Ed Lee

Chronicle taps Chiu, opening up the mayoral field

Sasha Cuttler
-
112
Chronicle taps Chiu, opening up the mayoral field

David Chiu has snagged the mayoral endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle, beefing up his fairly paltry list of endorsers and giving his campaign something to trumpet with its hefty cash reserves in the final weeks. Most importantly, the endorsement opens up the race and probably hurts perceived frontrunner Ed Lee.

After the Examiner endorsed Lee as its top pick, it would have solidified the appointed incumbent mayor’s standing as the consensus pick of pro-business centrists – who always have a strong influence in the mayor’s race – if the Chron had also gone that way. But now, both that vote and the Chinese-American vote will be divided, with some of the latter also picked up by Leland Yee, who got the top endorsements of the Labor Council, Sierra Club, and other influential groups.

The Chronicle endorsement probably gives the biggest advantage to Dennis Herrera, who has placed second in most public opinion polls as well as many endorsements, including getting the second place nod in the Guardian, Examiner, Labor Council, Milk Club, San Francisco Democratic Party, and others – an impressive array that covers the full spectrum of San Francisco politics.

Lee, Herrera, and Jeff Adachi also got praised by the Chronicle in a companion editorial entitled “Three other candidates to consider,” and that will also help Adachi with his left-right punch and outsider appeal, making him another candidate who can’t be counted out just yet.

By opening up the mayor’s race and creating a more complicated calculus in the city’s ranked choice voting system, the varied list of endorsements and the dethroning of Lee as a done-deal could also be a boon to John Avalos, the consensus pick of the city’s left who has a long list of first place endorsements (including those of the Guardian, Milk Club, SF Democratic Party, and many others). Avalos could capitalize on the rising frustration with corporate America that is embodied to the Occupy movement, which he has been nearly alone among the mayoral field in actively supporting.

(You can read an Excel file of the endorsements of various San Francisco organizations, which we’ll periodically update, here.)

While the Lee campaign and the many independent expenditure groups that back him are expected to vastly outspend the rest of the field, obscene displays of corporate cash could end up backfiring this year, particularly against the backdrop of OccupySF and the business community’s raid on employee health care funds and deceptive surcharges on restaurant bills, which Chiu and Lee have been supporting.

Bottom line: with four weeks left until Election Day, the mayor’s race is still up for grabs.

The Occupy Wall Street platform

Andrew Lam
-
6

EDITORIAL In New York City, the protesters who started the Occupy Wall Street movement remain camped out in Zuccotti Park. In Washington, DC, President Obama said at an Oct. 6 press conference that he understands the sentiment driving the activists. Yet in San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee has approved a police crackdown and the confiscation of camping supplies in an effort to debilitate the occupation in front of the Federal Reserve Bank.

The move comes at a time when Lee is doing nothing to crack down on foreclosures that cost the city money, nothing to force the big banks that have the city’s deposits to lend more in the community, and nothing to promote local taxes on the wealthy.

While Lee says he supports the First Amendment rights of the protesters, he sent the cops in at 10:30 at night to confiscate their belongings — using, in part, the sit-lie law (which is only in effect until 11 p.m.)

His approach is just wrong. This city ought to be embracing and supporting the demonstrations. San Francisco makes room for all kinds of public events; this one should be no different. The people at City Hall should be working with the people in the streets to make San Francisco a central part of this growing national movement.

Make no mistake about it: What started as a small-scale, leaderless, somewhat ragtag group in lower Manhattan now has the potential to become a potent political force in this country. Occupy Wall Street has tapped into a deep feeling of frustration that’s shared by people in blue states and red states, in cities and towns and rural communities. The feeble economy impacts almost everyone — and this movement has managed to point the finger at the people who caused the problem, who are preventing solutions and who are making big money off the suffering of others.

We realize that at this point, there’s no specific focus for Occupy Wall Street. The civil rights movement and the anti-war movements of the 1960s and the antinuclear movement of the 1970s, the demonstrations against free trade agreements in the 1990s and the marches against the Iraq War in the past decade included people with hundreds of ideological agendas, but they had a pretty clear message — and, generally speaking, specific actions that government officials could take to address the issues.

Occupy Wall Street hasn’t called for any bills, regulations or policies. It’s still a group that is simply calling attention to a basic truth — the very wealthy in general, and the financial sector in particular, are enjoying economic gains at the expense of the rest of us. But that alone is a profound and potent message — if the demonstrators don’t have all the solutions, at least they’ve identified the problem. And that’s more than Obama, Congress, or the mainstream news media have done.

There’s been plenty of talk of a formal platform — one Occupy Wall Street activist posted a proposed list of 13 demands on the group’s website. It’s not a bad list (a guaranteed living wage, single-payer health care, free college education, debt forgiveness, a racial and gender equal rights amendment) with a few somewhat random elements (outlaw all credit agencies). Fox News has picked up the list, although the organization, such as it is, has made it clear that there is no consensus on any platform and agenda. And the labor unions that are joining the protests — with the proper respect for the folks who started things — have legislation in mind (a financial transaction tax, for example).

There’s a danger that the message becomes so diffuse, and imbued with every possible issue that anyone on the left cares about, that it loses the potential to have an impact on the 2012 elections. Occupy Wall Street could go a long way to providing a populist progressive message to counter the Tea Party (which is funded by and largely organized by billionaires but tries to claim grassroots legitimacy).

And there’s no need for a laundry list of agenda items. The focus is right where it ought to be: The richest Americans — and the big financial institutions — have been sucking all the money and energy out of the economy. The remaining 99 percent are suffering. Tax the top 1 percent and create a robust jobs program to put the rest of the country back to work; that’s a winning platform for 2012

Editorial: The Occupy Wall Street platform

-
6

In New York City, the protesters who started the Occupy Wall Street movement remain camped out in Zuccotti Park. In Washington, DC, President Obama said at an Oct. 6 press conference that he understands the sentiment driving the activists. Yet in San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee has approved a police crackdown and the confiscation of camping supplies in an effort to debilitate the occupation in front of the Federal Reserve Bank.

The move comes at a time when Lee is doing nothing to crack down on foreclosures that cost the city money, nothing to force the big banks that have the city’s deposits to lend more in the community, and nothing to promote local taxes on the wealthy.

While Lee says he supports the First Amendment rights of the protesters, he sent the cops in at 10:30 at night to confiscate their belongings — using, in part, the sit-lie law (which is only in effect until 11 p.m.)

His approach is just wrong. This city ought to be embracing and supporting the demonstrations. San Francisco makes room for all kinds of public events; this one should be no different. The people at City Hall should be working with the people in the streets to make San Francisco a central part of this growing national movement.

