marriage in California.

The federal lawsuit was filed the day after the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as being within the initiative power of voters.

Proposition 8 overturned a 2008 decision in which the state high court said the California Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage.

Until now, legal battles during the past five years over same-sex marriage in California have centered on the provisions of the state constitution.

But the new lawsuit uses a different tactic and argues that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal treatment.

The two couples are represented by prominent attorneys Theodore Olson of Washington, D.C., and David Boies of Armonk, N.Y., who argued on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential election.

On the other side, sponsors of Proposition 8 have filed a brief with Walker arguing that "nothing in the Constitution requires such a radical redefinition of the ancient institution of marriage."

Herrera Kicks Off Re-Election Campaign

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Herrera Kicks Off Re-Election Campaign

City Attorney Dennis held his re-election campaign kickoff event
yesterday at the Boys and Girls Club of San Francisco.
Photos by Luke Thomas

By Luke Thomas

June 7, 2009

City Attorney Dennis Herrera kicked off his re-election campaign for a third term yesterday during a fundraiser benefiting the Boys and Girls Club of San Francisco, a non-profit organization on which he currently serves as board member.

“Over the course of the last eight years I have recommitted to make sure our office is relevant to the people that we serve, and I am out there every day to make a difference for all San Franciscans,” Herrera said.

“That’s what’s rewarding to me about the job. That’s why I want to keep the job, and that’s why I’m announcing my candidacy for a third term as your City Attorney,” he said.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera

Running unopposed, Herrera announced his campaign would seek to obtain 13,000 signatures from registered San Francisco voters by July 22 to get his name on the November ballot.

The event, which was co-billed to raise awareness for the launch of the Boys and Girls Club’s summertime program, attracted as many as 250 residents and politicos, including Democratic Party Chair John Burton, Senator Leland Yee, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, Supervisors John Avalos, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi, Treasurer Jose Cisneros, former Senator Carole Migden, former Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and former Police Chief Tony Ribera.

San Francisco Giants Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Larry Baer, San Francisco Labor Council Executive Director Tim Paulson and Burton provided short speeches in support of Herrera’s candidacy.

Former Gavin Newsom administration Deputy Chief of Staff Alex Tourk is managing Herrera’s re-election campaign.

Larry Baer and Tim Paulson.

A joking Democratic Party Chair John Burton:
“It’s really great to be here for Dennis as he kicks off
his very tough campaign for re-election.”

Dennis Herrera campaign manager Alex Tourk (center)
with Jeff Soukop and Jeff Anderson.

Herrera was born in Bay Shore, New York in 1962 and was admitted to the California Bar in 1989. In 1993, under then President Bill Clinton, Herrera was appointed Chief of Staff for the US Maritime Administration in Washington, DC.

Herrera got his start in San Francisco politics in 1996 when former Mayor Willie Brown appointed him to the City’s Transportation Commission. In 1997, Brown appointed Herrera to the Police Commission. A year later, Herrera was elected Police Commission President. In November 2001 Herrera was elected City Attorney when he challenged and defeated longtime former City Attorney Louise Renne.

Accomplishments

Considered politically Progressive, Herrera filed the first government litigation in American history challenging the constitutionality of discriminatory marriage laws. His efforts paid off when the California Supreme Court in May 2008 overturned a ban on same-sex marriage. The ban was reinstated in November 2008, however, when the California electorate passed Proposition 8, limiting marriage between a man and a woman.

Herrera co-challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8 but failed to convince six of seven California Supreme Court justices that the rights of a minority class must be protected over the whims of the majority, or that marriage equality is an inalienable right. The court did, however, protect the legal status of an estimated 18,000 marriages performed before the passage of Proposition 8.

In 2006, Herrera took bold steps to address violence and crime by securing gang injunctions against seven known criminal organizations. He has also pushed for protections for tenants facing eviction and foreclosure due to the economic recession, and he successfully defended former Supervisor Tom Ammiano’s landmark universal heath care legislation against stiff opposition from the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

Criticism

But despite his many accomplishments, Herrera has also been criticized.

In September 2006, Herrera invalidated a 33,000 signatures petition that would have shifted decision-making power into the hands of San Francisco voters over Bayview Hunters Point redevelopment. Herrera said he invalidated the petition because it lacked all the “critical” documentation “incorporated by reference.”

