Steven T. Jones

Burning Man vs. Straw Man

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
I was glad to see both the Chronicle and SF Weekly this week give some ink to the story I wrote last week on the lawsuits among the three founders of Burning Man. Or at least I would be happy if the Weekly’s Matt Smith was such a sneering, bitter, deceptive tool. I’ve never understood the disdain Smith has for San Francisco or why he’d want to live somewhere he so abhors. And I’ve never been terribly impressed with his skills or integrity as a journalist. But it was still surprising to see him reduce Burning Man to a cult worshipping Larry Harvey (half the people who go have never heard of Harvey, and most of the other half still goes in spite of him rather than out of some vague sense of reverence), although it was certainly convenient to the ridiculously illogical straw man argument that he makes (although I’m still baffled with his conclusion of trying to equate Cachophony Society culture jamming with opening the Burning Man name and icons up to corporate exploitation). And just to destroy any last shred of credibility and respectability that Smith might have retained, he had to equate Black Rock City with Nazi Germany, lying about the event’s supposed columned boulevards to make this ludicrous point. Puh-leeze.

Webb for president!

-
1

By Steven T. Jones
Even with Democrats retaking Congress and making tentative moves for economic justice and against this disastrous war, political communications have been less than inspiring these days. And President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech last night was a sad and dismal nadir to his sad and dismal presidency. Yet we still had to endure standing ovations that included Democrats for all his dreary non-points and poll-tested platitudes. Ugh, it was almost enough to make a political junkie want to kick the habit.
Then, Jim Webb spoke.
Holy Democratic revival, Batman, this was a knockout! I’ve never seen the opposition party response so thoroughly outshine a State of the Union speech, with all the pagaentry they entail. Webb, a military man turned junior senator from Virginia, eloquently and forcefully drove home the economic justice and anti-war points that most Ameircans believe in, but which Democrats have generally been too timid to really bring. But Webb brought it!
Sadly, his speech was followed by tepid, throwaway remarks from Democratic presidential hopefuls Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, although Bill Richardson was a bit better. Yet Webb has now set the gold standard for how Democrats should be talking. Either the other contenders will take the cue and start aggressively speakng truth to power, or we’re likely to see a serious grassroots effort to get Webb to run. Progressives aren’t going to have a lot of patience for ending this ill-conceived war and reversing the ruling class’ exploitation of the masses — which were the two main subjects of Webb’s speech. Democrats have their moment, and if Pelosi — who has said impeachment is off the table — doesn’t forcefully challenge this imperial presidency with everything she has, it looks like we have a new kid of the block who will.

Ignorance is innocence?

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
This morning, one of the countless thoughtless motorists making an illegal right turn from Market Street onto the Octavia Boulevard freeway on ramp rolled over a 28-year-old cyclist — and kept right on going. She’s in the hospital with severe injuries, but fortunately, the cops caught him. Unfortunately, they determined that he wasn’t guilty of hit-and-run because he wasn’t aware that he hit her. Amazing!
Thanks to SFSU professor and bicycle activist Jason Henderson, who brought this to our attention and had this choice assessment: “What investigation? You basically had an officer ask the guy if he knew he hit someone. That to me does not seem like an investigation. This seems like someone told the officer he did not see the cyclist, did not feel a bump, and sped away up the ramp in oblivion. Sounds like a lie to me. This is gross negligence.”

Peter Ragone: sockpuppeteer

-
0

According to KCBS radio, mayoral flack Peter Ragone has finally admitted to both posting on SFist and other blogs under a false name and lying to reporters about the existence of his imaginary friend, John Nelson. Newsom, who just returned from 10 days in Switzerland, reportedly expressed his displeasure with Ragone, but downplayed the incident.

Apparently, both men think that’s the end of this, but it isn’t. I had an appointment with Ragone scheduled for 4 p.m. today, but he has pushed that back to tomorrow. I’ll be curious what he has to say, and what “lessons” he’s learned, as he obliquely told the Chron. He directly lied to me and other journalists, a lie that KGO-TV broadcast the other night. Ragone needs to issue a public apology, he needs to directly apologize to me and others, then he needs to explain how the incident and other recent offenses have changed him and what he intends to do to restore his damaged credibility. Until he does that, none of us should believe anything that we hear from the Mayor’s Office.

Read more on the Guardian politics blog

Burning brand

-
0

› steve@sfbg.com

Larry Harvey started Burning Man on Baker Beach in 1986, but it was John Law, Michael Mikel, and their Cacophony Society cohorts who in 1990 brought the countercultural gathering and its iconic central symbol out to Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, where it grew into a beloved and unique event that last year was attended by 40,000 people.

Law hasn’t wanted anything to do with Burning Man since he left the event in 1996 — until last week, when he filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court seeking money for his share of the Burning Man brand. Even more troubling to Harvey and a corporation that has aggressively protected the event from commercial exploitation, Law wants to move the trademarks into the public domain.

The suit has roiled and divided the Bay Area’s large community of burners. Some support Law and the declaration on his blog that "Burning Man belongs to everyone," hoping to break the tight control that Harvey and Black Rock City LLC have exerted over their event and its icons, images, and various trademarks.

"If it’s a real fucking movement, they can give up control of the name," Law told the Guardian in the first interview he has given about Burning Man in years. "If it’s going to be a movement, great. Or if it’s going to be a business, then it can be a business. But I own a part of that."

Yet those who control the business, as well as many attendees who support it, fear what will happen if anyone can use the Burning Man name. They envision MTV coverage, a burner clothing line from the Gap, Girls Gone Wild at Burning Man, billboards with Hummers driving past the Man, and other co-optations by corporations looking for a little countercultural cachet.

"We’ve been fighting attempts by corporations to exploit the Burning Man name since the beginning," BRC communications director Marian Goodell wrote on the Burning Man Web site in response to the lawsuit. "Making Burning Man freely available would go against everything all of us have worked for over the years. We will not let that happen."

Harvey, Law, and Mikel became known as the Temple of Three Guys as they led the transformation of the event from a strange camping trip of 80 people in 1990 to a temporary city of burners experimenting with new forms of art and commerce-free community. By 1996 it had grown to 8,000 people.

"Plaintiff is recognized as the one individual without whose leadership and ability the event would not have been planned or produced," the lawsuit alleges. "Plaintiff alone became recognized as the ‘face’ of the event to local residents and authorities, and was the event’s facilitator, technical director and supervisor."

Law’s central role in the event has also been spelled out in Brian Doherty’s 2004 book, This Is Burning Man, and in Guardian interviews over the years with many of the original attendees. As Law told the Guardian, "I put everything I had into it."

Mikel, also known as Danger Ranger or M2, played a key role as the event’s bookkeeper and the founder of the Black Rock Rangers, who oversee safety and security and serve as the liaison between attendees and outside authorities.

The lawsuit minimized Harvey’s role in the 1990 event: "Harvey, however, did not participate at all other than to arrive at the event as a spectator after it was completely set up…. the 1990 event on the playa motivated Harvey to take a more active roll the next year, so he adopted the roll of artistic director thereafter." The three men entered into a legal partnership to run the event.

