After Michael Nava came in first in the June primary and looked as if he might oust sitting judge Rochard Ulmer, the local judiciary and much of the legal establishment came together and began raising a ton of money to try to crush this upstart. And it’s had an impact; in the early results, Nava is behind. But it’s going to be very close; by the end of the night, the 54-46 margin will get a lost closer. This one’s impossible to call.
- No categories
Politics Blog
Election 2010: Early SF results
The absentee votes are in, and it’s a very mixed bag. If trends hold, and the absentees represent the most conservative votes, Prop. B is going down — the result of a very successful labor campaign. Prop. L, the sit-lie law, is solidly ahead. The two hotel tax measures are both losing by about the same percentage, suggesting that the anti-tax group’s focus on just Prop. K, which liberals also opposed, was effective. But it’s still to early to call those.
In D2, Janet Reilly is well ahead. In D8, Scott Wiener is ahead of Rafael mandelman 54-22; that’s going to be hard to make up, even though Mandelman had a strong GOTV drive today.
D6 and D10 are still way up in the air. Jane Kim is ahead in D6, and Marlene Tran — the only Asian in the race, is winning in D10, a testament to the fact that 10 is becoming an increasingly Asian district. But neither of those two will be over tonight, and will come down to ranked-choice voting.
Election 2010: Newsom in, Harris trailing
That’s based on very early results. But with Boxer’s numbers creeping up, and Newsom comfortably ahead, it looks as if San Francisco will be getting a new mayor in January. The very early results have Harris pretty far behind, but those numbers will change. Since the early returns are always conservative, thought, the news for Gav is very good.
Election 2010: Boxer should be okay
The earliest results — which would be absentees from conservative areas — have Fiorina slightly ahead, but if typical trends hold, Boxer will be fine. So the question is: If voters support the two Dems at the top of the ticket, what happens to the downticket races? Are there coattails?
Election 2010: Well, there goes $160 million
CNN, using exit polls, just called the governor’s race for Jerry Brown. Meg Whitman spend $160 million and is getting trounced. Think of what else that money could have gone for.
Election Night Parties
These are heady days to live in San Francisco, what with the Giants’ World Series victory last night, Halloween festivities the night before, and today’s Dia de los Muertos, which I believe is Spanish for Election Night (okay, we know they’re different, but given this year’s electoral slate, we couldn’t resist). It’s also a big election for The City, with our own Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris seeking statewide office, a pivotal Board of Supervisors election, and some controversial propositions.
As usual, we’ll be covering and blogging all the election action live on this site. But if you’d like to get out there and mix and mingle with the politicos yourself, here’s the list of parties, which will be updating as we learn about more of them:
Board of Supervisors
D2
Janet Reilly – La Barca Restaurant, 2036 Lombard St. @ Fillmore
D6
Debra Walker- 8-10pm Outsider (894 Geary) and 10-12:30am, Great American Music Hall, 859 O’Farrell
Jane Kim: Public Works, 161 Erie Street @ Mission
Jim Meko- Campaign HQ, 364 10th Street
James Keys- Amsterdam Cafe (937 Geary, between Larkin and Polk)
Theresa Sparks: Don Ramon’s, 225 11th Street
Glendon “Anna Conda” Hyde: Eagle Tavern, 12th and Harrison
D8
Rafael Mandelman – Pilsner Inn, 225 Church St., @ Market
Scott Weiner: Harvey’s. 500 Castro @ 18th
Rebecca Prozan: Noe Valley Tavern, 4054 24th St., between Noe and Castro
D10
Lynette Sweet: Campaign HQ, 1 Rhode Island
Chris Jackson: Campaign HQ, 93 Leland Ave.
Dewitt Lacy: Bloom’s Saloon, 1918 18th @ Missouri
Steve Moss: Goat Hill Pizza, 300 Connecticut
Tony Kelly, Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, 953 DeHaro,
Malia Cohen: Poquito’s, 2368 3rd Street
SF School Board
Kim-Shree Maufas – Circulating with stops at Walker Democratic Party parties.
Hydra Mendoza: Mercury Lounge, 1582 Folsom St., @ 11th St.
Margaret Brodkin: home, 45 Graystone Terrace
Emily Murase: 6-9pm 142 Clearfield Drive (Between Ocean and Eucalyptus
Interest Groups
SF Labor Council/Democratic Party: Great American Music Hall, 859 O’Farrell St.
League of Pissed Off Voters: El Rio, 3158 Mission
Conservatives/Tea Party California Council: Pirro’s Restaurant, 2244 Taraval
SF Propositions
No on B – Great American Music Hall, with Dems/Labor
Yes on Prop B/Adachi: Lava Lounge, 527 Bryant Street
Yes on D, Mercury Lounge, 1582 Folsom @ 12th
No on L: Great American Music Hall, with Dems/Labor
Yes on L: Hobson’s Choice, 1601 Haight
State and Federal Races
John Dennis for Congress: Nectar Wine lounge, 3330 Steiner (off Lombard)
Jerry Brown for Governor: Fox Theater, 1807 Telegraph Ave, Oakland
Gavin Newsom for Lt. Gov: Tres Agaves – La Plaza De Agave Room, 130 Townsend @ 2nd
Kamala Harris for Attorney General, Delancey Street Foundation, 600 Embarcadero
Rebecca Kaplan for Oakland Mayor: Everett & Jones BBQ, 126 Broadway, Oakland
GOTV volunteers needed at 1261 Howard
Although the statewide picture is looking okay, here in San Francisco big money is making a major push to take over the Board of Supervisors, with hundreds of thousands coming in to support Steve Moss in D10, Scott Wiener in D8 and Theresa Sparks in D6. But there’s still hope for progressive victories; I’m told that polls show Rafael Mandelman within striking distance of victory in 8 and although I don’t think anyone has polls in D6, Debra Walker has plenty of momentum. D10 will amost certainly come down to turnout and ranked-choice voting.