His critics took a different view, accusing him of using political discretion to protect development interests over the interests of city residents.

Herrera has also come under fire from open government advocacy groups that have accused him of undermining transparency in government enforcement provisions set forth by the passage of Proposition G in 1999, and for providing supportive legal advice to Mayor Gavin Newsom in his refusal to release meetings and calendar related documents.

And in a recent interview with Fog City Journal, Herrera discounted the effectiveness of suing the U.S. Navy to compel an immediate and comprehensive cleanup of the toxic-laden Hunters Point Shipyard, a Superfund site that contains to this day unquantifiable levels of carcinogenic toxins and radioactive materials. The site continues to pose a serious health risk to Bay Area residents.

Endorsements

Herrera has so far earned endorsements from State Senator Mark Leno, State Senator Leland Yee, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Assemblymember Fiona Ma, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Sheriff Mike Hennessey, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Treasurer Jose Cisneros, Assessor Phil Ting, Supervisor John Avalos, Supervisor David Campos, Supervisor David Chiu, Supervisor Carmen Chu, Supervisor Chris Daly, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, Supervisor Eric Mar, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Community College Board Member Natalie Berg, Community College Board Member Milton Marks III, Community College Board Member Steve Ngo, San Francisco Police Officers Association, San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798, and DCCC Chair and Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin.

“If you want a City Attorney’s office that will continue to be a force for change,” Herrera asked his supporters. “If you want a City Attorney that will continue to fight for equality, justice and fairness, and if you want me to continue to lead that fight and make a difference in the lives of ordinary San Franciscans, I need your vote, I need your help.”

“I need your support and the Boys and Girls Club needs your help, too,” Herrera added.

Former Senator Carole Migden
with California Democratic Party Chair John Burton and his granddaughter.

Tim Paulson with a camera shy Larry Mazzola Jr. and Larry Mazzola Sr.

District 8 candidate Rafael Mandelman, Carole Migden and Michael Goldstein,
who announced to FCJ he is running for Community College Board Trustee.

Supervisor John Avalos and son.

Tenth Congressional District candidate Adriel Hampton
and Supervisor David Campos.

Former SFPD Chief Tony Ribera and daugther.

District 6 candidate Debra Walker with civil rights activist Molly McKay.

District 2 candidate Janet Reilly (right) with Ann Herrera and family.

City Attorney spokesperson Matt Dorsey.

Dennis Herrera with Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Eric Mar.

Board of Supervisor President David Chiu with Clint Reilly (left).

“We heart Dennis.”

Dennis Herrera with his wife, Ann, and son, Declan.

S.F. city attorney on Prop. 8 ruling

Wed, 27 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Throughout this long legal battle, we've come together here at City Hall many times.

When we defended Mayor Gavin Newsom's principled decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, we had some wins, and we had some losses.

When we all stood together to challenge the discriminatory marriage exclusion, we won in the trial court, lost on appeal and went on to win in the state Supreme Court just last year.

Over the past five years in this building:

-- We've celebrated our victories and consoled one another in loss;

-- We've witnessed how meaningful marriage is to our friends and our family members - and also to ourselves;

-- And I think we've come to know that no one who has been a part of this struggle - whether gay or lesbian or straight, married or single - will ever stop fighting for equality.

Tuesday, we faced a disappointing decision.

But I think we also know it could have been worse.

Yes, we're disappointed that Proposition 8 was upheld. But we're also grateful that Prop. 8's advocates didn't succeed in their cruel effort to unmarry 18,000 lawfully-wed couples.

We're grateful for the powerful dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno. He stood fast for our constitutional guarantees and eloquently affirmed the judiciary's role in defending them.

We're also grateful that the court let stand its important holdings from the marriage cases decision last year. That ruling didn't simply end marriage discrimination (if only for a short time). It also established lasting protections against unjust treatment for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender community in California.

Those protections remain untouched.

I know there will be a lot of disappointment over the ruling - and perhaps even anger. And both are understandable.

But I would reiterate a point I made last year in victory, which is no less true in defeat: Courts deserve respect for the difficult job they have to do.

We may disagree with this ruling, and I'll be the first to say that the majority got it wrong. But what should separate us from our opponents is that we don't vilify judges we disagree with. We can dispute a court's decision without undermining the legitimacy of our independent judiciary.