Harvey was always the one with the vision for growing the event into what it has become today — a structured, inclusive gathering based on certain egalitarian and artistic principles — while Law preferred smaller-scale anarchy and tweaks on the central icon.

"That was really the underlying conflict, but it got charged with emotion because 1996 was a harrowing year," Harvey told the Guardian, one of the few comments he would make on the record because of legal concerns.

That was the year in which Law’s close friend Michael Fury was killed in a motorcycle accident on the playa as they were setting up for the event. And on the last night, attendees sleeping in a tent were accidentally run over by a car and seriously injured, prompting the creation of a civic infrastructure and restrictions on driving in future years.

Law had a falling-out with Harvey and no longer wanted anything to do with the event, while Mikel opted to remain; today he and Harvey serve on the BRC’s seven-member board of directors. But Law didn’t want to completely give up his stake in Burning Man, in case it was sold.

The three agreed to create Paper Man, a limited liability corporation whose only assets would be the Burning Man name and associated trademarks, which the entity would license for use by the BRC every year for a nominal fee, considering that all proceeds from the event get put right back into it.

Harvey has always seen that licensing as a mere formality, particularly since the terms of the agreement dealing with participant noninvolvement have caused Law’s share to sink to 10 percent. In the meantime, however, tensions have risen in recent years between Harvey and Mikel, who has been given fewer tasks and even joined the board of the dissident Borg2 burner group two years ago (see "State of the Art," 12/1/04).

Harvey didn’t pay Paper Man’s corporate fees in 2003, but the corporation was reconstituted by Mikel, who was apparently concerned about losing his stake in Burning Man (Mikel could not be reached for comment). Harvey resisted formal written arrangements with Paper Man in subsequent years, but Mikel insisted.

Finally, on Aug. 6, 2006, Harvey drew up a 10-year licensing agreement and signed for Paper Man, while business manager Harley Dubois signed for the BRC. Mikel responded with a lawsuit that he filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Aug. 23, seeking to protect his interests in Paper Man. That suit later went into arbitration, which has been suspended by both sides since Law filed his suit. Law said he was prompted by the earlier lawsuit.

"I didn’t start this particular battle," Law told the Guardian. "My options were to sign over all my rights to those guys and let them duke it out or do this."

Most burners have seen Harvey as a responsible steward of the Burning Man brand, with criticisms mainly aimed at the BRC’s aggressiveness in defending it via threats of litigation. But Law still believes Harvey intends to cash in at some point: "I don’t trust Larry at all. I don’t trust his intentions."

Law is skeptical of Harvey’s claims to altruism and even sees this year’s Green Man theme — which includes a commitment of additional resources to make the event more environmentally friendly — as partly a marketing ploy.

"If they’re going to get money for it, then I should get some to do my own public events," Law told us. "And if they don’t want to do that, then it should be in the public domain."

Yet as Burning Man spokesperson Andie Grace wrote in response to online discussions of the conflict, "Our heartfelt belief in the core principles of Burning Man has always compelled us to work earnestly to protect it from commodification. That resolve will never change. We are confident that our culture, our gathering in the desert, and our movement will endure." *

Town snooze

-
0

By Steven T. Jones

Listen to a wav file of the Mayor’s January 13 “town hall meeting” here.

newsomchixa.jpg
Newsom, with another new chick

I didn’t have high expectations of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “town hall meeting” in the Richmond this morning — and I was still disappointed. What he had billed as an alternative to monthly policy discussions with the Board of Supervisors during its regular meeting in City Hall — which voters had asked by approving Proposition I in November — was instead ridiculous political theater on his signature issue: homelessness. As we said he would in our cover story, “Mayor Chicken,” Newsom brought along a cadre a city employees and political appointees who work on the issue and they all hit their cues and sang the mayor’s praises while he did his Phil Donahue shtick.

The first hour passed without taking any questions, which the audience had to submit in writing on cards. During the second hour, Newsom sorted through the stack of hundreds for the questions he liked and then asked them in his own words of his employees and panelists. After two hours, they had discussed homelessness from every possible angle and covered every detail — and the audience was bored to tears. It was deadly dull, except for how frustrating it was. He refused to answer any questions on other topics, and while I chided him on his way out for failing to chose anything but softball questions, he had the gall to criticize the Board of Supervisors for failing to come, an angle that his press secretary Peter Ragone has also been flogging for weeks, convincing absolutely nobody.

The only bright spot in the event were the five people dressed in chicken suits who showed up, who Newsom’s board liasion Wade Crowfoot tried to prevent from entering the public building unless they removed them, which they refused to do. It was a good thing they did because the only saving grace of this whole fiasco was watching Newsom get handed a written question (that he never answered) and pretend not to notice the guy was in a chicken suit. The chickens remained respectful through the whole event (not clucking or heckling), but would pop up in windows occasionally or just walk around. Hilarious!

newsomchix3a.jpg
Peek-a-boodle-doo

If you think I’m overstating what a joke this forum was — or if you want to hear Newsom and others (like Angela Alioto, who disgraced herself by sucking up to the mayor) blather on …. click the link at the top of this blog entry. Some buried treasures in the depths of this recording are my heated discussion with Ragone about halfway through and the tough question that I asked (I’m the somebody referred to in Beyond Chron) of those frustrated by the event: Is this a filibuster or an infomercial?

Pics courtesy of Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Newsom’s infomercial

-
1

By Steven T. Jones

Listen to a wav file of the Mayor’s January 13 Town Hall meeting here.

newsomchixa.jpg
Newsom, with another new chick

I didn’t have high expectations of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “town hall meeting” in the Richmond this morning — and I was still disappointed. What he had billed as an alternative to monthly policy discussions with the Board of Supervisors during its regular meeting in City Hall — which voters had asked by approving Proposition I in November — was instead ridiculous political theater on his signature issue: homelessness. As we said he would in our cover story, “Mayor Chicken,” Newsom brought along a cadre a city employees and political appointees who work on the issue and they all hit their cues and sang the mayor’s praises while he did his Phil Donahue shtick.

The first hour passed without taking any questions, which the audience had to submit in writing on cards. During the second hour, Newsom sorted through the stack of hundreds for the questions he liked and then asked them in his own words of his employees and panelists. After two hours, they had discussed homelessness from every possible angle and covered every detail — and the audience was bored to tears. It was deadly dull, except for how frustrating it was. He refused to answer any questions on other topics, and while I chided him on his way out for failing to chose anything but softball questions, he had the gall to criticize the Board of Supervisors for failing to come, an angle that his press secretary Peter Ragone has also been flogging for weeks, convincing absolutely nobody.

The only bright spot in the event were the six people dressed in chicken suits who showed up, who Newsom’s board liasion Wade Crowfoot tried to prevent from entering the public building unless they removed them, which they refused to do. It was a good thing they did because the only saving grace of this whole fiasco was watching Newsom get handed a written question (that he never answered) and pretend not to notice the guy was in a chicken suit. The chickens remained respectful through the whole event (not clucking or heckling), but would pop up in windows occasionally or just walk around. Hilarious!

newsomchix3a.jpg
Peek-a-boodle-doo

If you think I’m overstating what a joke this forum was — or if you want to hear Newsom and others (like Angela Alioto, who disgraced herself by sucking up to the mayor) blather on …. click the link at the top of this blog entry. Some buried treasures in the depths of this recording are my heated discussion with Ragone about halfway through and the tough question that I asked (I’m the somebody referred to in Beyond Chron) of those frustrated by the event: Is this a filibuster or an infomercial?