The bottom line: You can make a huge difference by volunteering to help the last-minute progressive GOTV efforts. Volunteeers are needed, right now; head on down to 1261 Howard and ask for Gabriel.
Sorting out the Kim and Walker claims
As the District 6 supervisorial race winds down, we at the Guardian have been inundated by calls and messages by Debra Walker supporters saying how nasty Jane Kim supporters are being, and by Kim supporters complaining that Walker’s people are being mean. And while we’d be the last ones to say that we told you so, everyone should remember that politics is nasty business, particularly when two progressive candidates are targeting the same voters.
It’s not worth trying to sort out the street-level accusations, but it’s worth pointing out some dubious claims in the mailers both sides have sent in recent days, punches and counter-punches that began last week with a mailer by Walker’s camp claiming Kim moved into the district to run for office. Kim’s people dispute that she moved into D6 simply to run, and they note that progressive politicians such as Chris Daly and and Matt Gonzalez were also recent transplants when they decided to run for supervisor.
Yet it’s probably going too far to label this “last-minute lies being spread,” as the latest Kim mailer contends. Another Walker mailer says that Kim is under investigation by the Ethics Commission for illegally coordinating with an independent expenditure mailer funded partially by Willie Brown, which Kim’s camp calls another lie.
It was a story first reported by the Guardian, then picked up by the Bay Citizen, which quoted Ethics head John St. Croix as saying the situation appeared to violate campaign finance law and “warrant an investigation.” Ethics can’t confirm when it is doing investigations, so it might be going to far to say Kim is under investigation, although the incident does appear to involve improper behavior that is probably fair game for criticism.
The mailer also included a Walker campaign accusation that Kim “took off on an all-expenses-paid trip to Vegas – and charged it to the School District” while it was laying off teachers and wrestling with a $40 million deficit. That also has a kernel of truth to it, even that it sounds worse than it was and is probably being blown out of proportion.
The Kim campaign says the trip to speak at a national education conference was paid for jointly between the conference organizers and the school district, which covered about $600 worth of hotel and meal expenses. Again, the accusation has some nasty implications, but it’s probably not an unreasonable accusation during the heat of an election season.
The hit on Walker that the Kim campaign sent out in response also seems to fudge the truth just a bit, but in this case it was in exaggerating Kim’s experience not in criticizing Walker (except for the line that Walker was “Appointed by City Hall insiders” to her spot on the Building Inspection Commission, rather than “Elected by the people,” as Kim was to the school board).
But three of the five claims that Kim makes seem to apply more to Superintendent Carlos Garcia and his administrative staff than to the part-time school board members: “Experience Administering A Budget of $400+ Million,” “Experience Overseeing Over 1,000 Employees,” and “Experience Bargaining With Labor Unions.”
Yet by tonight, all these claims and counter-claims, and all the street-level mudslinging that has been going on, will hopefully fade into memories of a heated political campaign. Hopefully. But if this inter-progressive-movement fight ends up handing this seat over to downtown-backed candidate Theresa Sparks, then the nastiness could be just beginning, because both campaigns will have some explaining to do.
It’s a beautiful day
It was mayhem out at 30th and Mission last night, people pouring into the streets, shouting and shooting off fireworks and cars cruising along, slowly throught the crowd, big “Gigantes” banners hanging out the doors and windows. A beautiful night in San Francisco, people coming together to celebrate, G.W. Bush and Nolan Ryan looking dejected and rejected, that rare sense of victory in the air … and it’s a beautiful morning, good weather across most of the state, turnout heavy in my precinct, anyway, and that’s very bad news for Meg Whitman, whose only real hope is that Democrats don’t show up at the polls.
So maybe we’ll have more to celebrate tonight.
It’s hard to predict the outcome of the state and local elections based on the latest polls, since at least a third of the voters have already cast their ballots. If Whitman and Brown were tied a month ago, when absentee voting started, and Brown is up 5-10 points today, which poll reflects how the voting actually went over the past four weeks? If Prop. 19 was ahead three weeks ago and is behind now, did supporters lready vote for it?
But I think I can safely predict that one the statewide level, big money isn’t going to take the day: Whitman’s going to lose, Carly Fiorina’s going to lose and Prop.23 is going to lose. If the left turns out to vote. Polls are open until 8.
World Series bedlam!
In case you didn’t notice, San Francisco erupted into a street party last night, Nov. 1, after the Giants won the World Series. Wandering through a sea of orange-and-black that swelled into the streets of the Mission, I got showered with beer and champagne about half a dozen times, and my ears are still ringing from all the hooting and hollering, horn-honking, firecracker bursting and police siren wailing that filled the air.
One of the craziest scenes I witnessed the entire night was when some people set a mattress on fire in the middle of the intersection at 22nd and Mission. As the blaze got brighter and everyone yelled louder and laughed harder, a fire truck started blaring its horn and inching its way through the crowd. But after the burning mattress situation was under control, the firefighters had a new problem — a dance party was unfolding on the roof of the fire engine. The crowd swarmed around it, people climbed on up, and even swung open the doors and got into the fire truck, and suddenly the brightly flashing emergency lights seemed more like a strobe light. When the truck sounded its deafening horn, it almost sounded as if the drivers were participating in the madness.
