Let's try this way: Though he failed to capture the single, critical vote needed to override Mayor Willie Brown's veto, Sup. Tom Ammiano soldiers on in his war against the big box. On April 28 the Board of Supervisors' president introduced a new, milder version of a proposal to make it harder for big chain retail stores to open in San Francisco. The legislation, though, won't stop Home Depot from moving to Bayshore Boulevard, where Bayview-Hunters Point residents have clamored for jobs and redevelopment.

Despite a spirited, extended debate between jobs proponents and anti-chain activists, Ammiano couldn't muster enough support during the last board meeting to override a veto of earlier legislation that would have prevented the DIY home improvement store from locating in an economically depressed part of town.

Home Depot may be coming, but Wal-Mart … not so fast. (Melissa Houston)

No greenwashing of PG&E: What's up with Leland Yee? On April 15 the supe tried to commend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for "protecting and restoring San Francisco's precious environmental and recreational resources at Fort Funston." But Sup. Chris Daly balked, asking if the proposed resolution could be delayed. One city hall insider described the commendation, given PG&E's environmental history (Hello, Erin Brockovich?), as "sick and twisted and wrong." At the board's April 22 meeting, the supervisors made it clear they agreed, voting 9-0 to table Yee's request – meaning, make it go away permanently. Yee was not present. (Savannah Blackwell)

Closing the books: Sup. Aaron Peskin proposed legislation April 8 that would stop candidates in local races from stuffing their campaign coffers year-round. No question the District Three supe is still aggravated by his 2000 election bid.

It seems candidates in debt are allowed under current law to raise larger cash contributions than those candidates with no debt. That let Peskin's challenger, Community College Board member Lawrence Wong, take $750 from each donor rather than $250. Under Peskin's proposal, a candidate must announce when the debt has been paid off and immediately abide by the contribution limits. "There is a loophole in the law that some people succeeded in driving a great big truck through,'' Peskin told us. (Blackwell)

More boos for Bechtel: On April 23, Sups. Matt Gonzalez and Daly joined about 60 protestors at the San Francisco-based Bechtel Group's downtown headquarters to denounce the global privatizer's $25 million lawsuit against the Bolivian government. (Bechtel filed the suit in 2001 after residents of Cochabamba, hit with skyrocketing rates, led a successful protest to cancel the company's contract.) The day before, Gonzalez introduced a resolution urging the city to take a dim view of any future bids by the corporation for city contracts unless the suit is dropped. (Blackwell)

Tough choices start easy: Since the city faces a $100 million budget deficit, the supes say they're not interested in giving raises to city employees earning more than $100,000. The board's Finance Committee decided April 24 to delay spending an estimated $678,466 in salary hikes, which would provide a 5 percent pay raise and increased benefits, to the city's 137 nonunionized employees.

Alice Villagomez, deputy director of the Employee Relations Division, said that if the unrepresented employees' salaries were frozen, they would likely move to unionize. That made Ammiano say he didn't want to hear "too much goo-gooing." (Ellie Kieskowski)

State sunshine: Open-government advocates are continuing their full-scale lobbying efforts to win support for SCA 7, the constitutional amendment sponsored by state senate speaker pro tem John Burton (see "Ending State Secrecy," 3/13/02). But opposition remains substantial.

The proposed amendment would make access to government information a fundamental constitutional right of the public. At press time the authors of the bill were pushing for the amendment to be heard at the May 7 meeting of the state senate's Committee on Government Organization and were working to refine the language in an effort to eliminate some opposition to the bill.

Groups including the Judicial Council, law enforcement associations, the California State Association of Counties, the League of Cities, and the American Civil Liberties Union have all expressed criticisms. Some of their main concerns are protecting privacy rights, keeping personnel records and proceedings secret, and establishing exemptions for security purposes.