Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> NEXT ON "KQED NEWS ROOM."
PRESIDENT OBAMA VISITS
CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL VALLEY
PLEDGING TO HELP FARMERS
AFFECTED BY THE DROUGHT.
PLUS A LOOK AT HOW THE
ENDANGERED COHO SALMON ARE
FARING.
>> THE DROUGHT MEANS LOW FLOWS,
LOW WATER LEVELS IN THE CREEK.
>>> PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES ON THE
RISE.
WHY ARE BAY AREA STREETS SO
DANGEROUS?
>>> A LOOK BACK ON TEN YEARS OF
THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE IN
SAN FRANCISCO AND BEYOND.
>> AND LOOK WHERE WE ARE TEN
YEARS FROM NOW, WE COULD HAVE
NEVER IMAGINED WE WOULD BE WHERE
WE ARE NOW.
>>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO
KQED "NEWSROOM."
I'M THUY VU.
THE CURRENT DROUGHT IS
THREATENING AS MUCH AS 500,000
ACRES OF CALIFORNIA'S RICHEST
FARMLAND.
PRESIDENT OBAMA ALONG WITH
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN VISITED THE
CENTRAL VALLEY THIS AFTERNOON TO
SEE THE DROUGHT'S IMPACT IN
PERSON.
>> CALIFORNIA'S OUR BIGGEST
ECONOMY.
CALIFORNIA IS OUR BIGGEST
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER.
SO WHAT HAPPENS HERE MATTERS TO
EVERY WORKING AMERICAN.
RIGHT DOWN TO THE COST OF FOOD
THAT YOU PUT ON YOUR TABLE.
>> THE PRESIDENT PLEDGED
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEDERAL
AID.
SCOTT SHAFER HAS BEEN FOLLOWING
THE DEVELOPMENTS AND HE JOINS US
NOW.
>> HI, THUY.
>> WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT OFFER
IN TERMS OF DROUGHT RELIEF AID?
>> THE PRESIDENT OFFERED A
PACKAGE OF $183 MILLION.
IT'S NOT NEW MONEY.
A LOT OF IT WAS IN THE FARM BILL
HE SIGNED.
THE BIG TICKET ITEM IS $100
MILLION FOR LIVESTOCK DISASTER
ASSISTANCE AND STREAMLINING THE
PROGRAM.
IT SOMETIMES TAKES RANCHERS A
YEAR TO GET MONEY IN THEIR
POCKETS.
THEY'RE PROMISING THAT WILL BE
SCALED DOWN TO TWO MONTHS.
$60 MILLION FOR FOOD BANKS IN
THE REGION.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, FARMERS,
THEIR FAMILIES, AS WELL AS FARM
WORKERS ARE GOING TO BE HURTING
AS THIS DROUGHT GOES ON.
THAT WILL HELP PROVIDE FOOD TO
FOLKS WHO ARE OUT OF WORK OR
STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
>> AND MONEY FOR CONSERVATION
EFFORTS AS WELL.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
LET'S BE HONEST, IT WAS A PHOTO
OP FOR THE PRESIDENT.
DEMOCRATS ARE KIND OF ON THE --
BACK ON THEIR HEELS A LITTLE BIT
ON THIS ISSUE.
AND OF COURSE WHAT THEY REALLY
NEED IS MORE RAIN.
AND THE PRESIDENT CAN'T BRING
THAT, NEITHER CAN THE GOVERNOR
OR ANYONE ELSE.
AT LEAST HE CAN SHOW THAT HE'S
CONCERNED AND MEET WITH ALL THE
RIGHT PEOPLE AND ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS AND SHOW, IN FACT,
THAT WASHINGTON IS PAYING
ATTENTION.
>> AND PRESIDENT OBAMA DID SPEND
A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT
EXACTLY?
>> HE DID.
AND THIS RURAL AMERICA IS NOT
REAL EXCITED ABOUT THE IDEA OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
IN FACT, DEVIN NUNEZ, THE
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER DR.
THIS AREA, CALLS IT ABSOLUTE
NONSENSE.
BUT THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT,
ALTHOUGH YOU CAN'T BLAME ANY
PARTICULAR WEATHER EVENT ON
CLIMATE CHANGE, THAT IT IS
LEADING TO EXTREME WEATHER AND
WE HAVE TO BE READY FOR THAT.
HE POINTED OUT THAT CALIFORNIA'S
WATER WARS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN
A ZERO SUM GAME, THAT'S GOT TO
CHANGE.
HE SAID WE NEED TO GET HOLD ON
CARBON EMISSIONS AND UNTIL WE DO
THAT, HE SAID, AND AS SCIENTISTS
WOULD MOSTLY AGREE, THERE'S
GOING TO BE MORE EXTREME
CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF RAIN,
FLOODS, FIRES, AND ALL THE REST.