The celebration went on. There were brass bands, fireworks, spontaneous high-fives and embraces, dancing in the streets, and people hanging out of their cars half-naked waving Giants flags and laughing wildly. That was just one San Francisco neighborhood — it seems that similar out-of-control scenes played out in the Castro, near the Civic Center, and around the ballpark.
The riot cops came eventually, of course, and I’ve put a call out to the SFPD to find out how many total arrests were made by the end of the night. On my way into work this morning, I saw people washing graffiti off of brick walls and windows, and the sidewalks were littered with shards of broken glass and debris. San Francisco awoke today for the first time ever as a World Series city, but with one giant hangover.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer comes to San Francisco
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer came to San Francisco Nov. 1 to attend a federal hearing on SB 1070, the controversial immigration law that critics say will encourage racial profiling. The law was partially struck down this past July when District Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled that it was unconstitutional. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder brought the case against the state of Arizona and Brewer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco began hearing arguments Nov. 1 concerning Arizona’s appeal of the ruling. Apparently, word spread far and wide that Brewer would be in the city, and a boisterous crowd of SB 1070 opponents crowded outside the federal courthouse. They chanted, displayed signs, and some wore black-and-white face paint in honor of the Day of the Dead, a Mexican holiday celebrated Nov. 1 and 2.
At one point, SB 1070 opponents rushed into the middle of the street and unfurled a giant banner which read, “Stop Family Separations.” Representatives from immigrant rights coalitions, social-justice groups, and labor unions joined hands, sang chants, jumped up and down, and cried out in Spanish that they were all together in the struggle. Camera people and police officers wove through the crowd.
Rev. Jacqueline Duhart, a Unitarian Universalist, joined Rev. David Takahashi Morris in displaying a bright yellow banner proclaiming, “Stand on the Side of Love.”
Duhart said she was against SB 1070 because it “causes hate to be a primary motivator,” and “denies the worth and dignity that we all have.”
Supporters of Arizona’s law showed up to wave signs, too. They were outnumbered by opponents, but voiced their opinions at high volume. One woman, gesturing toward protesters who waved banners denouncing SB 1070 as racist and a modern-day version of Jim Crow, leaned backward and belted out, “This is nothing like the civil rights movement!” and let out a peal of laughter. She was holding one side of a giant Arizona flag that had been altered with a picture of a rattlesnake and the words, “Bite Me.”
Critics of the law say it law would open the door to racial profiling and result in tearing families apart.
SFBG Radio: Will the Democrats get the message?
In today’s episode, Johnny talks about his frustration with the Democrats and asks: Are they getting the message? And Tim argues that we need to vote Democratic anyway … Listen after the jump.
sfbgradio11/1/2010 by endorsements2010Hey, D2 voters: BOO!!!!
Why are the rich people in District 2 so scared of Chris Daly, Aaron Peskin, and other progressives? Just the hint that a supervisorial candidate like Janet Reilly might have some vague, tangential connection to a (gasp!) progressive is enough send trembles of fear through their delicate nervous systems, and to fill mailboxes with alarmist warnings of dark progressive plots.
“I eat small children,” Daly deadpanned when I asked him about the campaign by candidate Mark Farrell and some of his wealthy venture capitalist buddies – along with moneyed socialite Dede Wilsey, the yacht-loving, renter-hating Thomas Coates, and their Common Sense Voters SF front group – to hurt frontrunner Reilly’s chances by inaccurately claiming she’s somehow Daly’s puppet.
Nevermind the fact that Daly doesn’t support Reilly, and that he wouldn’t even endorse Reilly a few year ago during her Assembly campaign against Fiona Ma when the Guardian and many progressives were supporting Reilly. “Fiona was a better supervisor than Reilly is going to be,” Daly told us, a prediction that I don’t agree with, but one that shows how ridiculous the website, mailers, and doorhangers that claim Daly is “behind Janet Reilly’s agenda” are.
Nonetheless, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who supports Reilly, has sent out two press releases in the last two days claiming that “Janet Reilly opposes Chris Daly’s agenda as much as I do. She has the full support of our city’s greatest moderate leaders and she will be a strong moderate voice on the board.”
Daly, who is amused by this fearful battle of the rich people, couldn’t agree more. “There is no bigger opponent of Daly’s agenda to build more affordable housing in San Francisco than Gavin Newsom and Janet Reilly. Because that’s my biggest issue,” Daly told us. “Apparently they are afraid of affordable housing in D2.”
But Daly isn’t the only boogeyman who strikes terror into the hearts of the residents of Sea Cliff, Pacific Heights, and other wealthy D2 enclaves. Farrell and his ilk also made such a big deal of Reilly’s association with Peskin, who actually is supporting Reilly, that she announced that if Newsom leaves for Sacramento in January, her vote for interim mayor would only go to a moderate who had never served on the Board of Supervisors with any current members, thus eliminating the chance of supporting Peskin.
Although we at the Guardian held our noses and endorsed Reilly as the best of a bunch of bad choices in San Francisco’s most conservative district, we were appalled during her endorsement interview at just how myopically conservative she had become since her Assembly run, when universal health care was her big issue. Listen for yourself here and decide whether she’s planning to be Daly’s minion.
Geez, what exactly are these people so scared of? Perhaps it’s as simple as Lewis Lapham put it a couple weeks ago, when we discussed the political dynamics of big cities: “The rich are afraid of the poor.”
Provisional votes count
With the election just days away, what should you do if you were issued a vote-by-mail ballot, but can’t mail it and want to vote at the polls, instead?
According to the San Francisco Department of Elections, you have the right to cast a provisional ballot at your local polling place. (If you don’t know where your polling place is, click here to look it up.)
But what if you show up at your polling place, and your name isn’t on the official roster of registered voters for the precinct and your voting eligibility cannot be verified by the pollworker?