Tuesday's ruling doesn't mean marriage equality will never be achieved. It simply means that, in the end, we can't rely on the courts to secure it.

It means it will take all kinds of leaders - not just lawyers - to restore the promise of California's Constitution.

And it means after five years of litigating - of winning some rounds and losing some rounds - the final, decisive round won't be won in the legal arena.

It will be won in the electoral arena.

Now obviously, cities and counties can't take part in political campaigns. But I'm sure you know you can count on me and my chief deputy, Terry Stewart, and others as citizens to assist in the fight.

But as your public sector co-plaintiffs over these past five years, our official role in this ends here.

I know I speak for everyone in the City Attorney's Office when I say this fight remains in extremely capable hands with all of you.

Still, I do want to extend an invitation in advance.

When you've finally put marriage discrimination behind us - when you've achieved at the ballot box what we couldn't manage Tuesday - you're all invited back here to City Hall. Because that celebration belongs here.

And I hope, and I expect, it won't take long.

Dennis Herrera is the city attorney of San Francisco. He delivered these remarks as a speech at City Hall on Tuesday.

This article appeared on page A - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Herrera sues postal service

Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and a coalition of tenant advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service this week, claiming the agency's "discriminatory" mail practices for residents of single-room occupancy hotels violate constitutional guarantees, including equal protection and the right to privacy.

The hotels are home to many low-income San Franciscans, including LGBTs.

"Inadequate and unequal mail delivery can cause devastating hardships on SRO residents, and our investigation has documented heartbreaking consequences of undelivered checks, medical notices, appointment information, personal letters, and official correspondence," Herrera said in a statement. "There is no basis in the law or in postal regulations for this discriminatory practice. "

The complaint was filed Tuesday, May 5, in U.S. District Court.

In January, the postal service in San Francisco stopped delivering mail individually to many SRO residents, potentially leaving people's mail open to being misdirected or stolen.

In 2006, the city enacted the Residential Hotel Mail Receptacle Ordinance, which requires SRO owners to make arrangements for installing mail receptacles for each unit.

But in a December 2008 letter to Vivian Day, then-acting director of the Department of Building Inspection, San Francisco Postmaster Noemi Luna wrote that postal regulations "provide that single point service is the appropriate mode of delivery for mail addressed to persons in 'hotels, schools, and similar places.'"

Under single point delivery, mail is delivered "in bulk to building management," which is then responsible for distribution, she wrote.

Luna also wrote that her agency had extended delivery to individualized receptacles at some SROs, "which under postal service regulations was inconsistent with our policies." Luna added that federal law "preempts the application of non-federal laws that frustrate or interfere with the operations of the postal service."

Citing "fiscal shortages," she wrote that the postal service would no longer deliver mail to individual receptacles in SROs, except at buildings that had been getting individual delivery for more than 90 days.

In a demand letter dated April 16 and sent to the U.S. Attorney's office, which was requested by an official in that office, Herrera had outlined the basis for the lawsuit and gave the postal service two weeks to bring its mail delivery policy at SROs in line with the policy for other residential apartment buildings.

"Forcing our poorest residents to bear the brunt of budget cutbacks is not only immoral – in this case, it's also illegal," said Herrera in a statement Tuesday.

James Wigdel, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service, said he couldn't provide comment on the lawsuit because it's a legal matter.

The Central City SRO Collaborative, the San Francisco Tenants Union, and the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco are represented by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic as co-plaintiffs in the litigation, which also charges that the delivery policy changes violates the U.S. Postal Service's own regulations.

A copy of the civil complaint is available at www.sfgov.org/cityattorney.