>> HE'S PROPOSING A $1 BILLION
CLIMATE RESILIENCE PROGRAM.
HOW ARE REPUBLICANS LIKELY TO
RECEIVE THAT?
HOW DO YOU THINK HIS VISIT HERE
WILL AFFECT THE RESPONSE TO THE
DROUGHT BY LAWMAKERS?
>> HE DID SET UP THESE CLIMATE
HUBS WHICH ARE BASICALLY
RESEARCH AREAS TO HELP FARMERS
AND FARMS BECOME MORE RESILIENT
IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EXTREME
WEATHER.
YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE, LIKE
VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING ELSE IN
WASHINGTON, HAS BECOME VERY
PARTIS
PARTISAN.
REPUBLICANS BLAME THE DROUGHT ON
DEMOCRATS.
THEY SAY THIS IS LARGELY THE
RESULT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICIES, SPECIFICALLY THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
AND DEMOCRATS SAY, WE'RE NOT
ELIMINATING THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT, THAT'S A
NONSTARTER.
REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE PASSED
A BILL TO LOOSEN ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND
SOMETHING, IF THEY CAN FIND
ANYTHING TO AGREE ON.
THE PRESIDENT SAYS TODAY IS
REALLY, LIKE I SAID ABOUT
SHOWING THE FLAG, GIVING A
LITTLE SUPPORT TO DEMOCRATS WHO
ARE SOMEWHAT VULNERABLE ON THIS
ISSUE.
>> AND YOU MENTIONED THE BILL
PASSED BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS.
AND DEMOCRATS COUNTERED THIS
WEEK WITH SENATORS DIANNE
FEINSTEIN AND BARBARA BOXER,
THEY PROPOSED THEIR OWN DOUBT
RELIEF PACKAGE.
>> THEY DID.
IT ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
$300 MILLION PACKAGE OF SUPPORT
FOR FARMERS, IT WOULD MAKE IT
EASIER FOR WATER AGENCIES MORE
FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE WATER AROUND
TO GET TO IT PLACES SEVERELY HIT
BY THIS DROUGHT.
>> GOVERNOR BROWN HAS BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THE DROUGHT THIS
WEEK.
HE WAS WITH THE PRESIDENT TODAY
IN FRESNO.
HE HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN PERCEIVED
AS A FRIEND OF AGRICULTURE.
SO WHAT IS HE SAYING ABOUT ALL
THIS?
>> YOU'RE RIGHT, HE HASN'T BEEN.
THOSE WHO REMEMBER THE FIRST
TIME HE WAS GOVERNOR THERE WAS
THE MED FLY, HIS CHIEF JUSTICE
WAS NOT FRIENDLY TO AGRICULTURE
AT ALL.
HE'S BEEN VAGUE THIS WEEK.
HE WAS CRITICAL OF WHAT THE
HOUSE REPUBLICANS DID, SAYING IT
WAS VERY DIVISIVE AND DOESN'T DO
ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.
BUT HE ALSO SAID, I CAN'T MAKE
IT RAIN.
HE SAID, WE JUST NEED TO TALK,
THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE
POLITICAL JOB-OWNING TO TRY TO
FIND COMMON GROUND.
BUT HE'S BEEN VERY UNSPECIFIC
ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> A STATE SENATE COMMITTEE THIS
WEEK PASSED A WATER BOND TO PUT
ON THE BALLOT.
WHAT IS HE SAYING ABOUT THAT?
>> WELL, HE'S TRYING TO AVOID
SAYING MUCH OF ANYTHING.
BECAUSE THERE WAS AN $11 BILLION
WATER BOND PASSED IN 2009 THAT
WAS LOADED UP WITH PORK
PROJECTS, BIKE LANES AND
EVERYTHING ELSE.
THEY KNOW THAT ISN'T GOING TO
FLY WITH VOTERS.
SO NOW THIS WEEK THEY PASSED A
MUCH SLIMMER VERSION.
$7 BILLION.
THERE'S ANOTHER PROPOSAL OUT
THERE FLOATING AROUND IN THE
ASSEMBLY.
BUT THE GOVERNOR SEEMS VERY
RELUCTANT TO PUT IT ON THE
BALLOT.
HE SAID, LOOK, WHETHER I SUPPORT
IT OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER IF
VOTERS DON'T SUPPORT IT.
HE'S BEING VERY CAUTIOUS.
I TALKED TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN
AND SHE REALLY IS SAYING, LOOK,
THE GOVERNOR IS DOING WELL NO
MATTERw3 WHAT, HE OUGHT TO REALLY
PUT THESE BONDS ON THE BALLOT,
NOW IS THE TIME.
>> HE'S ALSO, IF YOU BELIEVE
WHAT'S PUT OUT THERE, IS
PROBABLY GOING TO RUN FOR
RE-ELECTION AND HE PROBABLY
DOESN'T WANT TO PUT A BOND ON
THE BALLOT.