Again, you can cast a provisional ballot.
The same holds true for folks who moved to San Francisco, but forget to re-register to vote here. Or want to vote a party ballot that does not match their registration. Or are a first-time voter listed in the original roster with “ID Required” printed under your name but are unable to show acceptable identification, which includes a valid California state driver’s license, a California state identification mumber or the last four digits of your Social Security number.)
So, how do you actually cast a provisional vote?
A poll worker will hand you a a ballot and a provisional ballot envelope.
You’ll need to complete the voter’s section of the provisional envelope. (This involves filling in your name, date of birth, current address and previous address).
You’ll need to sign the declaration confirming that you are a resident of San Francisco and are eligible to vote in this election.
You’ll need to remember to sign your name at the bottom of the envelope.
You’ll need to mark your ballot cards for the candidates and measures you support.
You’ll need to insert your ballot cards into the provisional envelope, seal it and return it to the poll worker.
You’ll need to keep the six-digit number printed on your provisional voter receipt.
Ok, but how will you know if your provisional ballot was actually counted?
Call 1-866-325-9163 or visit the Department of Elections website no sooner than 41 days after the election.
And to verify your provisional ballot on-line, you’ll need to provide the six-digit number printed on your provisional voter receipt.
Vote early, vote often!
SFBG Radio: How did Obama fail?
Today Johnny and Tim talk about the end of Meg Whitman, the Tea Party’s influence and why Obama let himself get so vulnerable. Listen after the jump.
sfbgradio 10/29/2010 by endorsements2010UPDATED: SF resident fights for his right to post political signs
In September, shortly after Elliot Kamin placed two political signs in the window of the condo he rents near Ocean Beach in the Richmond District, he received a letter from his property manager saying, “The signs you have posted in your window are a clear violation of the rules and regulations of the association. Please remove the signs immediately.” But now, with help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the signs are back up and Kamin is no longer being threatened with fines.
Ironically, one of the restored signs reflected Kamin’s concern for civil liberties, urging voters to reject Prop. L, the proposed law that would criminalize sitting or lying on San Francisco sidewalks.
“It is a problem that a lot of condo associations don’t seem to be aware that free speech rights don’t stop at the condo gates,” ACLU attorney Linda Lye told the Guardian. She suggests that some condo residents might be willingly complying with requests to remove signs because they are unaware of the laws.
California Civil Code Section 1353.6 states that homeowners associations “may not prohibit posting or displaying of non commercial signs, posters, flags, or banners on or in property that belongs to a condo owner.”
Kamin called the property management company, which works with the homeowners association that set the rules, and he was told they wouldn’t recognize that legal right, which they said was trumped by their rules for the properties. So Kamin called the ACLU and together, they filed a suit against the Citiscape Property Management Group and the Ocean Beach Homeowners Association.
“If you really want to piss me off, tell me that someone has more rights because they own property,” Kamin said.
OBHA finally relented and entered into a settlement last week that allowed Kamin to put up his two signs, which opposed Prop. L, the proposed sit-lie ordinance and supported judicial candidate Michael Nava. A call to OBHA wasn’t answered and a message left at CPMG hasn’t yet been returned.
“What good are rights if they’re only on paper?” Kamin said.
UPDATE: I just got a call back from Kevin Wyley, president of CPMG, who said the incident began when an individual board member sent Kamin the letter telling him to take down the sign. Wyley didn’t become involved with the situation for about another week: “I was not aware that the board member had told the tenant he could not put up the signs,” he told us. “The board member had mistakenly told the tenant he couldn’t put up a sign.”
Once he was able to reach all the board members to get their assent, Wyley said he contacted Kamin and the ACLU to let them know the signs could remain, although they continue to disagree with the ACLU over whether tenants may have more than nine square feet of total signage.
Wyley said hsaid it took a few more days to get some traveling board members to weigh in on the issue, but once they
Tony Serra weighs in on the election
Tony Serra, the legendary local lawyer and one of my favorite members of the legal profession, sent us this photo with his commentary on the Nov. 2 election. It’s hanging from his office out at 506 Broadway.
I just talked to Serra, and he said he’s had great feedback. “Channel Five came out and did a story,” he said. “They managed to shoot it so the lightpost covered up the U and the C. They interviewed people on the street, and a lot of them were cheering me on.”
His critique of the GOP candidates doesn’t mean he’s a Jerry Brown supporter; Serra has sworn off electoral politics, which he told me is part of the corruption of capitalism. But he’s happy to go after Meg and Carly: “I’m not going to let those two motherfuckers buy the election.”
I told Serra he’s always been one of my heroes. Still is.
SF Weekly tries the Supreme Court
SF Weekly and its chain parent have asked the state Supreme Court to review the precedent-setting victory for small business in our predatory pricing suit. The appeal’s a longshot — the high court only takes a small fraction of the cases presented to it. But the appeal shows that Village Voice Media is still trying to overturn the state’s Unfair Practices Act. I’ve posted our reply brief here; it demonstrates very clearly how the big newspaper chain is trying to twist the law to allow big outfits to crush independent businesses.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case by Nov. 29, but can give itself anothrt 60-day extension.
Al Franken’s Oatmeal
I can’t stand all the fundraising e-mail blasts that fill my In Box during election season, but this one I liked. Former author and Saturday Night Live writer Al Franken has been pretty low-key since taking his U.S. Senate seat earlier this year following a close and bitter race. Now that he’s getting used to the job, hopefully he’ll loosen up and write more missives like this one, whose subject line was simply titled “Oatmeal.”
Dear Friend:
Here are two thought experiments. Indulge me, won’t you?