Pics courtesy of Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Mr. Sensitive

-
2

By Steven T. Jones
How brittle will Mayor Gavin Newsom be at his town hall meeting tomorrow, when he’s expected to be confronted about ducking real political debate? If this interview that aired on KGO-TV last night is any indication then watch for him to flee under fire again. Are we watching a full-blown meltdown of a big city mayor?

Stacking an already stacked deck?

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
We’re getting several calls — but no callbacks from the Mayor’s Office yet — from people interested in attending Mayor Gavin Newsom’s townhall meeting this Saturday who are being told by the mayor’s Communications Office that the event is RSVP only. That’s a surprise to us, those who have followed the issue of how Newsom is refusing Prop. I’s request that he appear for a dialogue with the Board of Supervisors once a month, and those who read our cover story on the issue this week. To make matters worse, the mayor’s people reportedly sent an e-mail to his supporters urging them to RSVP and attend the event, thus ensuring a supportive audience. As I said, I haven’t confirmed this yet because the mayor’s people haven’t returned my calls and e-mails for three days. So much for wanting to make himself more accessible to the public, as Newsom argued the town hall would done when you opted to substitute that for real political dialogue in City Hall. I plan to be there on Saturday anyway. How about you?

P.S. I just got the e-mail that Newsom sent out to his friendlies. It seems the fix is in:

Subject: Re: invite to Sat Public Hearing

Subject:

Join Mayor Gavin Newsom for the first Policy Townhall – space is limited…

Dear Community Members,

Please join Mayor Gavin Newsom & members of the City’s elected family
at the first monthly Policy Townhall for a community discussion on homelessness

This is an opportunity to learn about the City’s efforts to end chronic homelessness and a
chance to lend your voice – and share your ideas – to help solve this problem.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

Richmond Recreation Center 251 18th Avenue (between California & Clement)

San Francisco, California 94121

Space is limited so please RSVP to 415 554 6110 or send an email to mons@sfgov.org

Burning Man family squabble

-
1

By Steven T. Jones
The Burning Man world has been roiled by a legal fight among its three founders: Larry Harvey, Michael Mikel, and John Law — the latter of whom left this event in 1996 but this week filed a lawsuit seeking millions in compensation and/or the placing of Burning Man’s name, logos, and associated trademarks in the public domain. Laughing Squid broke the story yesterday and has lots of great links to Law’s suit and the discussion threads on Tribe and Law’s blog. You can also find M2’s lawsuit, which was a precursor to the current fight, here.
(although you might need to go here first to get the plug-in).
I’ve been talking to all the principles today and will write about this in our next print issue, so I’ll reserve comment for now. But suffice it to say this is a fascinating story that illuminates the roots of Burning Man and could have a major impact on its future. While some have cheered Law’s suggestion that “Burning Man belongs to everyone” and that placing it in the public domain returns it to the people, the reality is that it could lead to the commercial exploitation of the event by any heinous corporation that wanted a little counterculture cache.
BTW, tickets for this year’s event, with its hopeful Green Man theme, go on sale next Wednesday. See you in the long cyberline.

Scribe

Mayor Chicken

-
0

 

› news@sfbg.com

The format is always the same: Mayor Gavin Newsom shows up at a carefully scouted location somewhere in the city with his perfect tie and perfect hair. He brings a cadre of department heads in tow, sending the clear message that he can deliver government services to the public. He takes a few questions from the audience, but the format allows him to deflect anything tough, to delegate any problems to department heads, and to offer a thoughtful “we’ll look into that” when the need arises.

There is no substantive discussion of anything controversial — and no chance for anyone to see the mayor debate contentious issues.

This, of course, is by design.

Newsom has made it very clear during his first term as mayor that he can’t take the heat. He is the imperious press release mayor, smiling for the cameras, quick with his sound bites, and utterly unwilling to engage in any public discussion whose outcome isn’t established in advance.

He has become Mayor Chicken.

So don’t expect any leadership from Newsom during an upcoming series of what the Mayor’s Office is calling “policy town hall meetings” that have been hastily scheduled this year, beginning Jan. 13 in the Richmond District with a discussion of homelessness. The town hall meeting is just politics as usual for Newsom. Since taking office in 2004, he’s held eight of these stage-managed events.

“He does a good Phil Donahue shtick,” says Sup. Chris Daly, recalling one such town hall meeting Newsom held in Daly’s District 6 after he was elected mayor. “Scripted town hall meetings are smart politics for Newsom.”

Scripted events weren’t what Daly had in mind when he wrote Proposition I, which calls on the mayor to appear before the supervisors once a month to answer questions. And these campaign-style events certainly weren’t what voters had in mind Nov. 7, 2006, when 56.42 percent of them approved the Daly legislation, which asks the mayor in no uncertain terms to appear “in person at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of Supervisors to engage in formal policy discussions with members of the Board.”

Examiner columnist Ken Garcia — a conservative hack who regularly sucks up to Newsom — recently dismissed the voter-approved measure as “a silly, obvious stunt to play rhetorical games with the mayor,” which is how the Newsom camp would like to spin things. But Daly recalls how when he first mentioned the idea of a mayoral question time — back when Willie Brown was still in Room 200 — he was sitting next to then-supervisor Newsom, “who thought it was a great idea.”

It’s hardly an unprecedented concept. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, meets with his city’s assembly 10 times a year and presents a detailed report on initiatives and progress. But now Newsom is mayor, suddenly Daly’s idea doesn’t strike him as all that great any more.

While it’s easy to accuse Daly of playing political games, it’s not so easy for Newsom — who loves to talk about the “will of the voters” — to dodge Prop. I. Newsom’s decision to snub voters and avoid real debate was so obvious that he got beat up on both the Chronicle and Examiner editorial pages, on several prominent local blogs, and in television broadcasts. Perhaps that’s why he decided this week to show up and give a speech at the Board of Supervisors inauguration Jan. 8, the first time in years he’s set foot in those chambers. He’s trying to look like he’s complying with voters’ wishes when he’s really doing nothing of the sort.

 

THE “KUMBAYA MOMENT”

It didn’t have to be this way. As board chair Aaron Peskin’s legislative aide David Noyola told the Guardian, immediately after Prop. I passed, Peskin tried to “depoliticize the issue” by becoming the sponsor of a motion to amend board rules.

Peskin’s motion aimed to make space on the board’s agenda for the mayor every third Tuesday so he could address the supervisors on policy matters — a matter he planned to discuss at the Dec. 7 meeting of the Rules Committee.

But two days earlier the mayor took his first jab at ducking the intent of Prop. I. He sent the supervisors a letter in which he claimed that to truly serve the public interest “we should hold these conversations in the community.”

Next, Newsom sent staffers to the Rules Committee hearing, where members discussed how not to force the implementation of Prop. I down the mayor’s throat — and the mayor’s staff claimed they’d be happy to work with the committee to that end.