Make no mistake about it: What started as a small-scale, leaderless, somewhat ragtag group in lower Manhattan now has the potential to become a potent political force in this country. Occupy Wall Street has tapped into a deep feeling of frustration that’s shared by people in blue states and red states, in cities and towns and rural communities. The feeble economy impacts almost everyone — and this movement has managed to point the finger at the people who caused the problem, who are preventing solutions and who are making big money off the suffering of others.

We realize that at this point, there’s no specific focus for Occupy Wall Street. The civil rights movement and the anti-war movements of the 1960s and the antinuclear movement of the 1970s, the demonstrations against free trade agreements in the 1990s and the marches against the Iraq War in the past decade included people with hundreds of ideological agendas, but they had a pretty clear message — and, generally speaking, specific actions that government officials could take to address the issues.

Occupy Wall Street hasn’t called for any bills, regulations or policies. It’s still a group that is simply calling attention to a basic truth — the very wealthy in general, and the financial sector in particular, are enjoying economic gains at the expense of the rest of us. But that alone is a profound and potent message — if the demonstrators don’t have all the solutions, at least they’ve identified the problem. And that’s more than Obama, Congress, or the mainstream news media have done.

There’s been plenty of talk of a formal platform — one Occupy Wall Street activist posted a proposed list of 13 demands on the group’s website. It’s not a bad list (a guaranteed living wage, single-payer health care, free college education, debt forgiveness, a racial and gender equal rights amendment) with a few somewhat random elements (outlaw all credit agencies). Fox news has picked up the list, although the organization, such as it is, has made it clear that there is no consensus on any platform and agenda. And the labor unions that are joining the protests — with the proper respect for the folks who started things — have legislation in mind (a financial transaction tax, for example).

There’s a danger that the message becomes so diffuse, and imbued with every possible issue that anyone on the left cares about, that it loses the potential to have an impact on the 2012 elections. Occupy Wall Street could go a long way to providing a populist progressive message to counter the Tea Party (which is funded by and largely organized by billionaires but tries to claim grassroots legitimacy).

And there’s no need for a laundry list of agenda items. The focus is right where it ought to be: The richest Americans — and the big financial institutions — have been sucking all the money and energy out of the economy. The remaining 99 percent are suffering. Tax the top 1 percent and create a robust jobs program to put the rest of the country back to work; that’s a winning platform for 2012.

Lee’s talking points sound familiar

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
15
Lee’s talking points sound familiar

Interim Mayor Ed Lee released a 17-point jobs plan last week as part of his bid for mayor, prompting City Attorney Dennis Herrera to accuse the interim mayor of “plagiarism” since Herrera, also a contender for mayor, issued a 17-point jobs plan himself earlier this year.

Herrera’s campaign also criticized Lee for ending his plan with Herrera’s signature slogan, “a city that works.”

But Herrera isn’t the only mayoral candidate for whom Lee’s campaign rhetoric rings a bell. Board President David Chiu, who attracted a great deal of attention earlier this year for his statement that supervisors are elected not to take positions but to “get things done,” seems to have served as a muse to the campaign consultants who thought up Lee’s campaign slogan: “Ed Lee Gets it Done.”

(Which — is it just me? — or does having that phrase plastered everywhere bring to mind something more like this?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnDO5VTge6w

Lee’s “new era of civility in City Hall,” meanwhile, closely echoes language Chiu has used on the campaign trail. At a campaign stop in June, Chiu told a room of supporters that before civility was restored this year, “City government was frankly pretty dysfunctional.” Politicians from different political factions bickered with one another, he said, and “they literally couldn’t even sit in the same room.”

At an Aug. 11 rally, Lee told supporters, “We have changed the tone in which we run government,” and added, “I still have in my mind the screaming and the yelling” that the city family used to engage in. 

A few more striking similarities, taken from the candidates’ respective campaign websites:

*  David Chiu says he’ll “Prioritize hiring of local residents.”
*  Ed Lee says he’ll “Hire San Franciscans.”

*  David Chiu says he’ll “Invest in community institutions and infrastructure.”
*  Ed Lee says he’ll “Invest in infrastructure jobs.”

*  David Chiu says he’ll “Support the continued growth of the technology sector.”
*  Ed Lee says he’ll “Attract & grow the jobs of the future.”

*  David Chiu says he’ll “[Expand] the impact of SFMade.”
*  Ed Lee says he’ll “Revive local manufacturing – ‘Made in San Francisco.’”

*  David Chiu says he’ll “Fill vacant storefronts.”
*  Ed Lee says he’ll “Improve blighted areas.”

*  David Chiu says he’ll “Reform our broken business tax. San Francisco is the only city in California that levies a tax on businesses exclusively on payroll.”
*  Ed Lee says he’ll “Reform the Payroll tax  … Mayor Lee knows that San Francisco’s current business tax structure punishes job creation when it should reward it.”

Asked to comment on the remarkable similarities in campaign materials, Lee spokesperson Tony Winnicker told the Guardian, “It’s just another baseless attack from Dennis Herrera’s campaign, only this one sounds like he’s in the third grade.

“Mayor Lee has been giving small business loans and recruiting new jobs to San Francisco from his first days as Mayor,” Winnicker continued. “His economic plan builds on the good work and projects underway and includes many genuinely new ideas to create even more jobs for the future.”

Winnicker added, “As for President Chiu, it’s no surprise that he and Mayor Lee would share many views on how to create jobs for our City as they’ve worked together closely on many issues throughout the year. He thinks President Chiu has many good ideas in addition to Mayor Lee’s own new proposals in our 17-point economic plan. Mayor Lee looks forward to continuing to work with Board President Chiu to create jobs for every neighborhood of our City.”

Louise Renne’s confused history

Zelda Bronstein
-
6
Louise Renne’s confused history

Wow, the Chron found a way to take a swipe at Dennis Herrera for getting involved in politics — and guess who the expert source is? Former City Attorney Louise Renne — who politicized her office so dramatically that the voters approved a measure barring city attorneys from endorsing candidates.

The Chron piece goes back and forth on whether Ed Lee properly disclosed city contracts. Then it quotes Tony Winnicker from Lee’s campaign:

They must get exhausted over there at that campaign throwing stones out of their glass house all day long,” Winnicker said. ”What’s really too bad is we can’t actually look to our legal counsel to get guidance on this. .. because the mayor’s only legal counsel is too busy attacking him.

Which apparently disturbed Renne:

“I think the city attorney has to be particularly careful  in what he or she says and in what he or she does,” Renne said. “I don’t know if that line has been crossed here. I’m trying to stay out of the mayor’s race. I’m extremely troubled that these questions are even being raised.”

Please, Louise.

First, Renne ran for mayor herself while she was city attorney, in 1987, against Art Agnos and John Molinari (who, as a supervisor, was her client). She didn’t get far. Over the next few years, she regularly supported candidates and took stands on propositions, even when her office was involved in evaluating those measures or giving advice to elected officials. In 1995, she endorsed Willie Brown for mayor — even though he was running against her client, incumbent Mayor Frank Jordan.