It’s the morning after Election Day. 8 a.m. You stumble out of bed. Make some oatmeal. Turn on the TV to find out what happened in that Senate race, the one that was too close to call all night. But you gave $5 to the DSCC by clicking on this link. And, lo and behold, your favorite Democrat — maybe Russ Feingold or Patty Murray — pulled it out by a few votes. Oatmeal never tasted so sweet.
But there’s another way it could go. 8 a.m. Oatmeal. TV. But in this example, you DIDN’T give to the DSCC. And, by a few hundred votes, some Tea Party extremist is now a U.S. Senator-elect — and Republicans have captured the majority. How’s that oatmeal taste now?
You’ve seen the polls — we’re neck and neck in race after race. Moving the numbers just a little bit could mean the difference between victory and defeat — trust me, I’ve been there.
And nobody moves numbers like the DSCC. Thanks to people like you clicking on links like this one, we’ve pulled ahead in California and Connecticut and tied it up in Colorado and Pennsylvania.
But with just hours to go until the polls close, every minute counts. Your contribution won’t be funding some far-off future plan — it’ll be the money that goes out the door first thing tomorrow. It could be your $5 that makes the difference for Barbara Boxer, keeps Sharron Angle or Rand Paul out of the Senate, or even saves our majority.
If you want to know why I’m standing with the DSCC in the final days of this election, here’s why: On November 3, I don’t want my oatmeal to taste like regret. I want my oatmeal to taste like victory.
How about you?
Thanks,
Al Franken
Don’t nobody give a damn about us!
As Supervisor John Avalos’ proposal to mandate local hiring for publicly-funded construction projects heads for a committee hearing next week, local hiring protests continue to break out around UCSF’s Mission Bay groundbreaking celebrations for a $1.5 billion hospital project that the UC Board of Regent recently approved.
The problem, according to community advocates, revolves around UC’s apparent absence of a community hiring plan. Rumor has is that local residents will only get 12-13 percent of the construction jobs, even though the site is only a T-Third ride away from Bayview Hunters Point and other low-income communities where unemployment rates have risen steeply in the last four years.
Yesterday evening, I went to a university-community celebration where UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann was in attendance. So, I asked her about UC’s local hiring plan. Desmond-Hellmann said I’d need to speak to UCSF’s Barbara French, who recently advised community-based organizations that construction at the site won’t start until December, and that the groundbreaking activities are happening now to take advantage of the weather.
So, while I’m waiting to hear back from French, check out a slideshow (see above) of the Oct. 27 local hiring protest at UC Mission Bay. There’s been coverage of how MC Hammer talked to the protesters Oct. 26, when the Secret Service got upset about the local-hiring demonstration outside the groundbreaking that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended. And how Hammer came back with a “we want jobs” message.
But there has been no coverage of how filmmaker Kevin Epps (who is responsible for Straight Outta Hunters Point and Black Rock) was on hand filming the Oct. 27 protest, or how UC’s Terry Rawlins dropped by, or how Terry Anders of the Anders & Anders Foundation) took part in the local hiring protest saying, “This is the first piñata we want to crack open,” or how Mindy Kener, who is also with Anders & Anders, added, “We want all the candy to fall out.” Or how Aboriginal Blacks United’s Alex Prince, who led the protest to demand fair and equal access to high-paying union jobs on the UC Mission Bay project near the economically depressed Third Street corridor, was accompanied by Heaven, ABU’s cuter than cute mascot dog.
“We want to make sure folks get trained and everything that’s necessary, so there is no dispute,” Prince told me. “UC has not really been helpful. They just said they want to meet with us.”
Osiris Coalition member Greg Doxey, who helped negotiate labor’s community benefits agreement with Lennar in 2008, emphasized the importance of passing local hiring legislation that has some teeth.
“We’ve found that no matter how much dollars is committed for training, it doesn’t help if developer is not committed to doing any training,” Doxey said. “That’s why we are supporting Local SF, Sup. John Avalos’ legislation. We want some teeth. All we have right now is a good faith policy. Avalos’ legislation will give us teeth to set fines to be put in place.”
Charles Hopkins, another local resident, said all the community wants is its fair share.
“It’s sustainable for San Francisco to have local hire,” Hopkins said.
A group of unemployed Asian-American members of the iron unions also participated in the ABU rally where they held up signs saying “Show us the $$$”.
An employee of Cambridge, which along with San Francisco-based DPR, is one of the prime contractors at the site, did come out to talk to the protesters.
“If folks want to put their names on the list, they can,” the Cambridge employee, who declined to give his name, said. “But the unions have their own procedures, when it comes to who they dispatch, including seniority.”
Mindy Kener of the BVHP-based Anders and Anders Foundation said she’d like to see more women hired on local construction sites.“The women want to work and get off the welfare lines,, they need to work and it’ll make a big difference in our neighborhood if we put people to work who live on the T-Third line,” Kener said. “All we need is for UC to give the green light to put our neighborhood to work.”Carlos Rodriguez, a Local 261 member who has been out of work for two years, worries that workers are being forgotten while deal making is going on.“I see how unions talk to management, they forget about the laborers,” Rodriguez said.
A man on a bicycle stopped to see what was going on.
“It’s not going to work, when they can get illegal aliens to work for $6.50 an hour,” the man said, as he resumed his peddling.
Across the street, filmmaker Kevin Epps also indicated that he thought part of the local hire problem is rooted in racism.
“Deeply rooted, institutionalized racism,” Epps said. “We are talking about power, and power doesn’t give up without another power taking it away.”
Standing nearby was UC contract compliance manager Terry Rawlins, who clarified that UC isn’t currently hiring folks to work on the construction site.
