Tim Redmond

The new school board

1

By Tim Redmond

Looks like the new school board will be …. new. Three of the four seats elected will go to newcomers. Norman Yee was re-elected, but longtime incumbent Jill Wynns apparently didn’t make it. The new members will be Sandy Fewer, Bobbi Lopez and Rachel Norton.

Rodel Rodis, a longtime member of the Community College Board, didn’t make the cut either; Milton Marks was re-elected, and so was Natalie Berg (boo), but progressive Chris Jackson won, along with Steve Ngo, who is kind of a question mark.

So more change.

A night for progressives

0

By Tim Redmond

The amazing thing tonight is that district elections — celebrated in the Harvey Milk movie, brought back by Tom Ammiano — continues to work.

I ran into Republican consultant Chris Bowman early this evening, and he told me that he thought the 2000 election, which brought a progressive majority to the Board of Supervisors, was an unusal event, driven by anger at then-Mayor WIllie Brown. This time around, he was expecting a more moderate slate to win.

But guess what: Organizing on the ground still beats big money when you elect supervisors by district.

Hope in the streets

0

By Tim Redmond

San Francisco is going crazy. I haven’t seen this much excitement in the streets since we shut down the city when the Iraq war began. But this time, we actually have something to celebrate.

Spontaneous parties broke out at 16 and Guerrero and 19th and Valencia; the cops closed the streets (and told me they weren’t going to break up the parties — for a while). Everywhere I rode on my bike, people were waving and screaming, and when I stopped for a bottle of bourbon at my corner store on the way home, the guy gave it to me cheap — “the Obama discount.”

The city is full of hope. That’s a rare commodity these days, and I want it to last. I want Obama to realize that this was a progressive victory, that he won not with the party power structure but with the grassroots, with activists who belong to the left side of the Democratic Party, and that he will take office with a huge, monumental mandate. We’re going to want real change. When you give this many people this much to believe in, you don’t want to let them down.

So let’s celebrate tonight — and tomorrow, let’s remember that WE won this victory, and we now have to make sure that our standard-bearer doesn’t forget that.

Editor’s Notes

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

In Milk, the new Harvey Milk movie, the hero (as in real life) is well aware that he’s a target and faces regular death threats. He also makes the point – and it’s kind of a theme in the film — that the movement he represents is far bigger than he is. It’s about the movement, not any one person, he keeps telling his supporters.

And that’s what we have to remember now that the Nov. 4 election is over.

Thanks to the weirdness of old-fashioned print publishing schedules, I’m writing this well before election day, and by the time you read it, Obama will have won the election. It’s a giddy feeling, actually winning a campaign on this level after so many bitter disappointments. And that’s fine — we should celebrate while we can.

But we should also remember that the real work starts now — and that’s the work of making sure that President Obama is accountable to the people who put him in office.

No other candidate in my adult life has had the kind of grassroots support that put Obama over the top. From the early days of the primaries, he has raised money on the Internet from tens of thousands of small donors. People who have never worked in a political campaign came out to volunteer for him. He has offered hope — and that’s a dangerous commodity. Because now he has to deliver.

We can’t expect too much too fast — but we can demand that he gives the progressive side of the Democratic Party its due. We don’t want the war to drag on. We don’t want the rich to keep gaining market share. We don’t want big business to derail environmental programs. We actually want change, real change — and we have to keep pushing for it.

Electing a president is necessary, not sufficient. It’s still about the movement.

(And if I’m all wrong, and John McCain is the next president, we all better start singing "O Canada")

Prop. H: $10 million and it’s this close

2

By Tim Redmond

Well. Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act, is going down to defeat. But the public-power campaign — against very little money, with $10 million in PG&E cash against it — made a remarkable showing. In the end, Yes on H will have about 45 percent, which demonstrates both the ability of the organizers (great job, Julian Davis) and the willingness of nearly half of the voters to defy the most expensive campaign in San Francisco initiative history. It appears the progressives will still have control of the Board; this isn’t going away.

Turnout: Heavy early, light later

0

By Tim Redmond

Polls were packed this morning in San Francisco, but I’m hearing that the after-work number are much slower. No line at all in Bernal Heights tonight. I hope that means everyone voted early.

In LA, the turnout has been “ridiculously huge.”

Avalos workers on the streets

0

By Tim Redmond

I was walking down Ocean Ave tonight and there were John Avalos workers at every corner, handing out slate cards and urging people to get to the polls. If visibility in the district is a factor, he’s doing well.

Vote; it’s not over

2

By Tim Redmond

If you’re reading this, and you haven’t voted yet, get out of the house and do it. Now. Yes, the Fat Lady is humming her practice chords and it’s pretty clear that Barack Obama will be the next president. In fact, it’s shaping up as a night that will change the balance of power in DC dramatically, with major Democratic wins in the Senate. And Obama has already re-written the electoral map and changed American politics.

But he still has to win CA — and Californians still have to — have to — reject Prop. 8.

And the future of San Francisco is in the balance. We can move to clean energy (Yes on H!) affordable housing )Yes on B!) and elect progressive supervisors.

So this is going to be an historic night, and you still have an hour to be part of it. I just saw Gavin Newsom on TV saying that nobody would be turned away if they are in line outside a polling place at 8 pm. Go.

Early voting helps Obama

0

By Tim Redmond

Although the Brad Blog — the go-to place for stories about voting problems — reports that there are still mounting issues in Virginia, DailyKos says that early voting has lessened the congestion in places like Colorado.

So that’s all looking good. I just hope the networks don’t call if for Obama before the polls close in CA; there’s still way too much on the state ballot that could suffer if Obama supporters stay home and think it’s over.