As a result of this “kumbaya moment,” as Noyola calls it, the Rules Committee decided to continue the item to the following week to have more productive conversation. Meanwhile and unbeknownst to them, 19 minutes into the hearing, the Mayor’s Office of Communications issued a press release outlining Newsom’s intent to hold a town hall meeting in the Richmond District on Jan. 13 — which the mayor said would substitute for complying with Prop. I.

“The Rules Committee was blindsided by the mayor’s press release,” Noyola says.

The mayor, of course, said that all the supervisors were welcome to attend his town hall event and participate in the discussion, giving the appearance he was happy to debate but wanted to do so out in the neighborhoods. But that was a lie: Newsom and his staff knew very well that under state law, the supervisors were barred from participating in any such event.

According to the Brown Act, if a quorum of supervisors wants to be somewhere to discuss business that may be before the board in the future — such as homelessness — and if it wants policy interactions, the clerk must give notice that the supervisors intend to hold a special meeting.

The board actually discussed Newsom’s invitation, and board clerk Gloria Young estimated it would cost $10,000 to $15,000 to staff. It also raised serious procedural and legal questions for the board.

In other words, Newsom knew the supes couldn’t just show up and ask questions.

“But if the mayor wants people to just sit and attend a presentation in the background, like at a speech or a Christmas event, then special meeting notice isn’t needed,” notes Noyola, explaining why Peskin ultimately dismissed the mayor’s invite as “childish” — and why Peskin now says he’d support making question time a charter amendment, thereby forcing the mayor to comply with the will of the voters.

 

WHO’S PLAYING GAMES?

While the Newsom camp continues to dismiss the Daly-authored Prop. I as “political theater,” the supervisor is quick to counter it’s the Mayor’s Office that’s playing games.

“They claim political theater, but if that’s what it takes to get serious policy discussions going, then so be it,” says Daly, noting he has had one private discussion with the mayor in two years, while Sup. Geraldo Sandoval has not talked to him at all. “Newsom claims he has an open door to his office, but so do I — and he’s never been to mine. For the mayor to refuse to discuss important policy items and hide behind ‘I’m afraid of Chris Daly’ is pathetic. Willie Brown probably would have come.”

Daly also observes that San Francisco’s government is structurally unique within California because it represents a city and a county.

“It’s an awkward setup in which there is little formal communication between the board and the mayor,” Daly says, “other than when the board forwards legislation to the mayor for him to approve or veto.”

It’s a structural weakness that hasn’t been helped by the fact that in the three years since he was elected, Newsom only appeared before the board twice — this week and for the board inauguration two years ago — both times giving a brief speech but not engaging in dialogue. It’s an anomaly without precedent in the history of San Francisco. (It’s customary for mayors to deliver their State of the City speeches in the board chambers, but Newsom has done all his at venues outside City Hall.) Most mayors also make a point of occasionally appearing at board meetings (Willie Brown would sometimes even take questions from the supervisors).

On Jan. 8, Newsom slipped in at the last minute and sat next to Peskin until it was his turn to make some brief remarks, an opportunity that immediately followed public comment, during which a baseball-capped woman pleaded with the supervisors to “please kiss and make up with mayor.”

After Peskin welcomed “the 42nd mayor, Gavin Christopher Newsom, to these chambers where you are always welcome,” Newsom rose — and was hissed by a few members of the audience.

“This is a city that’s highly critical of its leadership and that expects greatness from its leaders,” the mayor said. “I have great expectations of 2007…. The key is to work together on the things that unite us…. I look forward to engaging with each and every one of you.”

 

WORKING TOGETHER

This isn’t just politics — there are serious issues involved. Without the monthly question time the Board of Supervisors requested and the voters approved, it’s hard for the city’s elected district representatives to figure out if this mayor actually supports or even understands the issues he claims to champion.

Last year, for example, Newsom was happy to take credit in the national press for the universal health care package that actually came from Sup. Tom Ammiano. But when Ammiano got blasted by business leaders, Newsom didn’t rush to defend the plan; it was hard to tell if he even still supported it.

Business leaders didn’t like that the proposal required employers to provide health care insurance. But Newsom’s own staff recognized that without that mandate, the plan would never work. Did the mayor support it or not?

The situation prompted Sup. Ross Mirkarimi to characterize the mayor’s proposal as “a one-winged aircraft that doesn’t fly,” and it was left to Newsom’s public health director, Dr. Mitch Katz, to confirm that both the voluntary and mandatory pieces of the legislation are joined at the hip. “One can’t successfully move forward without the other,” Katz said at a July 11 board meeting, which Newsom, of course, did not attend.

Since then, the mayor’s commitment to the amalgamated health care package has been thrown into question once again, this time thanks to a lawsuit the Golden Gate Restaurant Association filed only against the employer mandate aspect of the legislation.

The GGRA, which filed its suit the day after the election, is a Newsom ally that funneled more than a half million dollars in soft money into Rob Black’s unsuccessful campaign against District 6’s Daly and into Doug Chan’s coffers for his disastrous fourth-place showing in District 4.

Asked if he knows where the mayor stands on the city’s universal health care plan, Ammiano told the Guardian, “We’ll be meeting with Newsom in the new year and asking for a press conference in which we both pledge to give our continued support for all aspects of plan, but that’s not yet been nailed down.”

Ammiano’s experience is one example of repeated communication breakdowns between Newsom and the board, which have severely hindered policy discussions and the cause of “good government” to which Newsom so frequently pledges his fealty. As a result, Newsom has often ended up vetoing legislation only to reveal in his veto letter that all the legislation needed was a few minor tweaks — changes he might have just asked for had he been more engaged.

Consider how a year ago, Newsom vetoed legislation designed to limit how much parking could be included along with the 10,000 units of housing that were to be built in downtown San Francisco. The legislation was proposed by Newsom’s planning director, Dean Macris, and supported by every member of the Planning Commission but one.

When Newsom caught heat from downtown developers over the measure (see “Joining the Battle,” 2/8/06), he sent surrogates to muddy the waters and make his position unclear until after it was approved by the board. Newsom vetoed the measure, then proposed a couple prodeveloper amendments that hadn’t been brought to the board discussions.

“I’m trying to get the political leaders to come to an agreement because the city needs this,” a frustrated Macris told the Guardian at the time.

A few months later the board was similarly blindsided when it tried to approve legislation that would have created a six-month trial closure on Saturdays of some roads in Golden Gate Park. Newsom’s board liaison, Wade Crowfoot, worked closely with bicycle advocates and sponsor Sup. Jake McGoldrick to modify the legislation into something the mayor might be able to support.

Everyone involved thought they had a deal. Then, for reasons that still aren’t entirely clear, Newsom vetoed the measure. One of the reasons he cited was the fact that voters had rejected Saturday closure back in the 1990s, before the construction of an underground parking garage that still never fills up.

“For what it’s worth, what really sells it for me on this issue of the will of the voters was the shit I went through after Care Not Cash, when the voters supported it and [my critics] did everything to put up roadblocks. And I was making a lot of these same arguments, you know, so this hits close to home,” Newsom told the Guardian a few days after he vetoed Healthy Saturdays.