City Attorney Sues Postal Service on Behalf of SRO Tenants

Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera will file suit against the U.S. Postal Service in federal court today, for refusing to deliver to mailboxes in residential hotels – after an initial demand letter to the U.S. Attorney was rebuffed. Along with groups like the Central City SRO Collaborative, San Francisco Tenants Union and the Housing Rights Committee, Herrera will hold an 11:00 a.m. press conference at the Coast Hotel – a non-profit SRO run through the City’s Care Not Cash program. The Coast is one of many hotels in the Tenderloin that have yet to install mailboxes, and who the Postal Service says will not receive private mail delivery even if they did. Tenants who failed to receive checks or doctor’s notes due to the lack of an individual mailbox will be there to tell their stories.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues for Seismic Safety Upgrades at Mirant

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed suit against Mirant (NYSE: MIR) for potentially life-threatening building code violations at its controversial Potrero power plant, blistering the Atlanta-based energy giant’s “deplorable corporate citizenship” for long disregarding human health and safety in San Francisco. The 17-page complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court charges the company with persistent violations of a City ordinance that requires seismic safety upgrades to unreinforced masonry buildings, whose structural failures in major earthquakes can cause significant loss of life and injuries. The aging diesel-fueled plant has been a flashpoint for neighborhood and environmental justice advocates for decades because of the facility’s longstanding air, ground and water contamination problems, and their suspected link to atypically high rates of asthma and cancer in neighboring communities. Today’s lawsuit comes after years of failed negotiations between Mirant and City leaders to address environmental, public health and safety issues — including seismic retrofits — and a series of letters over the past few months from Herrera and other City officials threatening to challenge the extension of Mirant’s water permit for the plant because it continues to pollute San Francisco Bay.

“To the list of corporate lawlessness that includes polluting our air, ground and water, we can now add Mirant’s defiant refusal to address safety risks to its own employees,” said Herrera. “City leaders have worked for years to shutter this filthy and dangerous facility — which has no business operating in the 21st Century, let alone in a major population center. But it increasingly appears that our good faith efforts to work with Mirant have been exploited and mocked. The imperatives of public health and safety in San Francisco prevent us from continuing to tolerate this deplorable corporate citizenship. I intend to pursue a court order to force Mirant to live up to responsibilities it has too long ignored. Mirant is at the end of its rope.”

Unreinforced masonry buildings, or UMBs, are masonry or concrete buildings constructed without the benefit of reinforcements. UMBs can be gravely hazardous in earthquakes, with a strong likelihood of failure in serious seismic events, including collapsing walls or the “pancaking” of entire buildings. In 1992, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted the UMB Ordinance to require: (1) all owners of UMBs to be notified of potential hazards; (2) all owners to retain a licensed civil, structural engineer or architect to identify the hazard class of UMB buildings; and (3) all owners to seismically upgrade the buildings within specified requirements and time frames.

While the ordinance established Feb. 15, 2006 as the deadline for most building owners to complete structural seismic alterations, the City, like other regulatory agencies, extended numerous accommodations to Mirant in the expectation that the closure of its environmentally injurious power plant was imminent. Today’s civil action details the history of the City’s enforcement efforts at the Potrero facility, and alleges that Mirant is operating a public nuisance in violation of the California Civil Code (Sections 3479 and 3480) and San Francisco Building Code (Sections 102 and 103). Herrera’s lawsuit additionally charges Mirant with unlawful and unfair business practices, in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

If successful, Herrera’s case on behalf of the City and People of the State of California could result in sweeping injunctive relief, disgorgement of all profits derived from the company’s unlawful conduct, civil penalties, and costs and fees associated with the action.

The case is: City and County of San Francisco and People of the State of California v. Mirant Potrero, LLC, San Francisco Superior Court, filed April 27, 2009.

Herrera Prepares to Sue Over SRO Mail Delivery

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

In a move to ensure that residents of single-room residential occupancy hotels get their mail, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is preparing for a lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service. The hotels are home to many low-income San Franciscans, including LGBTs.

In January, the postal service in San Francisco stopped delivering mail individually to many SRO residents, potentially leaving people's mail open to being misdirected or stolen.

Herrera said in a statement that undelivered mail has included checks, medical notices, appointment information, and personal letters. He told the Bay Area Reporter that the practice is "a direct threat" to SRO residents' health and safety.

"I think it's incredibly important we do whatever possible to ensure that some of our most vulnerable citizens are getting the individualized mail service they deserve and that they had been receiving," he told the B.A.R.

In 2006, the city enacted the Residential Hotel Mail Receptacle Ordinance, which requires SRO owners to make arrangements for installing mail receptacles for each unit.

In a December 2008 letter to Vivian Day, then-acting director of the Department of Building Inspection, San Francisco Postmaster Noemi Luna wrote that postal regulations "provide that single point service is the appropriate mode of delivery for mail addressed to persons in 'hotels, schools, and similar places.'"