>> ESPECIALLY HE'S RUNNING ON
I'M THE GUY TO CLEANED UP THE
BUDGET, LIVING WIND OUR MEANS,
ALL OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE AND
ANALYSIS.
>>> THE DROUGHT IS TAKING A TOLL
NOT ONLY ON FIELDS AND FARMS BUT
ALSO ON FISH, INCLUDING THE
ENDANGERED COHO SALMON.
LOW WATER LEVELS HAVE PREVENTED
MANY ADULT CALIFORNIA COHO FROM
REACHING THEIR SPAWNING GROUNDS
IN CREEKS LIKE LAGUNITAS IN
MARIN COUNTY.
LAST WEEK'S RAIN BROUGHT A
MEASURE OF RELIEF ALLOWING SOME
SALMON THROUGH.
BUT AS REPORTER DAN BREKKE
FOUND, RELIEF MAY BE TEMPORARY.
>> Reporter: THE FIRST BIG RAINS
OF THE SEASON DRAW COHO SALMON
BACK TO LAGUNITAS CREEK.
WITH ONLY A FEW HUNDRED ADULT
COHO RETURNING HERE ANNUAL TO
SPAWN THESE FISH ARE FIGHTING
FOR SURVIVAL.
NOW THEY FACE A NEW THREAT,
CALIFORNIA'S DROUGHT.
TO FIND OUT HOW THE FISH ARE
DOING I MET UP WITH GREG ANDREW,
A FISH BIOLOGIST WITH THE MARIN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, AND
HIS INTERN ROSA ALBANESE.
>> WE'VE GOT WADERS FOR YOU.
YOU CAN PUT THESE ON, KEEP YOU
DRY.
>> THEY LET ME JOIN THEM ON A
SURVEY TO TRACK FRESH SPAWNING
ACTIVITY IN LAGUNITAS CREEK, ONE
OF THE LAST STRONGHOLDS FOR WILD
COHO SALMON ON THE CENTRAL
COAST.
>> RIGHT AWAY WE'VE GOT TWO NEST
SITES WHERE THE FEMALE HAS LAID
HER EGGS AND THE MALE HAS
FERTILIZED THOSE.
>> I GAVE GREG A HAND MEASURING
THE SPAWNING NEST SITE.
>> THAT'S GOOD.
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACTLY THERE
BUT PRETTY CLOSE.
7.2.
>> NORMALLY THE COHO IN THE
LAGUNITAS WATERSHED FINISH
SPAWNING IN MID-JANUARY.
BUT THE DROUGHT HAS CHANGED THE
FISH'S BEHAVIOR PUSHING THE
SPAWNING SEASON WELL INTO
FEBRUARY.
>> WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THAT
THOSE FISH WERE OUT IN
TOMORROW'S BAY HOLDING AND JUST
WAITING.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE
ACTUALLY SEEN THIS HAPPEN.
>> THE FISH WAITED FOR A BIG
STORM, A MUCH-NEEDED EVENT THAT
CAME LAST WEEK WHEN MORE THAN A
FOOT OF RAIN SOAKED MARIN
COUNTY.
THAT DELUGE PROMPTED 100 COHO TO
SURGE INTO THE CREEK TO SPAWN
AND THEN DIE.
>> THIS IS A COHO CARCASS.
>> BEAUTIFUL.
>> SPAWN AND DIE.
>> AS ROSA AND GREG TAKE
MEASUREMENTS AND TISSUE SAMPLES,
I'M REMINDED THAT EVEN IN DEATH,
THIS COHO IS A CRITICAL LINK IN
THE ECOSYSTEM CARRYING NUTRIENTS
INTO THE SOIL TO NOURISH
TOWERING REDWOODS AT THE WATER'S
EDGE.
AS WE HEAD UPSTREAM, WE FINALLY
GET A GLIMPSE OF THESE
REMARKABLE FISH AND THEIR
STRUGGLE TO PASS ON THEIR DNA.
>> OH, WOW.
THAT'S AWESOME.
USE YOUR BINOCULARS AND GET A
GOOD LOOK AT THOSE GUYS.
>> TWO BRAWNY MALES PUSH AND
BITE TO GET ACCESS TO A NEARBY
FEMALE, WAITING FOR A CHANCE TO
FERTILIZE HER EGGS.
WE EVEN SPOT ANOTHER THREATENED
SPECIES OF FISH, A STEELHEAD
TROUT.
>> SO FAR TO DATE, WE HAVE
COUNTED ABOUT 165 COHO REDS IN L
LAGUNITAS CREEK, WE'VE SEEN
CLOSE TO 300 COHO SALMON.
THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER.
AND JUST A WEEK AGO, WE HAD LESS
THAN HALF THAT.
>> THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT RELEASES WATER YEAR
ROUND TO HELP NOT ONLY MIGRATING
ADULT COHO BUT ALSO THE YOUNG
THAT LIVE HERE FOR MORE THAN A
YEAR BEFORE SWIMMING OUT TO SEA.