It was exactly that sort of conflict that led to the city law that now prevents the elected city attorney from making endorsements in local elections. And now she’s worried about Dennis Herrera?

Ed Lee’s funny money

Zelda Bronstein
-
33
Ed Lee’s funny money

The break on the big campaign news of the week goes to the Bay Citizen’s Gerry Shih, who tracked down a couple of employees of GO Lorrie’s and got them to admit that they had no idea who Ed Lee was and had given him $500 because their boss had agreed to reimburse them in cash. Now the other candidates are making an issue of it — Dennis Herrera has called for a criminal investigation, David Chiu has issued a somewhat weaker statement and Jeff Adachi’s campaign is calling the whole thing sleazy.

What makes this so interesting is not just that someone at GO Lorrie’s may have been laundering contributions — the airport shuttle company has been lobbying the city to try to change the rules around where the shuttle vans get to park. So it’s not just a funky operation to push money to the mayor — it’s money from a company that has a big financial stake in a decision made by city officials (and by the way, the airport commissioners are appointed by the mayor).

Matt Dorsey, a spokesperon for Herrera’s campaign, told us that “there’s a point where campaign activities stop being cute and questionable and become illegal.” He noted that Mayor Lee, while vowing to return the tainted money, hasn’t called for a further inquiry.

“If laundered campaign contributions came to the attention of the Herrera campaign, the first person to call for an investigation would be Dennis Herrera,” Dorsey said.

Chiu’s statement: “These revelations raise deeply troubling questions that merit a full investigation by state authorities.  City Hall cannot be for sale.  Pay-to-play politics has no place in San Francisco, and will have no place in a Chiu administration – you can count on that.”

More: “Incidents like these are a reminder of the backroom deals and crony politics that San Franciscans are sick of,” said Colin Dyer, field director for Jeff Adachi. “This is just another in a long line of questionable activities surrounding Ed Lee and his powerful special interest backers. He promised to be a different sort of mayor, Ed Lee is just more of the same.

The big question, of course, is whether this will finally start to take the edge off the Ed Lee Teflon. And that depends in part on the San Francisco Chronicle — which put a far less relevant story about Dennis Herrera (one that didn’t involve illegal money laundering) right on the front page in the lead space above the fold.

The Chron, weakened as it is, still helps define the daily news cycle in this town. But guess what? The Chron didn’t break this story. The Bay Citizen did. And it there’s one thing I’ve found to be consistent about the ol’ Chron over the years is that the paper tends to ignore stories broken by the competition.

But this ought to be front-page news everywhere, not just because it’s a potential felony but because it represents the side of Ed Lee that we’re all worried about. In the Bad Old Days, Willie Brown’s operation did stuff like this all the time. Money went in and out of shadow committees and independent expenditure groups and it was almost impossible to keep track of who was giving how much to Brown — except that anyone who wanted to do business with the city had to pay up.

If Ed Lee’s folks are starting to play those same games, then it’s a very bad sign.

Few surprises in Examiner endorsements

Sasha Cuttler
-
15

The San Francisco Examiner – a paper with a generally conservative editorial stance, and one that endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 – has endorsed a slate of Establishment candidates for citywide office: Ed Lee for mayor, George Gascon for DA, and Chris Cunnie for sheriff.
That’s not really surprising, but its second and third choices for mayor were: Dennis Herrera second and Bevan Dufty third. Herrera was also the Guardian’s second choice and Dufty was someone we considered for third, choosing instead to go with Leland Yee. As the Examiner wrote, there are lots of qualified candidates in this race, and there were a lot more worrisome ones the paper could have picked.
For a newspaper that often takes ridiculous right-wing stances, such as its editorial last year denying global warming, the mayoral endorsement actually reads fairly reasonably. I don’t agree with its conclusion that Lee’s aversion to politics and business-friendly focus are good things, but I was happy to see the Examiner call out Lee’s cronyism and uncritical praise for bad corporate actors like PG&E.
“We do have some concerns about his ties to former power-brokers and off-the-cuff comments that are now being blasted in negative campaign ads. We implore Lee to work harder to separate himself from those who claim responsibility for his success, for they are just as likely to be responsible for any downfall. We ask that Lee, as we would any mayor to be open and honest about his relationships,” the paper wrote.
And its comments about the other candidates it liked were also pretty much on target. The only real criticism I would offer – and it is a significant one – is that progressive favorite John Avalos didn’t even get mentioned among the eight it discussed. WTF?
Now I’m sure they wouldn’t have had great things to say, given their conservative leanings. But to simply leave Avalos out shows the paper has a disregard and disdain for the left that is a big part of what’s wrong in San Francisco. It’s why our mayor and police chief can make this the first city in the country to launch an aggressive midnight raid on the Occupy Wall Street movement. It’s why the Chamber of Commerce can so shamelessly demand that businesses be allowed to drain the employee health funds that a hard-won city law requires them to provide.
San Francisco is not a progressive city, although a large number of San Franciscans are progressive and they have helped usher in a number of important progressive reforms, from worker and tenants protections to environmental initiatives, often through battles that Avalos helped wage on the people’s behalf.
So to ignore Avalos is to ignore progressives in this city. And they can steal our money or our tents, but we aren’t going away.

Lee backs crackdown; Avalos: “I stand with Occupy SF”

Sasha Cuttler
-
136
Lee backs crackdown; Avalos: “I stand with Occupy SF”

Mayor Ed Lee has just released a statement on last night’s police raid of the Occupy San Francisco encampment – claiming to basically support the movement but also support the harsh police crackdown and seizure of tents, food, and other personal property – that offers a sharp contrast to the position of his mayoral rival, John Avalos, who is condemning the SFPD’s actions.

Once again, as Lee also did this week in defending businesses that seize money set aside for employee health care costs, our “consensus and civility” mayor is showing that if you try to stand for everything, you end up standing for nothing. Yet Avalos understands that there are times when one side is simply wrong and that supporting the people means being willing to fight for them.

On both issues, Lee mouthed the meaningless “jobs” defense, claiming that he was trying to help working people by letting their employers raid their health care funds, allowing restaurants to fraudulently jack up their bills, or directing the police to seize their tents and food. That’s not just pandering, it’s insulting.

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to get Lee’s office to offer more detailed explanations of his positions, but they’re so far sticking to prepared statements that are riddled with contradictions. So we’re just going to run the full statements by Lee and Avalos and let you decide who makes more sense and best reflects San Francisco values.