But doesn’t the university have leverage?
“Not directly,” Rawlins said, “We try to establish goals, based on cooperation with unions, and without violating any bargaining agreements.”
But UCSF Director of Design and Construction J.Stuart Eckblad told the Guardian that he thought the workers were asking for the right thing.
“I’m all for maximizing the opportunities and participation of the local community,” Eckblad said.” The question is what is realistic, and there are issues of what is really available with labor and the trades.”
Joshua Arce of the Brightline Defense Project noted that folks have been distracted by Lennar’s shipyard project from the reality that there are 6,000 jobs coming on line, a stone’s throw from the Bayview, the Mission and Market Street.
“What is equitable?” Arce asked. “A good faith approach, a market-based approach or a mandatory approach? At the end of the day, it’s about equity, and no one would dispute that this situation is inequitable. Let’s just agree that it’s not equitable [to have no local hiring plan] on a big project like this in a community that is facing such high unemployment levels.”
“There are hundreds of good-paying, union jobs on this projects while we have people in our communities that are dying for lack of work,” ABU president James Richards told me. “We have qualified union workers standing outside the job site that are ready, willing, and able to work and if the community doesn’t work, no one works.Good faith efforts have never worked and now they want us to be fooled again. So, we are going to step it up, and we don’t give a damn about the unions, either. The person who fights for these jobs, deserves these jobs. So, let’s begin to tell the truth. Many of the folks in the labor unions don’t speak English, they are not from San Francisco, and most are not even from this country. Everyone is dancing around the truth. Everyone knows the truth, but they don’t speak it.”
But ABU’s tent looked inclusive at the protest, Arce noted, as he pointed out the power of teaming up with all marginalized groups in San Francisco.
“I could go for that,” Richards said. “We got blacks, Mexicans, Asians, whites, everybody in ABU. It’s ain’t no racist thing. But let us work, too. “Why do we always have to get in last? Don’t nobody give a damn about us!
The Sit Lie Posse can “liberate” a billboard in 10 minutes
A press release went out yesterday announcing that a group called the Sit Lie Posse had “liberated” six billboards and 60 bus shelters with original artwork in opposition to Proposition L, San Francisco’s proposed sit / lie ordinance. The posters bear three different images, including one featuring a “Gascon-topus,” illustrated with the face of San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon and the body of a gigantic octopus. Gascon is a strong advocate for the ordinance, which would ban sitting and lying down on San Francisco sidewalks.
While members of the posse did not provide a phone number or reveal their true identities, the Guardian did manage to get in touch via email with a spokesperson of the posse, who goes by the name Jim Rawley.
Rawley says he chose his name in honor of the character from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, who manages the utopian Weedpatch camp and treats the impoverished Joad family with dignity and respect. Rawley also reveals the technique the Sit Lie Posse uses to liberate bus-shelter ads, and tells us how long it takes for the crew to put up displays of their artwork throughout the city. A few of our questions and answers appear below.
San Francisco Bay Guardian: Does the Sit Lie Posse have a budget? If so, how much?
Jim Rawley: The Sit Lie Posse is a volunteer group unaffiliated with any electoral campaign. We made our guerrilla ads by hand and paid for our materials out of pocket. It cost us $150 to liberate six billboards and 60 bus shelter ads.
SFBG: How long does it take to liberate a billboard? How about a bus shelter ad? Does the posse use wheat-paste?
JR: Our billboards took about 10 minutes and the bus shelters took 2-3 minutes. We accessed the bus shelters using a master key and attached our work with Velcro, the industry standard for bus shelters because of quick, easy insertion. We attached our billboards with wheat-paste. Despite the efforts of Clear Channel and a heavy rainstorm, our bus shelters and billboards are still up.
SFBG: The Sit / Lie Posse has created quite a stir. C.W. Nevius writes in this morning’s column: “Opponents are attempting to make a comparison with the civil rights movement in the South in the ’50s and ’60s. Apparently their view is that an unkempt panhandler camping on the sidewalk equates to the Freedom Riders opposing racial discrimination. Weird.” What would you say to Nevius in response?
JR: We expected that the Chronicle would try to ridicule, belittle and smear our work, especially since C.W. Nevius and his advocacy columns instigated Prop L. In the 1950s and 60s civil rights workers were maligned by the mainstream press, harassed by the police and subject to physical violence. It takes time for social movements to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the state and the corporate media. In their own words, Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius and Police Chief George Gascon have said that Prop L enforcement would exclude tourists and center on the homeless. Regardless of your opinion on homelessness, it’s clearly discrimination when the law is based upon a person’s appearance and applies only to certain groups – the poor and people of color. Even more so when the stated intent of the enforcement is to drive certain people out of a neighborhood. This is San Francisco’s kindler, gentler version of Jim Crow segregation.
SFBG: What was the inspiration behind the Gascon-topus?
JR: We came up with the Gascon-topus as a reference to sci-fi movie posters. Prop L will give unchecked power to the police to conduct unconstitutional searches and arrests. In the face of such a monstrous attack on civil liberties, we wanted to respond with wit, humor and satire.
SFBG: Why do you think it’s important to fight against expanded policing in public space?
JR: It’s important to fight additional policing in pubic space to preserve our civil liberties and to save the character of San Francisco. Most San Franciscans don’t want to sacrifice the city’s diversity and rebellious creativity in order to recreate San Francisco as one massive, sanitized shopping mall with all action controlled by the police. Most San Franciscans don’t want undocumented immigrants and day laborers to be deported after a bogus bust for sitting. Most people don’t want to see the poor disqualified from government housing because they committed the crime of sitting. Most people don’t want to be subjected to unconstitutional drug searches after being detained for sitting, nor do people want to see parolees sent back to prison for the crime of sitting. Public space and civil liberties are vital to a healthy democracy. Public space is the only area beyond private property and the marketplace where San Franciscans can come together to exercise civil rights and collectively shape the future of the city. We need to defend that space and extend it against threats from wealthy business interests and their allies in government.