His words seem ironic: he loves the will of the voters when it suits his interest but not when it requires him to act like a real mayor.

This isn’t the first time Newsom’s been selective in honoring what the voters want: he also refused to hold up the Candlestick Park naming deal with Monster Cable, even though voters rejected it through Proposition H in 2004.

Last October, Newsom’s veto of Mirkarimi’s wildly popular foot patrol legislation led to a humiliating 9–2 override in November, but not before he’d dragged San Francisco Police Department chief Heather Fong with him through the political mud and created an unpleasant rift between himself and his formerly loyal ally Sup. Bevan Dufty.

Newsom has tried to spin his refusal to engage in question time as something other than defiance of voters by proposing the upcoming series of town hall meetings.

“Bringing these conversations to the neighborhoods — during nonwork hours — will allow residents to participate and will ensure transparent dialogue, while avoiding the politicized, counterproductive arguing that too often takes place in the confines of City Hall,” Newsom wrote in his Dec. 5 letter.

But even the Chronicle and the Examiner — neither of which have been supportive of progressives in City Hall — have condemned Newsom for ducking this fight. On Dec. 18, Chronicle editorial writer Marshall Kirduff opined, “There is no end of topics to discuss — a Muni overhaul, a new neighborhood coming to Treasure Island, police policies, the ever-with-us homeless. The city could do with more debate even at considerable risk of dopey rhetoric. That means the mayor should step out of his office, walk across City Hall and face the supervisors. It’s time to bring on the questions.”

Meanwhile, Daly notes the mayor has been spending excessive time out of state, not to mention making frequent trips to Southern California. “I think we should subpoena the guy; he doesn’t know what’s going on,” Daly quips.

A classic example of Newsom’s cluelessness about the local political scene occurred live on TV shortly after 59 percent of San Francisco voted to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Asked during a Nov. 16 City Desk News Hour interview with Barbara Taylor about Proposition J’s passage, Newsom said, “I am told Congress is going to come to a halt next week, and they’re going to reflect on this new San Francisco value. Before you impeach the president, you should consider the guy who would become president. Why don’t you start with the top two?”

Yup, it’s definitely time to bring on those questions. *

Newsom’s first town hall meeting takes place Jan. 13 at 10 a.m. in District 1, Richmond Recreation Center, at 251 18th Ave., SF.

 

Computers for nothing

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
Scott Beale from Laughing Squid was one of many bloggers given a free laptop by Microsoft as part of a PR stunt to promote its new Vista operating system. And it came in a Ferrari computer, no less. Well, after the blogosphere lit up with controversy and introspection, Beale (ever the standup guy, in my humble estimation) has decided to sell his machine on E-Bay and to donate the proceeds to the Electronic Freedom Foundation. Atta boy!

The next big fight

-
0

› steve@sfbg.com
San Francisco’s eastern neighborhoods — the Mission District, Potrero Hill, Showplace Square, Dogpatch, the Central Waterfront, and SoMa — are shaping up to be a prime battleground in the fight over who will determine the city’s future.
Can city officials, working with community groups, set development standards that will create adequate housing for all income groups, protect the job-generating businesses that use light-industrial property, and include enough open space and other community benefits? Or will the community have to, for the most part, simply accept what the market forces are willing to provide?
This is the basic dichotomy at the heart of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which has been in development for years and will be unveiled by the Planning Department sometime in 2007. In anticipation of that release, members of the Board of Supervisors are attempting a preemptive strike in the form of a resolution demanding the plan prioritize affordable housing and other public needs.
The 11-page resolution — which was sponsored by Supervisors Sophie Maxwell, Jake McGoldrick, Aaron Peskin, and Tom Ammiano — restates policies from the city’s General Plan, particularly its Housing Element, and emphasizes the need for the Planning Department to ensure those policies are reflected in land-use decisions for the eastern neighborhoods.
The problem is that the city isn’t meeting its goals, particularly in the realm of affordable housing. The resolution notes that the Housing Element calls for 28 percent of new housing to be affordable to people with moderate incomes, 10 percent affordable to low-income residents, and 26 percent affordable to those with very low incomes.
Yet the city’s inclusionary housing law calls for developers to offer only 15 percent of their units below market rate, and a study associated with that law’s recent update indicates most developers won’t build if asked to contribute more (see “Homes for Whom,” 6/18/06, at www.sfbg.com). The vast majority of what’s now being built isn’t affordable to even middle-class San Franciscans — a far cry from the 64 percent of such housing called for in city policies.
“We do not have a housing crisis in San Francisco,” Maxwell declared during a Dec. 12 hearing on the resolution. “We have an affordable housing crisis.”
Most of the progressives who constitute the board majority agree with Maxwell’s statement, which has been made before by housing activist Calvin Welch and some of the community groups pushing the resolution. They all want the eastern neighborhoods, where a disproportionate number of low-income San Franciscans live, to be where the city begins to correct its housing imbalance.
“We need land specifically set aside for affordable housing, and the best place to do that is in the eastern neighborhoods,” Maxwell said at the meeting. “Let’s make this official city policy.”
Or as McGoldrick told the Guardian, “What we’re talking about here is a paradigm shift of major proportions.” He sees the eastern neighborhoods as the ideal place to create and protect working-class housing with aggressive affordability goals, and he said, “Those developers who can’t meet those goals will have to build in other parts of the city.”
But real estate speculators and developers who have spent years waiting to move forward their projects in the neighborhoods have attacked the resolution and its goals. The stakes are extremely high. The plan will set standards for the 4,800 housing units already proposed in the eastern neighborhoods, including 11 projects in the Showplace Square area that total 1,800 units, and more on the way.
“Our projects are being held hostage,” Residential Builders Association president Sean Keighran told us, saying of his members, “They were speculators, but they were playing by the rules.”
Keighran insists RBA builders will help bridge the affordable housing gap if the city works in partnership with them and uses incentives like density bonuses and height variances rather than strict limits and set-asides. But the resolution, he said, “will be interpreted as a tool to stop market-rate housing.”
That’s something even progressive Sup. Chris Daly doesn’t want. Daly emerged as the primary critic of the resolution during the Dec. 12 meeting, blasting it as unnecessary and offering a list of confusing amendments that set the stage for Sup. Bevan Dufty to successfully continue consideration of the resolution to Jan. 9, 2007.
Welch and community leaders such as Tony Kelly of the Potrero Hill Boosters were unhappy with Daly’s maneuver. Kelly told us, “It’s the community groups of the eastern neighborhoods who pushed for this.” He felt it was important for the board to give planners specific marching orders. “It’s meant to say this is what we’ll accept.”
Daly said he supports the basic goals of the resolution — and even said at the meeting that he will ultimately vote for it — but he told the Guardian he would rather find creative ways to work with developers on increasing the amount of affordable housing than draw bright lines that might block market-rate housing.
“I’m not sure it’s the right resolution at the right time,” Daly told us.
During the meeting he also questioned city planner Ken Rich on what impact this nonbonding resolution would have and concluded that it’s merely symbolic, although Rich did say it might spur planners to investigate and present more mechanisms for meeting affordable housing goals.
Daly then suggested a complete revision of the Housing Element to overcome the “balancing act” Rich said planners must perform between competing imperatives, such as facilitating jobs, open space, and housing.
“The General Plan asks us for a lot of different things,” Rich told the board.
“If that’s a weakness in the General Plan, we need to work on that,” Daly said, making the motion that the resolution also require planners to develop a list of “contradictions in the General Plan that will require them to balance conflicting mandates.”
“That could be a thesis topic in itself,” Peskin responded.
Daly’s motion was discussed among the supervisors, clouding and sidetracking the discussion, but it was preempted by Dufty’s motion to delay the matter until the next board meeting. Maxwell said she’s not giving up on the measure, which she sees as necessary to focus planners who feel constrained by market forces.
“Affordable housing seems to be last on the list, and we want it to be a priority,” Maxwell said at the meeting.
It’s an open question whether she has enough votes to win approval and what kinds of pressures and distractions the RBA and its allies will bring to the debate. But the heated division over this simple resolution is a harbinger of what’s to come next year, when the real fight over San Francisco’s future socioeconomic makeup begins.
Or as Peskin said at the hearing, “This is just a preamble to our receipt of the plans themselves.” SFBG