Under single point delivery, mail is delivered "in bulk to building management," which is then responsible for distribution, she wrote.

Luna also wrote that her agency had extended delivery to individualized receptacles at some SROs, "which under postal service regulations was inconsistent with our policies." Luna added that federal law "preempts the application of non-federal laws that frustrate or interfere with the operations of the postal service."

Citing "fiscal shortages," she wrote that the postal service would no longer deliver mail to individual receptacles in SROs, except at buildings that had been getting individual delivery for more than 90 days.

James Wigdel, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service, said he couldn't provide comment, citing a possible pending legal matter.

In his statement, Herrera charged that the "discriminatory" mail delivery practice in San Francisco is outlawed by U.S. Postal Service regulations and violates constitutional guarantees, such as residents' First Amendment right to receive their mail.

"Mail service is not a privilege for the wealthy, and the San Francisco postmaster's decision to cut costs by treating SRO tenants differently than other city residents is unfair and cruel," Herrera said in the statement.

In a demand letter dated April 16 and sent to the U.S. Attorney's office, which was requested by an official in that office, Herrera outlined the basis for his intended lawsuit and gave the postal service two weeks to bring its mail delivery policy at SROs in line with the policy for other residential apartment buildings. If that deadline's not met, Herrera will file suit in federal court on May 1.

One resident who said she's been affected by the mail policy is Kendra Stewardson, a 58-year-old transsexual woman who lives in an SRO hotel in the city's Tenderloin neighborhood.

Stewardson said that currently the letter carrier delivers the mail to the front desk, and the desk clerk distributes the mail to individual "cubbyholes."

She said the problem is that "quite often" the clerk doesn't put the mail into the right slot.

Stewardson, a disabled Vietnam veteran who said she has post-traumatic stress disorder, said she was to have an evaluation for her disability pension, which she's hoping will increase. She said she gets about $960 a month from the Veterans Administration – her entire income.

She said she didn't get a letter from the Veterans Administration telling her that her appointment was on January 15 until more than a week after the appointment. She said the letter had been postmarked January 13.

"I've been trying desperately to get another appointment, and I think they were a little angry with me for missing the first one," said Stewardson.

She said she finally got a new appointment for April 30 – three and a half months after her initial appointment.

"We're the ones that really can't afford to miss our mail. It's that simple," Stewardson said of people who are in situations similar to hers. "Until my pension goes up, I'm kind of stuck. ... I can barely get by."

Herrera Sues O'Flynn for Ellis Eviction of Suval

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit yesterday against the landlord who issued an Ellis Act eviction action against longtime tenant Susan Suval in violation of a contract that provided City funds to pay for lead hazard reduction work at the property. Landlord Mark O’Flynn received $38,165 through the City’s Lead Hazard Reduction Program under a July 2005 agreement that he would continue to rent his property at 1672 Great Highway for at least five years to low- or moderate-income tenants. But as Beyond Chron has chronicled here, here, and here, O’Flynn violated the agreement and got a judge to deny Suval’s efforts to raise the breach as a defense to her eviction. The case is currently on appeal.

The press release issued on April 20 by the City Attorney’s office states:

According to the 12-page complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, O’Flynn completed the lead hazard reduction work in September 2005, but prevented the tenants who had lived at the property in the Outer Sunset for nearly 30 years from resuming their tenancy while he continued to make renovations. When he finally allowed family members to move back into the unit in Feb. 2006, his incomplete work rendered the shower inaccessible to his disabled tenant for several additional months.

Approximately a year after completing the lead hazard reduction work, O’Flynn and his wife initiated owner move-in eviction proceedings against the tenants, but were rebuffed by two separate trial court judgments. Then, in Aug. 2008, the O’Flynns filed suit under the Ellis Act—a state law that authorizes landlords to evict tenants by removing units from the rental market for at least two years—this time winning a court-ordered eviction on Jan. 7, 2009. Because O’Flynn’s eviction proceedings against his tenants violated the terms of his grant agreement, the City has twice demanded repayment of the lead abatement funds. But O’Flynn has not responded to those demands.