Walker draws first blood in D6 progressive fight
There’s been lots of behind-the-scenes sniping and bad blood between supporters of D6 supervisorial candidates Debra Walker and Jane Kim, both strong and respected progressives who have resisted publicly criticizing one another…until now. Voters are receiving a mailer from the Walker campaign highlighting the facts that Kim is new to the district and a former Green.
Along the edge of a colorful mailer discussing Walker’s 25-year history in the district is a black and gray box that says “Jane Kim moved to District 6 just to run for office,” followed by a Kim quote from her endorsement interview with the Guardian: “D6 is a district you can run in without having lived there a long time.” And it closes with, “Kim changed her Green Party registration and moved into our district just last year. Our district deserves better.”
Kim campaign consultant Enrique Pearce called the mailer “disappointing” and “a desperate ploy,” saying that he hoped it wasn’t the start of open hostilities between the two progressive camps. Both candidates have refused to endorse one another in the ranked-choice election, and there have been lots of low-level hostilities between the two sides. But Pearce said, “We have tried to keep things positive.”
Kim didn’t return calls for comment, but her Facebook status was, “today was my very first cover story & very first hit piece, only six days left- i guess i should feel complimented that people think we are worth attacking.” The cover story was a glowing SF Weekly profile of Kim focused on how being Asian-American helps her political chances.
Walker campaign consultant Jim Stearns, whose office prepared the mailer, denied that it’s a hit piece. “It’s a comparison piece between Debra and Jane on a particular issue or qualification, not a personal attack,” Stearns said. “To us, it’s a really important part of who Debra is and why she’s a great choice for the district because she’s lived and worked there for 25 years. We disagree with Jane that you can just move into a district to run and understand it.”
Yet D6 candidate Theresa Sparks, who has been targeted by progressive groups as a conservative who would alter the balance of power on the board, is also new to the district. So why is the Walker campaign targeting Kim? Stearns said he hasn’t seen any polling on the race, but he answered the question by highlighting the independent expenditures on Kim’s behalf that were funded partially by former Mayor Willie Brown and which appear to have been illegally coordinated with Pearce’s office.
“Once we found out that she is illegally raising money outside the bounds of campaign finance law and running an illegal money campaign, we became concerned they might be breaking other rules, giving them an undue advantage, and we felt like we had to respond,” Stearns said.
Pearce declined to address that charge, but he told the Guardian when we first broke that story that his office had severed ties with the group New Day for SF before the mailers went out. As for Kim’s qualifications to run for office, he cited her experience as an attorney, community organizer, and school board member and said, “I think Jane’s qualifications for office stand on their own merits.”
And he maintained that the Walker campaign had gone negative while Kim’s campaign wouldn’t, saying that damages the progressive movement. “The Debra Walker campaign chose to attack Jane for being a former Green Party member and for moving into the district last year,” he said. “They are doing it because they feel Jane is a mounting a serious challenge.”
Pearce also said that he hoped this would be the end of it, but Stearns says that there’s one more mailer on the way that mentions Kim. The Guardian endorsed Walker number one and Kim number two, writing that they are the “two leading progressives and would be better on the board than the remaining candidates.”
UPDATE: I just heard back from Walker, who said a representative’s connection to the district is an issue voters care about. “I think it’s important for people to know that [Kim recently moved into the district]. They seem to be skirting the issue or representing that she’s been there for a long time,” Walker said.
As for why they are criticizing Kim rather that Sparks, who seems like a bigger threat to progressives, Walker noted that independent groups, such as labor and the Tenants Union, have already been putting out mailers critical of Sparks. “This has always been part of our game plan,” Walker said, “differentiating and letting people know who I am and who the other top-tier people are.”
Avalos: I have not buckled to anyone’s pressure over local hiring
Last week, Sup. John Avalos introduced Local SF legislation to require contractors to meet a local hiring goal of 50 percent. And as the Guardian reported at the time, Avalos’ legislation represents a major departure from the city’s First Source Program, which only requires contractors on publicly subsidized projects to show “good faith” efforts to meet 50 percent goal. Avalos’ legislation came on the heels of a report from the city’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development that showed only a 20 percent local hire rate in 29 publicly funded projects, despite the existence of First Source.
“My legislation will ensure that San Franciscans have a guaranteed shot to work on the City’s public works projects and that the local dollars invested in public infrastructure be recycled back into San Francisco’s economy and local communities,” Avalos said last week, noting that his legislation was developed over a series of stakeholders meetings with reps from city agencies, the Mayor’s Office, labor and building trades, the environmental community, neighborhood advocates, contractors, local hiring advocates and unemployed workers. And he vowed to keep this roundtable approach going as his legislation moves forward.
So we were surprised to read a Weekly blog post today that claimed that Avalos had allegedly buckled to union pressure and watered down his local hire requirements. Especially since his legislation hasn’t even had its Nov. 8 hearing before the Board’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee…
Reached by phone Avalos clarified that he has not buckled to anyone’s pressure.
“I haven’t backed down on anything,” Avalos said. “And I have not made any amendments to my legislation. I did say when I introduced my legislation that this is a starting point and we’ll see where it ends up. We could pass legislation that wants 50 percent local hiring next year, and it would probably get vetoed and it wouldn’t be realistic. So, we have to phase it in and make sure we are creating a system that is going to push the trades to be more inclusive of local residents.”