Lee wrote:

“I understand and sympathize with the anxiety and frustration felt by so many in our country caused by a lingering recession and joblessness. That’s why I am doing everything I can to create jobs, get people back to work and make our families stronger here in San Francisco. I support the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement that calls for peacefully assembling to protest and bring national attention to disparity issues in our country.
“In San Francisco, protesters are acting within their First Amendment right to free speech and freedom to assemble. While allowing for peaceful protests, we also must ensure that our streets and sidewalks remain safe and accessible for everyone. I will continue to work closely with our Police Chief to ensure San Francisco responds appropriately to these demonstrations.  
“San Francisco is a city that embraces free speech and freedom to assemble like no other city.”

Indeed, no other city among the 60 or so that have followed the Occupy Wall Street example of occupying public spaces has sent police and trucks in to raid encampments in the middle of night, so San Francisco is indeed alone in its treatment of the movement that Lee shamelessly claims to support.

And now Avalos:

“Last night I gathered in solidarity with the protesters Occupying San Francisco. Like many people all over the country, I have been watching this protest gather strength and grow as more and more of us, more of the 99 percent, demand accountability from the corporations and people who are responsible for the destruction of our economy and devastation of our families.

“I came to down to observe the protest last night in response to summons from protesters and a notice from the police accusing their encampment of a number of minor infractions, ranging from open flames on a city street or sidewalk to serving food without a permit. I observed and negotiated with police in good faith to keep the peace and allow the encampment to remain, only to hear of a crackdown shortly after I left.

“This is not the San Francisco that I know. This is not the San Francisco I love. This City has served as a sanctuary for free speech and assembly for generations, and we must protect that legacy. With our unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, we have a responsibility to be a sanctuary for the 99 percent.

“Instead, last night we witnessed that 99 percent being detained, arrested, and intimidated with force.

“My vision is of a true sanctuary city – one that protects our right to free speech and assembly, and one that holds real criminals accountable. This should be a city for the rest of us – for the 99 percent. I stand with Occupy SF.”

Lee under pressure for contract disclosure law violations

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
11

By Lisa Carmack

Mayor Ed Lee has allegedly failed to file 67 reports detailing contracts worth $50,000 or more with the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Lee has come under attack by fellow candidate City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who claimed that he has “repeatedly delayed filing his required disclosure forms.”

“I’m not aware of specific delays yet, but any time we get a notice and our campaign is reviewed, everything we’re supposed to file as far as I know, we’re in compliance,” Lee said when asked about the claims.

According to city law, any elected official who approves contracts worth $50,000 or more is required to file a report within five days of approval. The requirement serves as a safeguard against illegal campaign contributions, since the city’s Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance bars officials from receiving contributions from vendors within six months of contract approval.

“It just came to my attention today,” said the executive director of Ethics Commission John St. Croix. “We’re gonna have to talk to him and his folks about why these reports have been excessively late.”

On Oct. 5, Herrera publicized records listing each time Lee failed to comply with the ordinance since becoming interim mayor in January of this year.

Whether or not punitive actions will be taken is up to the Ethics Commission. “In this case we have to investigate first,” said St. Croix, adding that while the agency would look into the matter, he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of an official investigation. “I’m not aware of any other entity that files late on a routine basis.”

Lee seeks to lessen political damage from his promised veto

Sasha Cuttler
-
3
Lee seeks to lessen political damage from his promised veto

Mayor Ed Lee says he will veto legislation that the Board of Supervisors approved yesterday that would have banned San Francisco businesses from keeping money they’re required to set aside for employee health care costs. But he seems to be worried about how that move will be seen by voters, touting his support for a “consensus strategy” that doesn’t yet exist and might not be possible given the fundamentally different way both sides see the issue.

The legislation by Sup. David Campos addresses the $50 million per year that businesses have been taking from their employees’ health savings accounts, which they set up to comply with city law requiring them to cover employee health care costs and which many restaurants subsidize by placing a 3-5 percent surcharge on their customers’ bills.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and opponents of the Campos legislation defend the practice and cast efforts to reserve that money for employee health care as a job-killing loss to the business community, although some have finally come around to calling the practice a “loophole” that should be addressed with minor reforms. Yet labor groups and consumer advocates say businesses have no valid claim to that money, making it difficult to see where this elusive common ground might lie.

Supporters of the legislation – including mayoral candidates Leland Yee, Dennis Herrera, John Avalos, and Phil Ting, as well as Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, who authored the Health Care Security Ordinance as a supervisor – rallied on the steps of the City Hall today, calling for Lee to sign the legislation.

Shortly thereafter, the Mayor’s Office issued a press release with the headline “Mayor Lee Convenes Group to Improve Health Care Access & Protect Job,” announcing a “consensus building effort” that includes business groups and Campos and other supporters of the measure. Campos tells the Guardian that he did get a call from the Mayor’s Office today and he agreed to take part in the effort – just as he did in fruitless negotiations with Chamber officials – but he still has a fundamental disagreement with Lee and other Chamber allies over the issue.

“I talked to the Mayor’s Office about their proposal and I have indicated my concerns,” Campos said. He noted that both Lee’s proposal and another alternative by Board President David Chiu – who was quoted in Lee’s press release saying “I am committed to continuing the collaborative effort to ensure health care access to workers while protecting jobs.” – let businesses profit from money that’s supposed to be dedicated to employee health care

“So far, none of the proposals except for mine ensure that whatever consumers pay goes to health care,” Campos said, expressing confidence that public opinion is on his side. “It’s one of those issues that the more everyday San Franciscans hear what’s happening, the more outraged they are.”

But while Lee and Chiu each use the language of seeking compromise and trying to “close the loophole,” both rely on the basic Chamber paradigm that this money belongs to the businesses and setting it aside for employee health care as city law calls for would hurt “jobs.”

When Lee was asked about the issue by a group of reporters today, he said: “Next week, we’re forging a labor and management entities’ meeting with the Mayor’s Office and supervisors to try to forge changes to the Campos legislation. I cannot sign it the way it is now, because of two reasons. One, it does not focus on the healthcare needs of the employees; and two, it will force the employers to just keep millions of dollars lying around without any use and that will decrease the efforts to create more jobs. So both objectives have to be reflected in the ordinance, and I want to make the changes appropriate for that.”

The first reason seems to ignore the fact that the city is barred by federal ERISA law from telling businesses how to provide health coverage, which is why so many of them opted to create these health savings accounts – which are almost useless for people facing serious medical costs – rather than providing health insurance or paying into the city’s Healthy San Francisco program. And supporters of the legislation simply reject the validity of Lee’s second reason.

“That position is based on a false premise. This money belongs to the workers and it’s something that consumers are paying for,” Campos said. “We have a fundamental disagreement.”

City contractors plunk down for Lee

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
1

Representatives from Stellar Services, an IT infrastructure services provider that also does business as 4 U Services, contributed a total of $7,500 in support of Mayor Ed Lee’s bid for a full term, filings with the San Francisco Ethics Commission show. The New York-based company holds a contract with the San Francisco Public Utilities commission (SFPUC) and has been paid $91,737.80 to date for programming and coding services.