BUT WITH THE DROUGHT, THE
RESERVOIRS ARE WELL BELOW
CAPACITY.
>> THE DROUGHT MEANS LOW FLOWS,
LOW WATER LEVELS IN THE CREEK,
WHICH IS BAD FOR ANY FISH.
AND CERTAINLY BAD FOR THE COHO
SALMON OF CALIFORNIA.
>> WITH STEPS RANGING FROM
BUILDING DEBRIS STRUCTURES TO
PROVIDE A REFUGE FOR FISH, TO
THE STATE'S RECENT BAN ON
FISHING IN COASTAL STREAMS, THE
FIGHT TO SAVE THE COHO FOR
FUTURE GENERATIONS PRESSES
AHEAD.
>> THESE ARE FISH THAT DON'T
BELONG TO ME OR YOU OR THE
PEOPLE OF MARIN COUNTY.
THEY ARE A RESOURCE TO THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
THEY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA.
I THINK PEOPLE VIEW THE STATUS
OF THE POPULATION AS AN
INDICATOR OF THE HEALTH OF THEIR
OWN ENVIRONMENT.
AS THE SALMON GO, SO GOES THEIR
ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO GOES THEIR STATE OF
WELL-BEING LIVING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA.
>>> PEDESTRIAN DEATHS CONTINUE
TO BE IN THE NEWS FOLLOWING THIS
WEEK'S FATAL CRASH IN SAN
FRANCISCO ON VAN NESS AVENUE.
THERE WERE 21 SUCH FATALITIES IN
SAN FRANCISCO IN 2013.
IT WAS ALSO A PARTICULARLY
DEADLY YEAR IN SAN JOSE WITH 26
FATAL PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS, THE
HIGHEST NUMBER IN NEARLY TWO
DECADES.
WHAT'S BEHIND THE SPIKE?
JOINING ME FOR A LOOK AT WHAT
CAN BE DONE TO CURB THE PROBLEM
ARE NICOLE SCHNEIDER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF WALK SAN FRANCISCO.
AND CHRIS HWANG, BOARD PRESIDENT
OF WALK OAKLAND, BIKE OAKLAND.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.
NICOLE, I WANTED TO ASK YOU,
FIRST OF ALL, WHY ARE THE NUMBER
OF PEDESTRIAN DEATHS RISING IN
LARGE CITIES LIKE SAN FRANCISCO,
LIKE SAN JOSE?
>> YOU KNOW, WE DON'T REALLY
KNOW EXACTLY WHY THEORIZING OVER
THE LAST YEAR, FOR INSTANCE.
BUT WE KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTIONS
ARE.
SO WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON
MAKING PROGRESS AND MAKING A
CHANGE RIGHT NOW.
>> COULD THINGS LIKE TECHNOLOGY,
THE USE OF MOBILE DEVICES, BE TO
BLAME?
WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY'S PICKING
UP, MORE PEOPLE ARE ON THE
ROADS, COULD THOSE ARE FACTORS
AS WELL?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA.
BUT I KNOW THAT FOR MANY, MANY
DECADES WE'VE BEEN DESIGNING OUR
CITIES TO BRING CARS THROUGH THE
STREETS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND THAT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY.
AND I THINK THAT THAT CONCEPT
AND PRIORITY IS TRULY OUTDATED.
AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
>> SO WHAT IS TRULY THE CAUSE?
YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND THE ROADWAY
FACTORS.
BUT IS IT PRIMARILY A CASE OF
DRIVERS NOT BEING CAREFUL
ENOUGH?
OR ARE PEDESTRIANS TO BLAME IN A
FAIR NUMBER OF THESE ACCIDENTS
AS WELL?
>> YOU KNOW, IN SAN FRANCISCO WE
FOUND THAT 66% OF THE TIME THE
FAULT IS OF -- THE DRIVER'S
FAULT IN TERMS OF COLLISION.
AND PEDESTRIANS ARE AT FAULT THE
REST OF THE TIME.
THIS IS IN TERMS OF POLICE DATA.
BUT I THINK WHEN WE TAKE A STEP
BACK AND LOOK AT THE BIGGER
PICTURE, WE SHOULD -- THIS IS
THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.
WHEN -- IN THE LAST TEN WEEKS IN
SAN FRANCISCO, 11 PEOPLE WERE
STRUCK AND KILLED TRYING TO
CROSS THE STREET.
THIS IS A CRISIS THAT THE CITY
NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR.
SO WE KNOW HOW TO SOLVE THESE
PROBLEMS.
WE KNOW THAT THE CITY CAN
PREVENT THESE TRAFFIC COLLISIONS
FROM HAPPENING.