Status quo

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
Just in case you thought Mayor Gavin Newsom wasn’t trying to fool the public by announcing his intention to do town hall meetings as a substitute for meeting with the Board of Supervisors, as voters called for in Prop. I, here’s a link to photos from the eight previous town hall meetings that he’s held. Political theater indeed.

Newsom’s glass jaw

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
Just as my latest story on Mayor Gavin Newsom’s prospects for reelection was going to press, he issued a letter that reinforced the very traits that have caused people to sour on him. Namely, that he’s disengaged, unnecessarily divisive and political, out-of-touch, risk-averse, and just not up to the job of being a big city mayor. The letter concerns Prop. I, which 56.36 percent of San Franciscans approved, saying they want the mayor to “appear in person at one regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors each month to engage in formal policy discussions with members of the Board.” Note that language, because it’s important in understanding the cowardly bait-and-switch that Newsom’s letter tries to perpetrate on the public.

Blood in the water

-
0

Mayor Gavin Newsom has long been considered a lock for reelection next year, a belief driven by his same-sex marriage gesture, hoarding of political capital, personal charm, and high approval ratings. Yet Guardian interviews with more than 20 political experts and insiders from across the ideological spectrum indicate that Newsom may now be more vulnerable than ever.
Just as San Francisco politicians are starting to calculate whether to run, the Newsom administration has suffered a series of political setbacks. In November alone, most of Newsom’s picks got spanked during the election, his veto of popular police foot patrol legislation was overridden by the Board of Supervisors, and he was caught off guard by the San Francisco 49ers’ announcement that they were moving to Santa Clara, taking with them Newsom’s hopes of landing the 2016 Summer Olympics.
“Until recently, I didn’t have a lot of hope,” Sup. Chris Daly, whom Newsom unsuccessfully worked to defeat, told us. “Now the progressives have a glimmer of hope. The mayor seems to be hurting from three or four episodes where he was caught with egg on his face.”
To many political observers — most of whom the Guardian allowed to speak anonymously in order to capture their most candid observations and plans — the defeats were indicative of a mayor who seems increasingly disengaged and out of touch. Even Newsom’s strategy of avoiding fights that might hurt his popularity has rankled many of his allies, who complain that this risk-averse approach has allowed the Board of Supervisors to effectively set the city’s agenda.
“This guy does not use one scintilla of his political capital on anyone or anything,” said former mayor Art Agnos, whose name has been dropped as a possible challenger to Newsom but who told us, “I’m not running.”
There are a number of strong anti-Newsom narratives out there, even on his signature issues, such as crime and homelessness, which persist as visible, visceral problems despite increased city spending on homeless services and controversial tactics like police sweeps and one-way bus tickets out of town for vagrants.
The mayor started his term by announcing during a radio interview that if the murder rate rose, he should be ousted from office. It did — remaining at 10-year highs through the past three years — handing his potential opponents a ready-made sound bite. The crime rate could be a powerful weapon when paired with Newsom’s failure to follow up on promises of police reform.
Newsom is still likely to offer up a long list of accomplishments in his usual statistics-laden style. But much of what he tries to take credit for was actually someone else’s initiative, such as the universal health care measure crafted by Sup. Tom Ammiano (who is running for the State Assembly and not taking a third run at the mayor’s office). Adding to Newsom’s problems in November was the lawsuit the Golden Gate Restaurant Association — a Newsom ally — filed challenging the measure.
Almost everyone we interviewed agreed that if Newsom does have approval ratings of around 80 percent, as has been reported, that support is very soft and may significantly erode during the campaign. “His support is an inch deep and a mile wide” was how one political analyst put it.
“His ‘skyrocketing’ approval rating is irrelevant,” one downtown politico told us. “People approve of the mayor like they approve of the color beige. If you fill an arena with 50,000 people and ask them to decide on what color to paint the walls, that color will always be beige. It’s not that they necessarily like beige; it’s that they will accept it as long as those freaks who want hot pink don’t get their way.”
And then there are his personal foibles. Newsom’s choice of girlfriends — from the Scientologist actress to the 19-year-old hostess — has found its way into print and caused the mayor to lash out in brittle ways that have hurt his relations with once-friendly outlets like the Chronicle, which openly mocked Newsom’s televised comments last month about how hard his job is and how he might not run for reelection.
Finally, there are the new electoral realities: this is the first mayor’s race in which challengers will receive public financing from a $7 million fund (almost all of which, Newsom campaign manager Eric Jaye argues, will be aimed at doing damage to Newsom) and the first with ranked-choice voting, allowing candidates to run as a team and gang up on the mayor.
Add it all up, and Newsom looks vulnerable. But that’s only the first part of a two-part question. The trickier part is who can run against Newsom, and that’s a question to which nobody has any good answer yet.
THE FIELD
Among the names being dropped for a mayoral run are Dennis Herrera, Aaron Peskin, Ross Mirkarimi, Matt Gonzalez, Kamala Harris, Mark Leno, Agnos, Susan Leal, Angela Alioto, Lou Girardo, Warren Hellman, Jeff Adachi, Tony Hall, Leland Yee, Daly, Michael Hennessey, Quentin Kopp, and Carole Migden. That’s quite a list.
Yet most say they are disinclined to run this time around, and none are likely to announce their candidacies in the near future, which is when most observers believe a serious run at Newsom would have to begin. Here’s the catch-22: nobody wants to run against Newsom unless his approval rating sinks below 60 percent, but it’s unlikely to sink that low unless there are rivals out there challenging him every day.
Two candidates who already hold citywide office and could aggressively challenge Newsom on police issues are Sheriff Hennessey and District Attorney Harris, both of whom have mainstream credentials as well as supporters in the progressive community. But both have expressed reluctance to run in the next mayoral election, at least in part because they’re also standing for reelection this fall and would need to leave their jobs to run for mayor.
Public Defender Adachi is a favorite of many progressives and could also run on police reform, but his job of representing sometimes heinous criminals could be easy for the Newsom team to attack Willie Horton–<\d>style.
Many of the strongest potential candidates are thought to be waiting four more years until the seat is open. City Attorney Herrera can take as much credit as Newsom for gay marriage and is a tough campaigner and formidable fundraiser who has clearly been setting himself up for higher office. Assemblymember Leno has won over progressives since his divisive 2002 primary against Harry Britt and could be mayoral material, particularly because he’s termed out in two years. But both are allies of Newsom and reluctant to run against him.
Several supervisors and former supervisors would love to beat Newsom, but the road seems steep for them. Daly just got beat up in his own reelection, so his negatives are too high to run again right now. Supervisor Mirkarimi might run, but some consider him too Green and too green and are urging him to wait four more years. Board President Peskin could also be a contender, but some doubt his citywide appeal and note a few bad votes he’s cast.
Challenges from Newsom’s right could include Kopp, the former legislator and judge; Hall, the former supervisor whom Newsom ousted from his Treasure Island post; businessman and attorney Girardo; financier and philanthropist Hellman; and Alioto, who ran last time. But these would-be challengers are generally less liberal than Newsom, who pundits say is as conservative a mayor as a town with an ascendant progressive movement will tolerate.
Finally, there’s Gonzalez, who four years ago jumped in the mayor’s race at the last minute, was outspent by Newsom six-to-one, and still came within less than five percentage points of winning. Many progressives are urging him to run again, noting that he is still popular and has the political skills to highlight Newsom’s shortcomings. But Gonzalez remains cagey about his intentions.
“I don’t believe I’m running for mayor. The chances are slim,” Gonzalez told us. “But I think he needs to be challenged.”
TEAM NEWSOM
Newsom campaign manager Jaye says he’s definitely expecting a challenge. And unlike most observers whom we spoke with, who are surveying the field and not seeing many people jumping in, Jaye expects a crowded free-for-all and a tough race.
“Is it likely to be a highly contested mayor’s race? Sure. Is that a good thing? Yes, I think it is,” Jaye said. “Every race in San Francisco is tough. The school board races here are fought harder than some Senate races.”
But Jaye thinks the new public financing system — in which mayoral candidates who can raise $135,000 will get $450,000 from the city — will be the biggest factor. “That’s one of the reasons I think everyone’s going to run,” Jaye said. “That guarantees it will be a crowded field.”
One political analyst said that’s the best scenario for defeating Newsom. He said dethroning the mayor will be like a pack of jackals taking down an elephant. No single challenger is likely to beat Newsom, but if he’s being attacked from all sides, he just might fall.
As for Newsom’s weaknesses and missteps, Jaye doesn’t agree the mayor is particularly weak and doesn’t think people will turn away from Newsom because of his candid comments on how the job cuts into his personal life.
“One of the reasons so many people like Gavin Newsom is he’s not afraid to be human in public and to be honest,” Jaye said, adding that his candidate is up for the challenge. “He is running for real and will run a vigorous race.”
Jaye concedes that the 49ers issue is difficult: Newsom will be hurt if they leave, and he’ll be hurt if he appears to give up too much to keep them here. The high murder rate and inaction on police reform are widely considered to be vulnerabilities, but Jaye said, “Gavin Newsom gets up every day and works on that problem, and if voters think another candidate has a better solution, they’ll look at it.”
Everyone agrees that candidates will enter the race late — which is what happened during the last two mayor’s races and is even likelier with public financing. If Newsom takes more hits or can’t get his head into the game, the sharks will start circling. “The next three months with what happens with the mayor will be telling,” another political insider told us.
One test will be with Proposition I, the measure voters approved Nov. 7 asking the mayor to show up for a monthly question time before the Board of Supervisors. Newsom reportedly has said he won’t come, which could look cowardly and out of touch to the voters who approved it and to the supervisors, who might make great political theater of the no-show. And if Newsom does decide to show up, most observers believe he might not fare well in such an unscripted exchange.
If Newsom implodes or appears weak in late spring, suddenly all those political heavy hitters will be forced to think about getting in the fray. After all, as just about everyone told us, nine months is like an eternity in San Francisco politics — and Newsom has the best job in town.