Lee also received a maximum $500 contribution from a senior vice president at AECOM, another city contractor. While the contributions may have squared with campaign finance law, significant support from companies doing business with the city nevertheless give the impression of businesses attempting to advance their own interests through political influence.

The majority of the contributions from Stellar came in the form of a $5,000 donation from 4 U Services to the Committee for Effective City Management, an independent expenditure committee created in support of Lee that recently hosted a Lee fundraiser in Millbrae honoring special guests Sup. Jane Kim and former Mayor Willie Brown.

4 U, according to its website, also does business as Stellar Services, a company based in New York that has an office in San Francisco. “Stellar is currently a sub-consultant that is working to develop our new online invoicing system called SOLIS,” SFPUC spokesperson Tyrone Jue told the Guardian. “The invoicing system centralizes and streamlines the invoicing process, makes invoicing transaction transparent to all users, increases reporting and transparency, and makes invoicing completely paperless.” Jue noted that the contract was signed in July 2009, and the SOLIS pilot program is underway.

The remainder of contributions from Stellar were made to Lee’s official mayoral campaign. Five individuals who listed Stellar Services or 4 U Services as their employer, including company founder and president Liang Chen, made maximum contributions of $500, according to a report filed with the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Shaista Shaikh of the Ethics Commission noted that it is legal for city contractors to make contributions to independent expenditure committees formed in support of a candidate for public office. City contractors run afoul of ethics law if they make campaign contributions to an elected official who must approve the contract at any time during contract negotiations or until six months have passed from the date of contract approval, she explained. Since the contract with Stellar was approved in 2009, the contribution would have been made well past the six-month mark  — so it apparently squares with the campaign finance reform ordinance.

Reached by phone, Lee spokesperson Tony Winnicker told the Guardian that if the contract was approved in 2009, it would not be included in a database of city contractors maintained by the campaign, since “there’s no prohibition” against accepting campaign money after the six-month ban has passed. “So that should not be a concern to the Guardian,” he said.

On Sept. 17, Lee received a maximum $500 contribution from Joseph G. Moss, Jr., who listed his occupation as a senior vice president of AECOM in Atlanta, according to an Ethics filing. Lee received another $875 in contributions from AECOM employees, Ethics records show. According a press release on the AECOM website which seems to have been taken down since the Guardian highlighted it, an AECOM joint venture was awarded a $150 million contract for program management services for the SFPUC’s wastewater improvement program on Aug. 16. AECOM is also a partner in a joint venture working on construction of the controversial Central Subway project.   

Since the contractor contribution ban (Section 1.126 of the city’s campaign finance reform ordinance) sets a number of parameters for determining the legality of contributions, it wasn’t immediately clear whether the contributions from AECOM were in line with the ordinance.

Regardless of whether the campaign cash falls on the right side of the law, however, substantial support for Lee from city contractors is likely to raise eyebrows, especially in light of concerns progressives have raised that San Francisco is about to witness a resurgence of the pay-to-play politics that characterized City Hall under Brown.

Will Mayor Lee veto legislation that helps workers and protects consumers?

Sasha Cuttler
-
10
Will Mayor Lee veto legislation that helps workers and protects consumers?

After the Board of Supervisors today voted 6-5 to bar San Francisco businesses from pocketing money they and their patrons set aside for employee health care, Mayor Ed Lee faces a tough but telling choice: Whether to heed business community demands that he veto legislation that has wide labor and consumer support.
A veto is widely expected, but complicating that decision is the position that was staked out today by one of his main rivals as a mayoral candidate, Leland Yee, who issued a statement echoing supporters claims that this is an issue of workers’ rights and consumer protection versus corporate greed: “This is a defining issue of who we are as a city. If Ed Lee vetoes this legislation, one of my first acts as Mayor will be to reverse his veto and sign this legislation into law.”
Neither Lee’s mayoral nor campaign spokespersons answered a Guardian email about whether he will veto the measure, which would kill it unless two supervisors who opposed the measure (David Chiu, Sean Elsbernd, Mark Farrell, Carmen Chu, and Scott Wiener) break ranks, which is unlikely given the polarization on this measure. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce officials have made a top priority of killing the measure, even threatening to withdraw support from Prop. C, the pension reform measure that they helped create with Lee.
At issue is the roughly $50 million per year that San Francisco businesses have been taking from health savings accounts they create for employee health care – funds that are often subsidized by 3-5 percent surcharges that many restaurants have chosen to tack onto their customers bills – under legislation that then-Sup. Tom Ammiano created to require employers to provide health care coverage for their employees.
The position of the Chamber – which fought Ammiano’s legislation and supported years of unsuccessful lawsuits challenging it – is that this $50 million “loss” to city businesses would be a “job killer.” Chiu has also accepted that paradigm and introduced legislation that would let businesses use that money, but require them to let employees know they can tap into it and other reforms. But supporters of the legislation say these businesses are deceiving their customers, defying city law, and stealing from their employees.
“People have tried to complicate this issue, but it is a simple issue. It’s about the right of workers to have health care,” Sup. David Campos, the author of the legislation, said at today’s hearing.
Campos said he would limit his comments, given how widely the issue has already been discussed, and he announced a limitation on how long employees could tap the fund after their termination “in the spirit of compromise.” But then opposing supervisors attacked the measure, its timing, and supporters’ refusal to “compromise,” with Elsbernd chiding Campos that his legislation is “not the best way to encourage jobs.”
So Campos went into more detail about why his measure was needed, noting that Chiu’s alternative would cap an employee’s access to health care at just $4,300, far less than the cost of a night’s hospital stay and a small fraction of the cost of a serious ailment. “You’re looking at a situation where very little could be provided for them,” Campos said.
He also said how important it is to ban the fraudulent practice of restaurants charging customers for employee health care costs and then simply keeping the money, a practice that a recent Wall Street Journal investigation discovered was widespread. Campos said 80 percent of the money collected on diners’ bills is pocketed by the restaurants.
“When consumers are paying for this, the expectation is that workers will have basic coverage,” Campos said, noting that his legislation would guarantee that “every cent that that consumer pays is actually spent on health care…This is not just about workers, it’s about consumer protection.”
Even worse, Campos noted that these consumers are actually paying twice for restaurant employees’ health coverage, first on their dinner bills, and then again as taxpayers when those uninsured employees end up in General Hospital with their expenses paid for by the city.
Under the federal ERISA law – which was the basis for the failed lawsuit challenging the city program, brought primarily by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association – the city cannot tell employers how to provide health coverage, and so they have the option of providing health insurance, paying into the city’s Healthy San Francisco plan, or providing the medical savings accounts that this legislation addresses.
Sup. Jane Kim said she supported the legislation largely because of the horror stories she’s heard from employees who not only weren’t told of the existence of these accounts, but who were denied payment for medical procedures even after they learned about them. She also said the city could be vulnerable to another ERISA lawsuit if it took Chiu’s approach of directing how businesses used their funds, citing an earlier discussion of the board’s role in protecting the city from litigation.
On that issue, Kim today introduced an alternative to legislation by Farrell and Elsbernd that would end the city’s program of providing matching funds to publicly financed mayoral and supervisorial candidates once their privately financed competitors break the spending cap. The US Supreme Court recently ruled a similar program in Arizona to be unconstitutional.
The Chamber and other downtown groups – mostly supporters of Mayor Lee, who are close to breaking the spending limits – had signaled their intent to sue the city over the issue. The Farrell/Elsbernd legislation, which needed eight votes to change the voter-approved program, today failed on a 6-5 vote, with Sups. Campos, Kim, John Avalos, Eric Mar, and Ross Mirkarimi opposed.