SO RATHER THAN I THINK FIGURING
OUT WHO'S TO BLAME, WE'RE TRYING
TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT
HOW WE CAN PREVENT THEM FROM
HAPPENING.
>> THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN
CITIES.
THAT IS WHAT -- WHERE WE'RE
HEADED TOWARDS.
AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING
TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN CITIES.
IT MAKES OUR CITIES MOReB
VIBRANT, THERE ARE GREAT
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE IT'S GREAT
TO SEE PEOPLE AROUND.
AND IT'S MUCH MORE FUN.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE
HAVE TO WORK WITH.
AND THIS IS OUR NEW REALITY.
AND WE NEED TO WORK TOWARDS A
GOOD SOLUTION THAT IS
ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE AND
VIABLE FOR ALL USERS OF THE
ROADWAY.
>> SO THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER
OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE.
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME CITIES HAVE
WIDENED THEIR SIDEWALKS.
IN SAN FRANCISCO IF YOU DRIVE ON
MARKET YOU CAN SEE THE BIKE
LANES ARE PAINTED BRIGHT GREEN
SO THAT IT'S EASIER TO SEE.
WHAT ELSE DO CITIES NEED TO DO?
>> IN SAN FRANCISCO, WE
PARTNERED WITH A GROUP OF
COMMUNITY COALITIONS, INCLUDING
THE BIKE COALITION, TO WORK WITH
THE CITY TO ADOPT WHAT'S CALLED
VISION ZERO.
THAT'S ZERO TRAFFIC FATALITIES
IN TEN YEARS.
AND WE'RE DOING THAT THROUGH
ENFORCEMENT, ENGINEERING SAFER
STREETS, AND EDUCATING THE
PUBLIC AND DRIVERS ESPECIALLY,
ENGAGING OUR COMMUNITY,
COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS, COMMUNITY
RESIDENTS, AROUND THESE ISSUES.
THEN EVALUATING OUR PROGRESS.
WE CALL IT THE FIVE Es.
IN TERMS OF ENGINEERING WE THINK
THAT'S THE BIGGEST PIECE.
SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC.
WE KNOW THAT WHEN TRAFFIC IS AT
40 MILES PER HOUR, PEDESTRIANS
THAT ARE HIT BY CARS HAVE A 5%
CHANCE OF LIVING.
AT 20 MILES PER HOUR, IF YOU'RE
HIT BY A CAR AS A PEDESTRIAN,
YOU HAVE AN 85% CHANCE OF
LIVING.
>> SO A HUGE DIFFERENCE THERE.
>> IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
JUST BY SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC, WE
CAN SAVE LIVES.
>> AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING GROUPS OUT
THERE.
AND EVERY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT THAT GOES THROUGH THE
CITY OF OAKLAND HAS TO GO
THROUGH SOME TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.
SO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE'RE
ASKING THE CITY TO DO IS UPDATE
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND
TO REALLY IMPLEMENT WHAT THEY
HAVE RECENTLY ADOPTED AS THE
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY.
AND THAT IS DESIGNING STREETS
AND ROADWAYS SO THAT IT'S SAFE
AND COMFORTABLE FOR ALL USERS OF
THE ROADWAY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE
LEARNED NATIONALLY AS BEST
PRACTICE.
IT'S A FRAMEWORK THAT CALIFORNIA
ACTUALLY ADOPTED IN 2008.
AND I THINK THAT WE'RE CATCHING
ON.
AND IT REQUIRES ADVOCACY GROUPS
LIKE WALK OAKLAND, BIKE OAKLAND
TO CHASE DOWN THE PLANNERS AND
TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO FOLLOW
THROUGH.
>> SO FAR WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT DEATHS.
AND TALKING -- WE'VE BEEN
TALKING PEDESTRIAN DEATHS.
BUT BICYCLISTS DIE AS A RESULT
OF THESE COLLISIONS AS WELL.
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF DEATHS
ARE IN THE DOZENS, WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT INJURIES, IT SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASES TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.
WHAT IS IT LIKE IN SAN FRANCISCO
IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
INJURED?
>> YEAH, IN SAN FRANCISCO WE
KNOW THAT THREE PEDESTRIANS ARE
HIT BY CARS A DAY.
>> A DAY?
>> A DAY.
IF YOU LOOK AT SAN FRANCISCO
GENERAL HOSPITAL'S TRAUMA
CENTER, 1 IN 4 OF THE VICTIMS --
1 IN 4 PATIENTS ARE VICTIMS OF
TRAFFIC CRIMES.
SO THEY'RE PEDESTRIANS WHO HAVE
BEEN HIT BY CARS.
1 IN 4.
>> THAT'S AN ASTOUNDING
STATISTIC.
THE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTING DID A BIG REPORT THIS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SAN
FRANCISCO D.A. GEORGE GASCON
SAID IN THEIR REPORT, RECKLESS
DRIVING INJURES HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE A YEAR.