"State law may allow landlords to evict tenants by going out of the rental business—but it doesn’t authorize grant recipients to break their contracts with the City," Herrera said. "The Mayor’s Office of Housing administers the Lead Hazard Reduction Program to protect public health at rental units for low- and moderate-income tenants with children. It’s not a giveaway program for greedy landlords, and Mr. O’Flynn certainly knew that when he contracted to receive City grant funding. This lawsuit intends to get the City’s money back, and hopefully send a message that San Francisco expects its grant recipients to live up to their obligations—especially when it comes to protecting affordable housing."

Herrera’s civil suit includes breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations and seeks full compensatory damages in the sum of $38,165 plus additional costs and expenses to be determined, including the temporary relocation of O’Flynn’s tenants while the lead hazard reduction work was being completed. The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Mark O'Flynn, San Francisco Superior Court, filed April 20, 2009.

A copy of City Attorney's filing is available on the website at http://www.sfgov.org/cityattorney/

Herrera Names Stimpack "Legal Compliance" Taskforce

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

City Attorney Dennis Herrera has announced a stimulus spending taskforce, which he says will aim, " to coordinate legal compliance and guarantee maximum transparency, efficiency and accountability for city investments made possible by the federal government's recently enacted $787 billion economic stimulus package."

"Our paramount duty is to ensure that this unprecedented level of federal funding is invested honestly and in ways that deliver real value to our communities and our children -- we will not tolerate waste, fraud or abuse," Herrera said in a press release.

"When President Obama signed the recovery and stimulus package into law, he challenged all of us in public life to prove to the American people that their trust in government is not misplaced,” Herrera said.

The task force has a five-part mission, according to Herrera: to guarantee full public transparency for project planning, bidding and expenditures; assure stringent oversight and accountability over project expenditures, management and deliverables; fast-track processes to the greatest extent possible for contractors seeking to meet local and state requirements; coordinate citywide compliance in meeting federal application and auditing requirements; and thoroughly investigate and aggressively pursue waste, fraud or abuse, whether by public employees or private contractors.

Deputy City Attorney Robert Maerz, who leads Herrera's airport team, will chair Herrera's task force. Maerz is joined by Deputy City Attorney Sheryl Bregman, who serves on Herrera's construction team, Deputy City Attorney Ronald Flynn, who serves on Herrera's complex and special litigation team, Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen, who serves on Herrera's ethics team, Policy and Grants Manager Cynthia Caporizzo, who serves on Herrera's children and family services team, and Assistant Chief Investigator George Cothran, who serves on Herrera's Investigations Team.

Herrera notes that San Francisco has identified more than $2 billion in federal funding requests for local investments that include airport infrastructure and security upgrades, Muni service improvements, high-speed rail, creating green jobs, cost-saving medical records technology, and expanding broadband Internet access to underserved communities.

Now, if only the City's website, which the Department of Technology is constructing to track the money, were ready, we'd be able to get on with tracking just who is being stimulated by all this stimpack dinero.

They'll Have To Keep The Lights On For You Now

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

So the apartment building you live in was foreclosed on, and then PG&E shut off the power because the landlord didn't pay that bill either?

Well, that's now unlawful in San Francisco.

City officials today issued an order preventing private utilities from shutting off service to apartment and other multiunit residential buildings with master meters if the landlord fails to pay the bill.

Department of Building Inspection Director Vivian Day and City Attorney Dennis Herrera invoked a section of state law that allows the city to compel private utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to continue service when a building officer certifies it is necessary to protect public health or safety.

The declaration Day and Herrera signed says such shutoffs pose a "significant threat" to public wellbeing, in part because they prompt people to use dangerous means to heat their homes.

Herrera said the law was designed for "circumstances exactly such as these." The order is to remain in effect through Dec. 31, 2010.

The move comes after foreclosures spiked in 2008, increasing by as much as 450 percent in some city neighborhoods, according to Herrera's office. Foreclosures are primarily clustered in the city's southeast in neighborhoods like Bayview-Hunters Point and Visitacion Valley, officials say.

The Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, a nonprofit tenant advocacy group, reports seeing an average of one case per day where tenants' utilities were shut off through no fault of their own.

A PG&E spokesman said the company tries to work with tenants, including putting notices in the common areas of buildings that list tenants' rights and the company's foreclosure hotline: 800-850-9587 (staffed during business hours).