Will Brown sign Leno’s VLF bill?

Zelda Bronstein
-
11
Will Brown sign Leno’s VLF bill?

We’re still waiting. A bill that could bring San Francisco another $75 million a year — just by restoring the vehicle license fee that people in this city paid before Arnold Schwarzenegger gutted it — is still sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. And we have no idea what action he’s going to take on Sen. Mark Leno’s SB 223.

The good news is that he has already signed one bill that grants local governments in the East Bay to raise sales taxes with a vote of the people. So he’s clearly open to the idea. Leno told us he remains hopeful. “We’ve been working on this for eight years,” he told me. “And there’s never been a time when local government needs it more.”

Mayor Ed Lee has voiced his support; so has the Board of Supervisors. The SF Chamber of Commerce and the Labor Council are on board. “You can’t get much more broad-based support than we have in San Francisco,” Leno said.

There’s a form to email the governor here.

Progressives battle downtown over economic and political reforms

Sasha Cuttler
-
63
Progressives battle downtown over economic and political reforms

Battles between progressive members of the Board of Supervisors and downtown power brokers such as the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce defined City Hall politics for much of the last decade, until the new politics of “civility” and compromise took hold this year, a dynamic that has favored downtown interests. But now, a pair of important, high-profile issues headed to the full board on Tuesday has revived the old dynamic. And in both cases, wealthy interests are putting enormous pressure on the board.

The first involves a proposal – put forward by Sups. Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell, the two most conservative supervisors – to gut the city’s system for publicly financing campaigns because downtown is threatening a lawsuit. They propose to end San Francisco’s program of giving publicly financed candidates more money when a privately funded candidate exceeds the spending cap because the Supreme Court recently struck down similar provisions in Arizona.

This week, after convening in closed session to discuss the threat of litigation by downtown groups, the board voted 7-3 – with Sups. David Campos, Jane Kim, and Eric Mar opposed, and Sup. Ross Mirkarimi absent because he rushed out to large structure fire in his district – for the Elsbernd/Farrell measure, one vote short of the supermajority needed to amend the current city law.

Campaign finance reform advocates such as Steven Hill argue that it’s unfair to modify the city program right in the middle of an election season in which Mayor Ed Lee and the wealthy independent expenditure groups supporting him are poised to spend millions of dollars to defeat a large field of mostly publicly funded mayoral candidates.

Hill and his allies are appealing to Mirkarimi – who told the Chronicle that he is leaning toward supporting the amendment when the measure returns to the board on Tuesday – not to support what they consider an overly broad capitulation to downtown’s threats. They’re also lobbying Sup. John Avalos to switch his vote, while downtown players are putting the screws to supervisors as well.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mirkarimi clarified his stance, noting that he was the sponsor of the original public financing law and his goal is to protect it, even if it needs to be modified to withstand a legal challenge. “I’m looking for alternatives to fortify San Francisco’s program,” he told us, noting that he missed some of this week’s discussion and he’s hoping something can be done to retain provisions that level the financial playing field with wealthy candidates.

Meanwhile, downtown forces are pulling out the stops to kill Sup. David Campos’ legislation that would prevent San Francisco businesses from pocketing money they set aside for their employees’ health care under a city mandate that they provide health coverage – totaling about $50 million last year – legislation that gets its first hearing tomorrow (Friday/30) at 10 am.

Board President David Chiu has put forward competing legislation that is more to the Chamber’s liking, letting businesses (mostly restaurants that are even placing surcharges of customers’ bills, ostensibly to subsidize their legal obligations) keep the money. But Campos and his labor allies believe they have the six votes they need to pass the legislation, thanks largely to moderate Sup. Malia Cohen’s pledge to support the measure.

While even some supporters have quibbled with the timing of this measure, Campos notes the urgency of keeping money intended for workers in their hands. “It’s an outrage and the longer we wait, the worse it gets,” Campos tells us, noting that the practice, “is what many of us consider fraud.”

Unfortunately, even if the board approves the measure this Tuesday, it will still need the signature of Mayor Lee to become law. While he hasn’t formally taken a position, given that his political base is the downtown crowd, he’s expected to veto the measure. But we’ll ask him about it tomorrow when he’s scheduled to meet with the Guardian for an endorsement interview at 2 pm.

CCDC, the Central Subway, and media manipulation (?)

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee
-
21
CCDC, the Central Subway, and media manipulation (?)

I talked for some time yesterday with Gen Fujioka, an attorney at the Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC), about an editorial he wrote criticizing a San Francisco Chronicle story revealing stunningly high payments to CCDC for subcontracting work on the Central Subway. (A better read, we must say, than Randy Shaw’s whining about how he’s a real journalist, he really really is, and it’s a grave injustice that someone denied him a press release.)

Fujioka claimed that the Chronicle had used fuzzy math, saying the per-hour breakdown of payments to the affordable housing nonprofit were lower in reality than the apalling $750 fee reported in the Chron. He said the management meetings listed in the purchase order actually took eight or nine hours per week to prepare for, which would bring the hourly payment closer to $102 an hour, which still strikes us as kind of steep.

Fujioka also took issue with the Chron’s report that CCDC received $25,000 for holding a single meeting.

We asked the city to send us the documents so we could have a look for ourselves. The $25,000 piece refers to two payments listed under “community relations / public outreach management” on the purchase order for CCDC’s subcontracting work with the Central Subway Partnership. CCDC, which is engaged in affordable housing work, will work with low-income tenants who will be uprooted and relocated as a result of Central Subway construction.

Essentially, the city paid CCDC $15,000 to “plan, coordinate, and implement Chinatown community briefings in cooperation with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA),” plus another $10,000 to “collect and analyze input from community briefings, provide written report of recommendations, implement and support staff and social media at 821 Howard.” Next to each of those items is listed “Quantity: 1.” This seems to explain why the Chron reported that the combined payments were $25,000 for one meeting — the first payment was apparently to plan and host the meeting, while the second seemed to be for processing information gleaned from it.