Pelosi’s solid start

-
2

By Steven T. Jones
Now, the Guardian hasn’t always seen eye-to-eye with our congressional rep, incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In fact, it’s fair to say the relationship has been downright chilly as she’s made compromises to attain her leadership post and we’ve wanted someone to take stronger stands against the unchecked rise of Bush-brand imperialism, corporatism, and theocracy.
But I’m happy to see her take a strong stand against letting the hawkish Jane Harman take over the House Intelligence Committee, making the solid choice of Rep. Silvestrie Reyes instead. And I’ve recently been convinced by Assemblyman Mark Leno that even her apparent gaffe of unsuccessfully backing John Murtha for the number two slot wasn’t the disastrous error in judgment that the mainstream media made it out to be.
Instead, Leno argues that it was a shrewd move that sent a strong message to her troops: if you support me, as Murtha has done on the war and other key issues, then I’ll support you (even in uphill fight where the media is waiting to mock me). Even if there’s only some truth to that view, it at least neutralizes the incident and offers some hope that the Democrats might to up to the challenges they face.
The next big test will be whether she allows John Conyers and other strong Bush critics to push for the release of records related to the Iraq War, which could turn up some truly damning data that would then test Pelosi’s pledge not to pursue impeachment. There’s still lots to do and pitfalls at every turn, but for now, I’m willing to hold my fire and offer my support. Go Nancy!

Gay guys get gavels

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
I have a prediction for the new session of the California Legislature, which begins on Monday: there won’t be as much anti-gay rhetoric as we sometimes hear from the social conservatives in Sacramento. Why? Because the Assembly’s two remaining gay men — John Laird from Santa Cruz and our own Mark Leno — have risen to the chairs of two of the most powerful committee. Leno will chair the Appropriations Committee, through which most bills must pass, and Laird will chair the Budget Committee. Or as one insider told me, the word have gone out: you gotta deal with the gay guys. And that might not be easy to do if some loudmouth legislator is out there railing against the “homosexual agenda” because he thinks such nastiness plays well with his conservative constituents.
Compounding that reality will be Leno’s latest bill legalizing gay marriage, which he said he will introduce on the first day of the session. Last time, the Legislature passed it only to have it vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said the issue was a matter for the courts. Then, a month later, the Court of Appeals ruled against San Francisco’s effort to legalize gay marriage by saying it was a matter for the legislature. Stay tuned, folks, this could get interesting.

San Francisco Values

-
1

By Steven T. Jones

Our colleagues at the San Francisco Chronicle flogged the phrase “San Francisco values” in the runup to this election, exploring its meaning in two front page stories and an editorial. But when you compare the paper’s endorsements to how San Franciscans actually voted on Tuesday, it becomes clear that the Chronicle doesn’t subscribe to San Francisco values. Actually, they’ve adopted something closer to Walnut Creek values as they strive to be a paper of and for the suburbs of our great city.