IF WE HAD THIS MANY PEOPLE BEING
SHOT EVERY YEAR, PEOPLE WOULD BE
JUMPING UP AND DOWN.
IN HIS MIND, RECKLESS DRIVING IS
JUST AS BAD AS PEOPLE USING A
FIREARM RECKLESSLY.
SO WHY IS IT DO YOU THINK THAT
THE PEDESTRIAN DEATHS AND
ROADWAY SAFETY OFTEN ISN'T THAT
THE TOP OF PEOPLE'S LISTS OF
CONCERNS, WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT OTHER THINGS LIKE THE
ECONOMY, PERHAPS, OR THE
DROUGHT?
>> I THINK, AT LEAST IN SAN
FRANCISCO, IT'S A CULTURE THAT
WE'VE GOT AROUND DRIVING.
WHERE WE ASSUME THAT IT'S AN
ACCIDENT WHEN SOMEBODY GETS HIT
BY A CAR.
WHEN A DRIVER HITS SOMEBODY,
IT'S JUST AN ACCIDENT.
THEY DIDN'T MEAN TO DO IT.
BUT REALLY, IF WE TAKE A STEP
BACK AND LOOK AT WERE THEY
SPEEDING?
WERE THEY DISTRACTED?
WHAT'S THE SITUATION IN THE
ROADWAY?
WAS THE INTERSECTION LIT?
IS THE ROADWAY TOO WIDE?
HOW IS THE STREET DESIGNED?
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY STARTING TO
SHIFT THAT CULTURE THROUGH
VISION ZERO.
AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
ACTUALLY TOOK "ACCIDENT" OUT OF
THEIR VOCABULARY, THEY'RE USING
THE WORD "COLLISION."
WE KNOW IN EVERY SITUATION,
SOMEBODY IS AT FAULT.
AND THIS IS COMING BACK TO THE
POINT THAT THESE MISSIONS A S --
COLLISIONS ARE PREVENTIBLE,
THEY'RE NOT ACCIDENTS.
>> EVEN WITH THE CHANGE IN
COLLISION LANGUAGE, ARE THE
PENALTIES FOR THESE ACCIDENTS
HEAVY ENOUGH?
BECAUSE BACK IN 1945, THE LAWS
CHANGED.
IT USED TO BE MANSLAUGHTER
STATUTE.
BUT THEN CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS
PUT INTO PLACE SOMETHING CALLED
VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER.
THE RANGE OF SENTENCES FOR THAT
WAS REDUCED.
YOU COULD ALSO HAVE THE OPTION
OF MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR AND
NOT A FELONY.
ARE THE PENALTIES SEVERE ENOUGH?
>> YOU KNOW, I -- I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T THINK THAT -- I THINK
THAT IF YOU HIT SOMEONE FROM
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR, JUST
BECAUSE YOU'RE BEHIND THE WHEEL
OF A CAR DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU
DIDN'T KILL SOMEBODY.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ARREST
PEOPLE WHO HIT AND KILL OTHER
PEOPLE, OR HIT AND INJURE OTHER
PEOPLE.
ACTUALLY, UNTIL LAST MONTH, THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T EVEN
CITE PEOPLE WHO HIT AND INJURED
PEOPLE.
AS DRIVERS.
SO -- IN ONE INSTANCE, A WOMAN
WAS WALK ACROSS THE STREET.
ANOTHER DRIVER RAN A RED LIGHT,
HIT HER.
SHE WAS IN THE ICU FOR A MONTH.
SEVERE DISABILITY AS A RESULT.
AND THE DRIVER WALKED AWAY SCOT
FREE.
NO PENALTIES AT ALL.
THE STORY WAS SHARED WITH THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AT A HEARING
LAST MONTH AND THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY CHANGED
THEIR PRACTICE.
SO NOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY CITING
PEOPLE.
BUT IS THAT ENOUGH?
I DON'T THINK SO.
>> SO DOES IT SEEM LIKE THERE'S
ENOUGH PROGRESS IN TERMS OF CITY
LAWMAKERS COMING AROUND?
>> I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY
MOVEMENT.
THERE'S DESIRE TO CHANGE THE WAY
WE THINK ABOUT PLANNING OUR
CITIES.
I THINK WHAT WE ALSO MISS BY
FOCUSING A LOT ABOUT -- ON
COLLISION DATA IS WHAT'S NOT
BEING RECORDED.
AND IT'S THAT EVEN IN ROADWAYS
WHERE THERE AREN'T COLLISIONS
RECORDED, PEOPLE STILL DO NOT
FEEL SAFE WALKING.
I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM.
>> OKAY.
DEFINITELY A SERIOUS PROBLEM AS
YOU BOTH HAVE MADE VERY CLEAR.
NICOLE SCHNEIDER AND CHRIS
HWANG, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING
HERE.
>>> ON THIS VALENTINE'S DAY, A
LANDMARK ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATED
AT SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL.