Avalos noted that some trades and unions are already doing a good job of hiring San Francisco residents on public works projects, but reiterated that the city’s current policy only requires contractors to present paperwork to show they made a “good faith” effort—and that this approach has fallen far short of the city’s 50 percent local hire goal.
Avalos’ legislation–and his claims about First Source’s shortcomings–are backed up by two recent studies.
The first report, released by Chinese for Affirmative Action and Brightline Defense Project this August, was titled “The Failure of Good Faith.” It showed that the city’s current policy only “yielded roughly 24 percent on employment opportunities” on public construction projects in San Francisco.
The second report, released by L. Luster & Associates on October 18, was titled “Labor Market Analysis San Francisco Construction Industry.” It confirmed that the construction workforce statewide has been in a “free-fall of job losses for the past four years.”
Noting that the Bay Area has not been as hard hit as other regions in California, the Luster report observed that the tri-county district of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties, which had 45,100 construction jobs in August 2006, “lost nearly one-third of these jobs falling to 31,200 construction jobs by May 2010.”
“In San Francisco, unemployment in the construction sector has had a particularly negative impact on the city’s less educated residents,” the report stated. “For them, construction has provided access to higher paying jobs in a labor market that otherwise might provide them access mainly to positions paying lower end wages. Any local hire effort will be undertaken against the backdrop of this unprecedented construction job loss, and resulting unemployment among the existing San Francisco construction workers.”
One such group of unemployed workers—some of them in a union, others not—could be seen protesting yesterday outside the gates of the construction site on 16th Street in Mission Bay where UCSF has been celebrating the groundbreaking of its new Medical Center, a $1.5 billion project to be funded “through a combination of debt financing, philanthropic gifts and hospital reserves,” according to UC press releases.
But in an email to Joshua Arce of Brightline Defense, UCSF’s Barbara French noted that though UC is “actively working now to evaluate the workforce needs for every trade, for every phase of the project, and intend to make those public in December”, UC has not started construction on the project and won’t until December.
“ We haven’t signed the contract with the general contractor and we don’t yet have our permits,’ French wrote. “ The community may have believed that the celebrations this week truly marked the start of active construction. Not so. These were community celebrations held now in the hopes of getting good weather. “
Meanwhile, Avalos acknowledges that UC is not under the jurisdiction of San Francisco.
“But I know that they are doing a critical amount of building, and investing tax payer dollars there, so therefore the community should have some benefit from that, even though it’s complicated by this being the state’s money, so you could make the argument that all of California’s workers should have access,” Avalos told the Guardian. “But this land use impacts the surrounding community, so it makes sense that we have local hire legislation and access to serious end-use jobs at the hospital, which will include medical and support staff, building and janitorial maintenance and cafeteria related work.”
Avalos noted that the city is building infrastructure all around that project, including parks, Muni and light rail spruce-ups.
“There are huge surrounding investments,” Avalos said.
Either way, here’s hoping that by December, when folks begin to stress about providing for their families over the holiday season, all the workers in the following video clip will be able to put down their bullhorns and pick up decent-paying work, instead. And that this work will last for more than a couple of days.
Civil rights groups demand Secure-Comm documents from ICE
In a turnabout from the usual immigration-related situation (in which ICE demands documents from immigrants) civil rights groups in Washington, DC. Arlington, VA. Santa Clara, CA. and San Francisco are requesting the release of documents concerning opt-out procedures in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s controversial “Secure Communities” program.
Signed by the Arlington Coalition Against “Secure Communities” (S-Comm) Program, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Law Alliance, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, Causa Justa: Just Cause (CJJC), Center for Employment Training- San Jose, Central American Resource Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Communities United Against Violence, DC Jobs with Justice, Empower DC, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Instituto Familiar de la Raza, La Raza Centro Legal , National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, Plymouth Congregational UCC Board of Social Action, Sacred Heart Community Services, San Francisco Day Labor Program Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network, Silicon Valley Alliance for Immigration Reform, Silicon Valley DeBug, Somos Mayfair, Steering Committee for Immigration Reform, JFI San Jose Tenants and Workers United and Young Workers United, the statement that these groups released today reads as follows:
”We are four municipalities that have formally requested to opt-out of the federal immigration enforcement, “Secure Communities” (i.e., “S-Comm”) program,” their press release stated. “We did so after participating in town hall meetings, debate, testimony, research, and democratic processes that culminated with representatives in Washington DC, Santa Clara, California, Arlington, Virginia, and San Francisco clearly voting to opt-out of sharing information with ICE. “
“We did so because we believe in preserving public safety for everyone in our diverse cities, and also because we reject a program that disguises a record number of deportations (392,862) as a safety initiative rather than a humanitarian and moral crisis.”
”To be clear, our counties never ‘opted-in’ to this dangerous ICE program in the first place. This program, which has been shrouded in secrecy, was imposed on our counties without the input of our local government, communities, local law enforcement and in the case of San Francisco against their explicit written requests. Now that Washington DC has formally opted out, we ask that ICE immediately and without further delay let our counties and any other counties requesting to do so out of S-Comm.”
”We are committed to moving ahead with the opt out process despite ICE now contradicting itself and claiming the program is compulsory. We support CCR, NDLON, and Cordozo Law School going to court today to demand release of what ICE has refused to divulge. The emergency injunction filed today does what should be automatic in any democracy, it seeks to make public information on S-Comm and our ability to opt-out by stopping the sharing of any fingerprints by these jurisdictions with ICE.. This necessary injunction comes at the beginnings of negotiations with ICE and local jurisdictions scheduled for Nov. 5 to Nov. 9.”