“This is a progressive town”

-
2

By Steven T. Jones

Pollster David Binder was about to begin his regular election post-mortem in the SPUR offices this afternoon when I ran into Mayor Gavin Newsom’s press secretary, Peter Ragone. “Not a very good night for the mayor, huh?” I noted.
But rather than admitting the obvious, Ragone began to spin and dissemble like crazy, shrugging off the defeats of supervisorial candidates Rob Black and Doug Chan – who Newson endorsed and campaigned heavily for – and the approval of a slate of progressive ballot measures that the centrist mayor opposed.
“We endorsed them, but didn’t put a lot into it,” Ragone said, despite the fact that Newsom spent the last two weekends campaigning for Black and Chan (who finished in fourth place) and obviously made a high priority of defeating his main political nemesis of recent years: Sup. Chris Daly.
“The real key for us was Hydra Mendoza, who won [a seat on the school board],” Ragone said. “From my perspective, we now have the mayor’s education advisor on the school board. It’s a good thing.” Perhaps, although I noted that even with support from the mayor and lots of mainstream groups, Mendoza still finished behind a green: Jane Kim. He shrugged again, sticking to his line.
But Ragone can’t spin away the fact that, as Binder said a few minutes later, “I don’t think Newsom had a very good night.”
It was a night for the progressives, with Daly and most of his ballot measures winning decisively and San Franciscans proving themselves to be way to the left of even the leftward national trend. One indicator among many was that nearly 60 percent San Franciscans approved Prop. J, urging Congress to pursue impeachment even though soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says she’s taken it off the table.
“It showed that we had a progressive turnout and this is a progressive town,” Binder said.

More Hellman and SFSOS

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
I just got another call from Warren Hellman, who said he was saddened to see a group he founded but later disavowed — the sleazy conservative attack organization SFSOS — is one of the only groups in town to oppose the school bond measure Proposition A, which Hellman actively supports (his band will even be playing the campaign’s election night party at Slim’s tonight).
“For once, there is goodwill all around on something,” Hellman said of the school bond, which business groups such Committee on Jobs and progressives such as the SF People’s Organization enthusiastically support.
But he’s ashamed to see SFSOS opposing it, sending messages of concern to the group’s leader, Wade Randlett, and funder, Don Fisher, asking the group to send a message to its list noting that most business groups support it.
“It’s a personal vendetta on the part of the guy who runs SFSOS,” Hellman said.
That guy, Randlett, suddenly started attacking the school district last year when the superintendent was at odds with the school board. Randlett was secretly having an extramarital affair at the time with the superintendent’s spokesperson Lorna Ho (Randlett has since left his wife, Tamsin Randlett, and is still with Ho), which seemed to have been what prompted SFSOS to flip its focus from parks and potholes to the schools. And apparently, Randlett holds a grudge like few others, so he’s urging voters to deny needed school facilities to the kids. It’s a telling testament to the guy and the group that is leading the attacks on Chris Daly and openly supporting challenger Rob Black. It’s not too late to grab a Daly sign from his 16th and Mission HQ and do everything you can to keep this kind of sleaze out of City Hall.

More Hellman on SFSOS

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
I just got another call from Warren Hellman, who said he was saddened to see a group he founded but later disavowed — the sleazy conservative attack organization SFSOS — is one of the only groups in town to oppose the school bond measure Proposition A, which Hellman actively supports (his band will even be playing the campaign’s election night party at Slim’s tonight).
“For once, there is goodwill all around on something,” Hellman said of the school bond, which business groups such Committee on Jobs and progressives such as the SF People’s Organization enthusiastically support.
But he’s ashamed to see SFSOS opposing it, sending messages of concern to the group’s leader, Wade Randlett, and funder, Don Fisher, asking the group to send a message to its list noting that most business groups support it.
“It’s a personal vendetta on the part of the guy who runs SFSOS,” Hellman said.
That guy, Randlett, suddenly started attacking the school district last year when the superintendent was at odds with the school board. Randlett was secretly having an extramarital affair at the time with the superintendent’s spokesperson Lorna Ho (Randlett has since left his wife, Tamsin Randlett, and is still with Ho), which seemed to have been what prompted SFSOS to flip its focus from parks and potholes to the schools. And apparently, Randlett holds a grudge like few others, so he’s urging voters to deny needed school facilities to the kids. It’s a telling testament to the guy and the group that is leading the attacks on Chris Daly and openly supporting challenger Rob Black. It’s not too late to grab a Daly sign from his 16th and Mission HQ and do everything you can to keep this kind of sleaze out of City Hall.

Wisdom of former presidents

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
Jimmy Carter said something truly remarkable on National Public Radio last night. The segment was about how the former U.S. president and his Carter Center are monitoring the elections in Nicaragua, just as they have in 67 other elections around the world over the last two decades.
For her final question, NPR’s Debbie Elliott asked about repeated voting irregularities here in the U.S. and whether maybe we should have international monitors to ensure our elections are free and fair. Carter agreed that “the United States electoral system is severely troubled and has many faults in it. It would not qualify at all for instance for participation by the Carter Center in observing.”
Among other things, the Carter Center requires uniform voting procedures through the country, roughly equal access to the media by major candidates, some kind of federal agency to ensure sound democratic standards, and the poor having equal access to polling places as the rich – none of which exists in the United States.
Think about this for a second: just as our current president is starting wars in the name of spreading democracy, a former president who is widely recognized as the premier international expert on democratic standards says that our system is worse that most others in place around the world. And that statement doesn’t even warrant a headline in the major newspapers on the day before a national election.

Hellman on SFSOS and Daly

-
0

By Steven T. Jones
I spoke recently with Warren Hellman, the San Francisco investment banker that Business Week called “the Warren Buffet of the West Coast.” He’s a fascinating guy, someone who has drawn the ire of progressives by founding the downtown groups Committee on Jobs and SFSOS, but who has also joined with progressives to support the Healthy Saturdays closures in Golden Gate Park and other measures.
Among other topics, Hellman talked about SFSOS, which is leading the nasty and deceptive attacks on Sup. Chris Daly, just as it did on supervisors Jake McGoldrick and Gerardo Sandoval a couple years ago using mailers so heinous that both Hellman and Sen. Dianne Feinstein walked away from the group, leaving the Gap’s Don Fisher as its primary funder.
“SFSOS started doing the opposite of what I thought they would be doing, so it was fairly easy for me to part company with them. What I thought we were doing is trying to figure out ways to make the city better, not just being an antagonistic, nay-saying, attack organization. I’m not a huge fan of Gerardo Sandoval, but I thought the attacks on him were beyond anything I could imagine ever being in favor of myself. And it was a series of things like that and I said I don’t want anything more to do with this,” Hellman told the Guardian.
Hellman is still friends with Fisher, even though “there’s stuff that we just disagree on.” He considers Fisher a “very charitable man,” but Hellman has less than charitable things to say about SFSOS frontman Wade Randlett.
“If all things were equal, I’d just as soon that SFSOS went away,” Hellman said.
Hellman likes authentic, passionate people and has friends across the political spectrum, such as SEIU’s Josie Mooney. As for Daly, Hellman said, “I admire Chris Daly. I disagree with Chris on a lot of things he believes, but there are also probably a lot of things I would agree with Chris on. And I respect him.”

1...727374...76Page 73 of 76

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