>> 4,036 COUPLES CAME TOGETHER
TO DO SOMETHING NO MORE
EXTRAORDINARY THAN THIS, JUST
SAY "I DO."
IT WAS A CELEBRATION OF THE MOST
POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT THING IN
LIFE, AND THAT'S LOVE.
>> IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO WHEN
THEN-MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO
GAVIN NEWSOM BEGAN ISSUING
MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME-SEX
COUPLES AT CITY HALL, TRIGGERING
YEARS OF WRANGLING IN THE COURTS
AND AT THE BALLOT BOX.
LAST YEAR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
HAD THE FINAL SAY INVALIDATING
PROP 8 AND RESTORING GAY
MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA.
IT ALSO STRUCK DOWN PART OF THE
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND PUBLIC
OPINION HAVE BEEN RAPIDLY
CHANGING.
NOW 17 STATES ALLOW GAY
MARRIAGE.
JUST YESTERDAY, VIRGINIA BECAME
THE LATEST STATE TO HAVE ITS BAN
ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE STRUCK DOWN
BY A FEDERAL JUDGE.
KATE KENDALL WITH THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS HAS
BEEN INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE
EQUALITY LITIGATION FOR YEARS.
SHE SPOKE WITH SCOTT SHAFER
EARLIER TODAY.
>> KATE KENDALL, WELCOME AND
HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY.
>> TO YOU AS WELL, THANK YOU.
>> THINK BACK A DECADE, 2004
THIS WEEK, FEBRUARY.
PANDEMONIUM, EUPHORIA, AT CITY
HALL.
BUT ALSO CONCERN ABOUT WHERE IT
WAS LEADING.
DID YOU EVER THINK WE'D BE WHERE
WE ARE TODAY, TEN YEARS LATER,
WITH 17 STATES ALLOWING SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE AND ALL THE REST?
>> NEVER.
NEVER.
I KNEW THAT WE WERE STARTING
SOMETHING BIG.
AND THAT IT WAS GOING TO CASCADE
IN SOME WAY.
WHAT I COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED
WAS THE ACCELERANT THAT IT WOULD
BE TO PEOPLE COMING TO AN
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE REALITY
OF THE LIVES OF SAME-SEX COUPLES
AND LGBT PEOPLE.
IT REALLY WAS, WITH THE BENEFIT
OF HINDSIGHT NOW, TEN YEARS, A
GROUNDBREAKING MOMENT.
>> WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THAT TIME
THAT REALLY TRIGGERED EVERYTHING
THAT FOLLOWED?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK OF
THAT TIME IN 2004.
THERE WAS STILL A HUGE DIVISION.
IF YOU WERE REPUBLICAN AND
CONSERVATIVE, YOU WERE OPPOSED
TO THE IDEA OF SAME-SEX COUPLES
GETTING MARRIED OR GAY RIGHTS
GENERALLY.
IF YOU WERE LIBERAL OR
PROGRESSIVE AND A DEMOCRAT, YOU
WERE IN FAVOR.
AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE TEN
YEARS SINCE IS THAT THAT
DIVIDING LINE HAS TOTALLY MELTED
AWAY.
NOW, OF COURSE, YOU STILL HAVE
SOME FACTIONS.
BUT MANY REPUBLICANS SUPPORT
MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
MANY CONSERVATIVES,
SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES,
SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS.
IT TRULY PROVIDED A LENS, I
THINK, THROUGH WHICH PEOPLE
COULD EXAMINE THEIR OWN
STEREOTYPES OR THEIR PREJUDICES
THAT I THINK MAYBE NOTHING ELSE
WOULD HAVE.
>> THERE WERE MANY UPS AND
DOWNS.
THOSE INITIAL MARRIAGES WERE
INVALIDATED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.
WAS THERE A MOMENT THAT WAS THE
LOW POINT.
>> THE PASSAGE OF PROP 8.
WHEN I STOOD ON THE SUPREME
COURT STEPS WHEN WE WON THE
DECISION AND WE HAD MARRIAGE IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE RIGHT OF
SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY HAD
BEEN AFFIRMED, THAT WAS PROBABLY
THE ZENITH OF MY CAREER.
CERTAINLY THE NADIR OF MY CAREER
WAS WHEN PROP 8 PASSED.
THAT WAS THE LOWEST MOMENT I CAN
IMAGINE IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.
>> THERE WERE A LOT OF LGBT
LEGAL GROUPS THAT OPPOSED
CHALLENGING PROP 8 IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND GAY RIGHTS
ADVOCATES HAD AVOIDED THE
FEDERAL COURTS.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO THAT WAS A ROLL OF THE
DICE, WASN'T IT?
>> YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME -- WE
FELT LIKE THE IDEA OF TED OLSON
AND DAVID BOIES --
>> THE TWO ATTORNEYS WHO --
>> WHO CHALLENGED PROP 8
FEDERALLY, THEIR INVOLVEMENT
FELT TO US LIKE A REAL GAME
CHANGER.