Fujioka stressed that the description referred to briefings, plural, and that the item “is not one meeting — it’s one of that set of activities. The quantity is not ‘1.’ It’s the category of work.”

Other items on the purchase order, which totaled $410,500, show that the affordable housing nonprofit received $8,000 per month to develop and staff a Central Subway Development liason to publicize the transit project and create informational workshops, $35,000 to develop and implement an outreach plan for Chinese-language media, $95,000 to work with the SFMTA to create a public process for coordinating the design of the Chinatown station and transit-oriented development, and $10,000 to “attend meetings for and provide support services to Chinatown Public Art Plan.”

Fujioka claimed the article was an example of the media being used by one mayoral campaign to attack another, and hinted in his editorial that there was some kind of coordinated media campaign against his nonprofit.

The Chron story spurred a press conference by mayoral candidate and Sen. Leland Yee on Monday, who said he was submitting a request for all correspondence between CCDC, Chinatown power broker Rose Pak, and the mayor’s office in light of this information to pin down all instances of waste and abuse relating to the Central Subway. (Of course, he might want to look beyond CCDC — while the nonprofit may have ties with Lee and Pak, you can be sure that Aecom, the general contractor which has already secured multiple city contracts worth millions of dollars, is doing alright for itself in the Central Subway deal too.) Sources from Yee’s campaign told the Guardian that the senator might hold another press conference if he doesn’t get all the information he asked for, but Lee spokesperson Tony Winnicker told me on Monday that the information would be released “within hours.”

Meanwhile, there’s another interesting tidbit buried in this whole flap. The Chron ran a photograph with its article showing a chalkboard at CCDC offices depicting a power map of the city, with Mayor Ed Lee’s name appearing at the top as interim mayor. The caption said the snapshot was taken before Lee was appointed — which would suggest that CCDC had prior knowledge that Lee would be tapped to serve as caretaker mayor. Yet Fujioka claimed the photo was really taken after Lee had already been installed, and said the drawing was simply “a power map of the city, with the new mayor.” There was no timestamp on the grainy photo, so it’s impossible to verify.

So who’s the mystery photographer? The Chron lists it as an anonymous source.

Someone from Herrera’s camp told me that she’d heard rumors the photo was submitted by a “mole from Leland’s camp.” However, a source in Yee’s camp blatantly rejected that idea, telling me he was certain that it didn’t come from anyone working on Yee’s campaign — and had confirmation from campaign manager Jim Stearns to that effect.

Fujioka didn’t name the source, but said he was pretty sure he knew who it was. “We have a pretty strong suspicion it was a visitor to our office who happened to be there on behalf of a developer who was trying to promote a project,” he said. “He actually is a supporter of one of the other candidates.”

Editor’s notes

Andrew Lam
-
1

tredmond@sfbg.com

Every mayoral candidate who wants the progressive vote showed up for the Guardian forum Sept. 21. Everyone except Mayor Ed Lee.

Yeah, the mayor’s a busy guy. But state senators and city attorneys and public defenders and city assessors and supervisors are busy, too, and those people managed to get to the LGBT Center, where more than 100 people were packed into the fourth floor room.

Jeff Adachi made a point of talking about “showing up” — and everyone knew exactly what he was saying. Where was Ed?

Well, maybe the mayor isn’t interested in votes from the city’s left, but I kind of doubt he’s written off such a huge sector of the population. In fact, by that standard, he would have written off most of the neighborhoods, and most of the political clubs. Because the mayor isn’t showing up much at all.

There have been more than 50 forums, debates and candidates nights over the course of the election season. Sure, some of them happened before Lee got in the race — but since the day he filed his papers, the other candidates have gone to between 12 and 15 events. Lee has made it to maybe two or three — and when he does show up, he often answers one question then leaves.

I get the strategy: Lee is pretending to be above the political fray. He’s the incumbent in the Rose Garden, refusing to lower himself to the level of all that riffraff out there trying to communicate with the voters. He’s making sure nobody gets to ask him any embarrassing questions; that way he won’t make any mistakes. And his entire reelection will be one big scripted event, paid for with big corporate money and managed from behind the scenes by the same slick operators who brought you Gavin Newsom.

Do we really want four more years of that?

Tony Winnicker, who was Newsom’s press secretary, is now handing the media for Lee. He’s just as hostile and dismissive of legitimate journalistic inquiries as he ever was, just as full of spin and vinegar. He acts as if campaigning — you know, the stuff all the others are doing — is beneath the dignity of His Honor.

Come on, Mr. Mayor. Come out and campaign like everyone else. We’re starting to wonder what you’re trying to hide.

The attack on public finance

Andrew Lam
-
0

EDITORIAL The two most important political reforms in modern San Francisco history were the restoration of district elections and the creation of a public-finance system for mayoral and supervisorial elections. Both give candidates who lack big-business support a chance to win elective office. Both give independents a chance to compete against the downtown interests. Both have improved local government considerably in the past decade. And now public financing is directly under attack.

The Board of Supervisors was slated to meet in closed session Sept. 27 to discuss amendments to the public disclosure law — allegedly, according to Supervisors Mark Farrell and Sean Elsbernd, to avoid legal liability. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down in July that an Arizona law giving increased public money to candidates who were being badly outspent by well-financed opponents. One aspect of the city’s law, which allows extra public money for candidates once their opponents break the spending cap, might fall under the high court’s ruling.

But the city’s right in the middle of a heated mayoral election, and all of the candidates entered knowing the current rules — and more important, nobody has come forward to sue, or even threaten to sue, over the city’s law. So there’s no urgent reason to rewrite the ordinance.

The very fact that so many qualified candidates are in the race is an argument for public financing. Many of the current candidates would be unable to raise the vast sums required for a serious campaign without the help of public finance — and that opens up the field to more ideas, more debate, more policy discussions. It also gives the voters more of a choice — which, is, after all, what democracy is about.

Besides, as activist Larry Bush pointed out to us, “you have two choices with money in elections — you can pay up from with public funding or you can pay afterward with sweetheart contracts. And we all know which one is cheaper.”

Mayor Ed Lee, who has refused to take public money (because he doesn’t have to — he’s got plenty of rich and powerful backers) is attacking the campaign law, complaining in a TV ad that his opponents are “using taxpayer money” for “attack ads” — and that’s spurring discussion about whether there ought to be limits on how public money can be used. Any move in that direction would undermine the whole point of the law — if candidates can’t do negative ads (which, like it or not, are part of the modern campaign world) with public funds, they’ll raise outside money instead.

There are plenty of ways to improve the city’s public finance law (increasing disclosure requirements for late money and expanding the restrictions on donation by city contractors would be a good start). But amending the law in the middle of a campaign when there are no existing legal threats is a bad idea, and the supervisors should scrap it.