"We don't want to shut anyone off," spokesman Joe Molica said. "(Tenants) can take over service in their name and not have any past due amounts."

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which operates the city's publicly-owned water and wastewater utilities, has a policy against shutting off services to tenants because of landlord non-payment, so toilet flushing was not a worry.

Postal Service Slights Tenderloin SRO Dwellers

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Forget the economy and politics. The hot topic in the Tenderloin is mailboxes.

The issue is a 2006 city ordinance requiring single-room occupancy hotels to provide a locked mailbox for each of their residents. However, the U.S. Postal Service, citing financial constraints, says carriers can't take time to sort the mail for individual mailboxes, even though they do so at apartment houses and condominiums.

This makes no sense on any level. There is no group more likely to be living on the ragged edge of financial stability, and in general they live in a high-crime area. In other words, they are much more likely to be ripped off, and if they are, they're much more liable to suffer severe consequences.

Take the case of Leonard Kaczmarski, who was in a long-running dispute with the owners of his Tenderloin SRO. When he needed help to make his rent in December, his mother sent him a postal money order. The check was swiped; Kaczmarski couldn't make the rent. The hotel finally got its way and evicted him.

"If I had a locked mailbox, I'd still be living there," he said. "Instead, I lost my place, and now I'm in a shelter."

San Francisco Postal District spokesman James Wigdel said the post office is only following the national guidelines for hotels, which is to make a one-drop delivery.

"The spirit of the (city) ordinance is admirable," Wigdel said. "But we have to go with the spirit of the law."

City Attorney Dennis Herrera says he's about to show the Postal Service a little spirit of the law himself.

"There is no reason for the Postal Service to balance its budget on the backs of some of our most indigent groups," Herrera said. "We are building a case and expecting to move on this in fairly short order."

Interview with the San Francisco Chronicle

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Next month, the legality of Proposition 8 is scheduled to be heard by the state Supreme Court. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera will be there, as he's been since he first argued for the right to marry five years ago. Earlier this week, Herrera, 46, sat down for a chat on a couch in his spacious corner office paneled in wood and lined in legal volumes.

Q: Prediction on Prop. 8?

A: I don't have any idea. The other one, gay marriage, I thought we'd win 4-3.

Q: Nervous?

A: No, because I will not be arguing it. If I'm nervous about anything, it's that doing this job, you're managing over 300 people.

Q: Can this go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court?

A: No, because there is no federal claim.

Q: What about the tiger mauling case?

A: The insurance company for the zoological society is handling all negotiations, and we haven't been involved.

Q: When is your next campaign?

A: I'm up for re-election here in November. There are no term limits on city attorney. I'm looking forward to running and winning re-election to a third term. There is no more rewarding job, if you're an attorney, than this one.

Q: Are you running for mayor?

A: I'm just running for re-election right now. Some people have raised that possibility, but I haven't made any firm decisions.

Q: Have you been hit by staff cuts?

A: We have been hit with the budget crisis and I'm sure in the next year's budget we're going to be hit even harder. There are about 320 people on staff, and about 180 of them are lawyers. We just gave back five or six lawyer positions and a number of other staff positions.

Q: Growing up on Long Island, what did you want to be?

A: After I got over wanting to be a professional baseball player, I thought about being a journalist or a lawyer.

Q: Last book you finished?

A: "Truman," by David McCullough, is one of my favorite books. I just reread that.

Q: Next up?

A: There are a couple of books on my nightstand right now. "Parting the Waters" is about the civil rights movement, by Taylor Branch. "Big Daddy," which I just purchased, which is a biography of Jesse Unruh, former speaker of the California Legislature.

Q: How do you find time to read?

A: I don't.

Q: Last vacation?

A: Went back East this past summer. Did a little tour of Washington and New York with my 7-year-old.

Q: What's on your iPod?

A: I don't have an iPod.

Q: Favorite restaurant?

A: Delfina, Perbacco, Sam's Grill for lunch.

Q: Favorite order at Delfina?

A: I go up and down the menu. I'm an eclectic eater. I don't stick to one thing.

Q: Any regrets?

A: About what? I don't think you go through life with regrets. You just enjoy it for how you're living it and go forward.

Q: Motto or favorite saying?

A: "It is what it is."