BUT EVERYONE KNEW THAT WHEN YOU
TAKE A CASE TO THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT --
>> YOU DON'T KNOW.
>> YOU'RE TALKING BIG STAKES.
AND WE WEREN'T SURE HOW THINGS
WERE GOING TO PLAY OUT.
BUT I THINK TED OLSON AND DAVID
BOIES BEING INVOLVED HELPED
IGNITE AND DISSOLVE SOME OF THAT
DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN WHO WAS IN
FAVOR, WHO WAS AGAINST.
>> PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS EVOLVED
FAMOUSLY ON THIS ISSUE, NOW
TAKING A VERY AGGRESSIVE ROLE.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DO YOU THINK
IT'S MADE TO HAVE THE FIRST
AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT
COMING OUT SO STRONGLY NOT JUST
WITH GAY RIGHTS BUT LINKING IT
TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE?
>> I THINK IT'S BEEN A HUGE
MOMENTUM CHANGER.
I THINK IT HAD A LOT TO DO WITH
WHY IN NOVEMBER 2012 WE WON FOUR
STATES WHEN MARRIAGE WAS ON THE
BALLOT.
WE'VE NEVER WON A POPULAR
ELECTION BEFORE.
I THINK WHAT OBAMA COMING OUT IN
FAVOR OF MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX
COUPLES DID, AS LONG AS PEOPLE
SEE THE GOVERNMENT
DISCRIMINATING THEY DON'T HAVE
TO EXAMINE THEIR OWN PRIVATE
PREJUDICES.
ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY IS, LOOK,
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T THINK
THEY SHOULD MARRY, THAT'S GOOD
ENOUGH FOR ME.
OBAMA COMING OUT AND MAKING HIS
STATEMENT SO PUBLICLY MADE
PEOPLE THINK, HM.
WELL, NOW, HOW DO I REALLY FEEL
ABOUT THIS ISSUE?
AND EXAMINING THAT ANY PREJUDICE
HELPS TO AMELIORATE IT Y.
>> YOU WERE ON THE LOSING SIDE
OF THE STRUGGLE, NOW IT'S GOING
THE OTHER WAY.
DO YOU FEEL SORRY OR EMPATHY FOR
PEOPLE SUPPORTING THE BANS THAT
ARE FALLING ONE BY ONE ACROSS
THE COUNTRY?
>> I DON'T FEEL ANY EMPATHY FOR
THE ANTI-GAY ESTABLISHMENT.
FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE THEIR
LIVING BY VILIFYING AND
DEMONIZING THE LGBT COMMUNITY.
BUT BECAUSE I GREW UP MORMON IN
UTAH, I DO FEEL EMPATHY FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO FEEL LIKE,
SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T
UNDERSTAND AND THAT THEY'RE
AFRAID OF IS HAPPENING AND
THEY'RE FEELING THREATENED BY
IT.
THOSE ARE THE FOLKS WE NEED TO
BE ALWAYS WILLING TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH.
>> LAST QUESTION ON THIS
VALENTINE'S DAY.
DO YOU THINK THE STRUGGLE FOR
FULL EQUALITY HAS IN ANY WAY
AFFECTED THE COMMITMENT THAT GAY
AND LESBIAN COUPLES FEEL FOR
EACH OTHER?
>> GOSH, THAT IS SUCH A GREAT
QUESTION.
I HAVE TO THINK THAT THE INTENSE
FOCUS ON WHY WE WANT TO MARRY,
WHY ANYONE WANTS TO MARRY, THAT
YOU WANT TO MARRY BECAUSE OF
LOVE, BECAUSE OF COMMITMENT,
DOES HAVE MANY SAME-SEX COUPLES
THINKING MORE SERIOUSLY ABOUT
WHO THEY MEAN TO EACH OTHER, WHO
WE ARE TO EACH OTHER.
AND MAKES US FEEL PART OF A
LARGER CULTURE WHERE WE ACTUALLY
WANT TO EMBRACE THE VALUES OF
COMMITMENT AND LOVE AND BE A
PART OF A BIGGER HUMAN FAMILY,
WHEN BEFORE WE JUST STIFF-ARMED
THE HUMAN FAMILY BECAUSE THE
HUMAN FAMILY WAS STIFF-ARMING
US.
>> EXTRAORDINARY CHANGE.
>> AND ONE TO CELEBRATE EVERY
DAY.
>> KATE KENDALL, THANKS SO MUCH
FOR COMING IN.
>> MY PLEASURE, SCOTT, THANK
YOU.
>>> AND THAT DOES IT FOR
TONIGHT.
FOR ALL OF KQED'S NEWS COVERAGE,
GO TO KQEDNEWS.ORG.
I'M THUY VU.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.