PS: If Lee wants to be mayor, he needs to start showing up — at debates and forums. That’s part of the job.

Endorsement Interviews: Leland Yee

Zelda Bronstein
-
73
Endorsement Interviews: Leland Yee

State Sen. Leland Yee, who is running for mayor, has been involved in local politics since the 1980s, when he joined the School Board. He’s been a supervisor elected at-large, a district supervisor, a state Assembly member and now a senator. And he stirs up strong passions in the city — supporters of Mayor Ed Lee say they urged him to get into the mayor’s race in part to stop Yee from winning. Yee was a fiscal conservative on the Board of Supervisors, but in Sacramento, he’s been a foe of budget cuts. And he told us he wants to see new revenue — including a city income tax — to make sure that “the people who need services get them.”

You can listen to our interview with Yee and see the video after the jump.

Yee by endorsements2011

Guardian editorial: The attack on public finance

-
15

 

ATTACKING PUBLIC FINANCE, COURTESY OF SUPERVISORS SEAN ELSBERND AND MARK FARRELL WHO ARE  CARRYING THE WATER FOR THE DOWNTOWN GANG AND ITS WELL-FUNDED CANDIDATE MAYOR ED LEE

Impertinent questions for the supervisors:
Why are you discussing amending/gutting a damn good thing (the public finance system)  for reasons of “liability” when nobody has sued the city?
Why not tell Mayor Ed Lee to start showing up at debates and forums instead of hiding behind the gushers of PG&E/Chamber/downtown/real estate money flowing  into his campaign?  B3

 

EDITORIAL: The two most important political reforms in modern San Francisco history were the restoration of district elections and the creation of a public-finance system for mayoral and supervisorial elections. Both give candidates who lack big-business support a chance to win elective office. Both give independents a chance to compete against the downtown interests. Both have improved local government considerably in the past decade. And now public financing is directly under attack.

The Board of Supervisors was slated to meet in closed session Sept. 27 to discuss amendments to the public disclosure law — allegedly, according to Supervisors Mark Farrell and Sean Elsbernd, to avoid legal liability. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down in July that an Arizona law giving increased public money to candidates who were being badly outspent by well-financed opponents. One aspect of the city’s law, which allows extra public money for candidates once their opponents break the spending cap, might fall under the high court’s ruling.

But the city’s right in the middle of a heated mayoral election, and all of the candidates entered knowing the current rules — and more important, nobody has come forward to sue, or even threaten to sue, over the city’s law. So there’s no urgent reason to rewrite the ordinance.

The very fact that so many qualified candidates are in the race is an argument for public financing. Many of the current candidates would be unable to raise the vast sums required for a serious campaign without the help of public finance — and that opens up the field to more ideas, more debate, more policy discussions. It also gives the voters more of a choice — which, is, after all, what democracy is about.

Besides, as activist Larry Bush pointed out to us, “you have two choices with money in elections — you can pay up from with public funding or you can pay afterward with sweetheart contracts. And we all know which one is cheaper.”

Mayor Ed Lee, who has refused to take public money (because he doesn’t have to — he’s got plenty of rich and powerful backers) is attacking the campaign law, complaining in a TV ad that his opponents are “using taxpayer money” for “attack ads” — and that’s spurring discussion about whether there ought to be limits on how public money can be used. Any move in that direction would undermine the whole point of the law — if candidates can’t do negative ads (which, like it or not, are part of the modern campaign world) with public funds, they’ll raise outside money instead.

There are plenty of ways to improve the city’s public finance law (increasing disclosure requirements for late money and expanding the restrictions on donation by city contractors would be a good start). But amending the law in the middle of a campaign when there are no existing legal threats is a bad idea, and the supervisors should scrap it.

PS: If Lee wants to be mayor, he needs to start showing up — at debates and forums. That’s part of the job.
 

Guardian forum: Everybody loves public power

Zelda Bronstein
-
114
Guardian forum: Everybody loves public power

The Guardian candidates’ forum was a blast — standing room only at the LGBT Center, a great, lively crowd, and most of the candidates for mayor showed up. Not Ed Lee, though — we invited him, but he was a no-show. That’s typical — he’s skipped the vast majority of the mayoral debates and events, and when he does show up, he leaves early.

We set out to pin the candidates down on five key issues that came out of the Guardian’s summer issues forums. Shaw San Liu, our moderator, forced the mayoral contenders to give us yes-or-no answers, and our all-star celebrity panel of answer analyzers (Sue Hestor, Corey Cook and Fernando Marti) weighed in and raised signs to tell us whether the candidate had said Yes, No, or Waffled.

The questions:

1. Will you support the creation of a municipal bank to offer access to credit to small business instead of relying on tax breaks for economic development?

 2. Will you support a freeze on condo conversions and the development of new market-rate condos until the city has a plan and the financing in place to meet the General Plan goal of 60 percent of all new units available at below market rate — and then index new market-rate housing to the creation of affordable units?

3. Do you have a viable plan to bring $250,000 a year in new revenue into the city to address the structural budget deficit?

4. Will you agree to opt out of the federal secure communities program and will you reverse Mayor Newsom’s policy and direct all local law-enforcement agencies not to cooperate with immigration authorities?

 5. Will you support a proposal to either buy out PG&E’s San Francisco facilities or build a new city grid through a bond act so that San Francisco will control its own energy distibution system?

Only John Avalos answered Yes to all five. But it was remarkable how many of the candidates supported most or all of the progressive agenda we’ve developed. Every single candidate voiced support for a municipal bank. And every one of them said Yes to buying out PG&E’s distribution system so the city could run it’s own electric utility.

They had a lot more trouble with the notion of a freeze on new market-rate housing and condo conversions, and not all of them could explain how they would bring in $250,000 in new revenue. But I give them all credit for showing up and facing the tough questions and saying that, for the most part, they wanted to promote a progressive agenda.

Here are the scores:

John Avalos: Y, Y, Y, Y, Y

David Chiu: Y, W, Y, Y, Y

Bevan Dufty: Y, N, Y, Y,Y

Dennis Herrera: Y, W, Y, Y, Y

Phil Ting: NA. NA, Y, Y, Y (He came late and missed the first two)

Joanna Rees: Y, N, N, Y, Y

Leland Yee: Y, W, W, Y, Y

Jeff Adachi: Y, W, Y, Y, Y

Terry Baum: Y, Y, N, Y, Y

So five waffles on housing policy; nobody wants to stand up and say that we’re building too much housing for the rich and that it has to stop until we catch up with affordable housing. (At least Dufty was honest and told us he doesn’t want to cut off TIC and condo conversions).

I’m waiting for the video and I’ll post it when I get it.

1...313233...41Page 32 of 41

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org