Comments on: San Francisco locks Blacks out from building our own library

By: Renaldo Ricketts

Renaldo Ricketts — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:14:36 +0000

Enter text right here!

By: Shirley DeJesus

Shirley DeJesus — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:16:50 +0000

You should have gotten a copy and hand delivered it to the city, and received a written stamped receipt of received by the city. This is not right but this is an example of dot your i's and cross your t's. Don't let them have that opportunity to take something away from you. this is heartbreaking and I would change insurance companies they are just as much to blame as the city for this infraction.

By: sfbayview

sfbayview — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:15:19 +0000

@Pat, I had the same experience, but I did find the license. It's under K C K Builders (spaces between the letters). What's listed by the Contractors State License Board as their office is a little room inside another contractor's office, at 1320 Egbert on the edge of Bayview Hunters Point. Mike Hannegan didn't even list a Black "front" as a joint venture partner as the other bidders did. From the looks of his "office," with a desk and a couple of chairs and devoid of people when Willie Ratcliff stopped by, Hannegan looks like a front himself. For whom, who knows?

Mary Ratcliff, editor
SF Bay View

By: pat monk

pat monk — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:07:59 +0000

Curioser and curioser.
A search for KCK Builders turns up one outfit by that name, apparently with offices in San Rafael. Their is hardly any info on their site except for phone contacts for a Mike Hannegan. There is no Contractors License# on their site. A quick search of State Licensing Board showed no information on either the company or the individual in question.

By: Pat Monk

Pat Monk — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:03:19 +0000

City Hall makes it difficult for public to easily access information so don'y know if these will work, but a few suggestions:-
DPW.
dpw@sfdpw.org
ed.reiskin@sfgov.org Director
fuad.sweiis@sfgov.org Deputy
mohammed.nuru@sfgov.org Deputy
robert.carlson@sfgov.org Deputy
christine.falvey@sfgov.org Comm/Public Affairs

SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION
chris.schulman@sfgov.org
irene.riley@sfgov.org
janet.clyde@sfgov.org

OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
oca@sfgov.org
naomi.kelly@sfgov.org

CITY ADMINISTRATION
city.administration@sfgov.org
edwin.lee@sfgov.org

ETHICS COMMITTEE
eileen.hansen@sfgov.org
susan.harriman@sfgov.org
benedict.hur@sfgov.org
jamienne.studley@sfgov.org
charles.ward@sfgov.org.

Happoy hunting. Let me know if any of these work. Gonna send out a couple of tests.
Pat.

By: sfbayview

sfbayview — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:43:44 +0000

Absolutely! That kind of help would be a godsend. Ed Reiskin, director of the Department of Public Works, signed the order to rescind the award of the contract and rejected our request for reconsideration. Fuad Sweiss, deputy director of DPW, wrote the last and several other threatening letters; we managed to meet his other deadlines. The decision to rescind had to have been approved by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who we hold ultimately responsible.

The insurance brokerage is Statewide Insurance Brokers, http://www.st8wide.com, License No. 0F27246, headquartered in Pasadena. If they'd been nearby, we could have picked up and hand delivered a copy of that certificate ourselves. That wasn't our first problem with them. You may remember our last minute plea for help in paying for the liability insurance. Statewide had quoted us a price, which we paid. Then they admitted that policy wouldn't meet City requirements (which we had sent them at the get-go) and at the last minute charged an additional $5,000, which we didn't have as the City's deadline loomed. Thanks to an outpouring of pledges totaling three times what we needed (we accepted only the amount needed) in one day, we were able to meet that deadline.

We didn't seek the contract nor are we fighting the loss of it just for Liberty Builders. This is the largest contract San Francisco ever awarded to Blacks and the ONLY contract in over a decade. Bayview Hunters Point is constantly cited as the part of San Francisco where most of the construction will take place in the foreseeable future. Unless we fight back, Blacks will continue to be locked out of construction and pushed out of San Francisco.

Mary Ratcliff on behalf of Willie Ratcliff, Liberty Builders

By: Patrick Monk.RN.

Patrick Monk.RN. — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:45:16 +0000

Is it 'permissable' to publish the names of our employees at City Hall who had anything to do with this travesty, also the broker in question. If any one has the time or expertise, it would be interesting to research any prior or current relationships or dealings between the individuals involved, the smoking gun of collusion has to be stashed somehere.
Patrick Monk.RN.

By: sfbayview

sfbayview — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:14:51 +0000

In response to Ann's question, you're likely to run into restrictions when attempting to enter the industry unless you're related to someone already in. It's an under-the-radar way to maintain the racial status quo.

By: sfbayview

sfbayview — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:23:12 +0000

Here's the City's excuse for rescinding the contract: Though Liberty Builders had bought the required commercial auto policy when awarded the contract, the broker had neglected to send the certificate of insurance to the City. Liberty didn't know that. In November, the City noticed the omission and emailed a warning they would rescind the contract for that reason if they didn't receive the certificate the following day. Despite Liberty's pressure, the broker neglected to submit it until two days later. The City rescinded the contract.
Mary Ratcliff on behalf of Willie Ratcliff, Liberty Builders

By: Ann_Garrison

Ann_Garrison — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:24:37 +0000

"Over the years, this infection has evolved under local and national laws. These laws have favored those who bring legacy to the game. Big unions and big contractors have conspired to restrict the number of contractors and workers who may enter the industry. These restrictions do not apply to familial relationships."

Could we get a clarification of this sentence? "These restrictions do not apply to familial relationships."