Of course, if Obama wins PA and Florida, it will be hard for anyone to report that it’s anything but an Obama victory.

Yes on 8 people backing Safai?

4

By Tim Redmond

Tommi Avicolli Mecca, a longtime queer/housing activist, just called me to say that he saw a truck driving around with Yes on 8 signs and Safai for Supervisor signs. Kinda scary — not that Safai supports Prop. 8 (he doesn’t, and his campaign isn’t promoting yes on 8 by any means, and he has the backing of Gavin Newsom, who is pretty much the No on 8 poster boy these days.) And no candidate can ever controll all of his or her supporters. (Fog City Journal caught an Alioto supporter standing in front of City Hall shouting Yes on 8.

But if bigots who want to take away basic civil rights think Ahsha Safai is a good candidate for local office, you have to wonder. I hope he denounces them, quick.

(I called the Safai office and a volunteer answered the phone and said “as far as we know, none of our supporters carried Yes on 8 signs.” But she said she a campaign spokesperson would get back to me with a formal statement. I haven’t heard from them yet. I also left a message on Safai’s cell phone. I’ll let you know if he calls back.)

By the way: Is this a photo of Safai hanging out with Rodrigo Santos, the Republican head of the downtown-backed Coalition for Responsible Growth? CRG is putting money into a lot of supes races, but isn’t supposed to be directly coordinating with any candidates.

Certainly looks that way, and people who know Santos better than I do confirm that’s him in the pic.

1104santos.jpg

Long lines!

0

1104vote.jpg
Jody votes in the shadow of the Chevron refinery

By Tim Redmond

I’ve never had to wait in line for more than a few minutes to vote in Bernal Heights, but this morning my precinct was packed. Nobody complaining, though; we were all excited she was to see the lines. At 7 am, when my partner went to vote, it was almost an hour long; I went a little later, but still had to wait almost 30 minutes.

That’s partially the long ballot — but it’s mostly huge turnout. Which is wonderful, and I hope is a sign of what’s going to happen nationwide.

Of course, there are problems already on the East Coast, particularly, it seems, in Virginia. I’m sure we’ll hear plenty more stories of ballot malfunctions as the day goes on.

In Philly, where my sister lives (and in a state McCain must win to have a prayer) the lines were around the block, and so far, no major issues; her husband is a poll watcher for Obama and says things are going smoothly so far.

There are, of course, still those who think the GOP can steal it again, and as Bill Clinton says, paranoids win elections.

But it will take a monumental effort to turn this tide. My favorite moment so far: This report from my friend Jody Colley, the publisher of the East Bay Express, who voted in Richmond this morning:

In line to vote and absolutely bawling because this little old black
woman gets to vote for a black man the first time ever.

The only sobering thing is the strong carcegenic aroma of the Chevron refinery.

Fake Demo slate mailer

2

1103slate.jpg

By Tim Redmond

These things show up in mailboxes every year, but since some people are still fooled by them, let me set the record straight.

The “Voter Information Guide for Democrats” is NOT the Democratic Party’s slate card. This misleading piece of junk comes out of a political consulting firm in Sherman Oaks, where hack Larry Levine has been using it for years to trick voters. There are no real endorsements here; the piece is a giant campaign ad, a for-profit operation where endoermsements are either for sale to the highest bidder or just stuck on there randomly to give credibility to the paid positions.

This year’s card says No on H; the Democratic Party has endorsed Yes on H. But PG&E paid a lot of money to be on the card, so the card carries PG&E position.

Ignore it. Toss it in the recycling bin. Vote Yes on H.

Obama Street! (for a while, anyway)

6

1103obama.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Local artist Alex Zecca (a friend, and I love his work) very nearly turned Bush Street into Obama Street last night. He and a co-conspirator managed to get all the way from Presidio to Grant before the SFPD “descended with lights and sirens.” He managed to stay out of jail, but had to pull all the stickers down.

Still: Shows it can be done. And such beautiful work.

The landlords attack David Chiu

1

1103gop3.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Jack Davis, the notorious landlord lobbyist and consultant, has put up some $8,000 of his own cash to attack David Chiu, the progressive front-runner in District 3. His piece seeks to portray Chiu as a friend of the Republicans; what’s it’s really about is that Chiu is a friend of rent control.

The developers and landlords have spend a fortune on this race; they’re trying to elect Joe Alioto.

For the record, David Chiu has the endorsement of the San Francisco Democratic Party. He’s not supported by the Republicans. This is a last-minute campaign trick.

The Green Energy Revolution

4

A well-thought-out piece by the manager of the Yes on H campaign:

By Julian Davis

The United States of America and the Planet are teetering on the edge of economic and environmental collapse. We are now well aware of the threat of global warming and the catastrophic climate change it is causing. We know we have to curtail greenhouse gas emissions to heal the planet and sustain life on Earth. We are also in the midst of a serious financial crisis the depths of which we are coming to understand more and more as the days go by. But the economic instability we are experiencing is not just a result of toxic mortgage backed securities and the credit crunch. It’s not just the folly of Wall Street, it’s the folly of Big Oil, it’s the folly of our energy policy, and it is the folly of war.

We borrow trillions of dollars, mainly from China, to violently secure fossil fuel energy resources in the Middle East. This is not only environmentally unsustainable, it is economically unsustainable. Our current energy consumption and geo-political existence are destroying the planet and the American economy.
We are actually amazingly fortunate that there is one answer to our biggest problems. Clean Energy. We cannot save the planet from environmental disaster without developing clean and renewable sources of energy and we cannot save our economy in the long-term without becoming energy independent. Building a massive renewable energy infrastructure will heal the planet, stabilize the economy, create jobs, lift people out of poverty, and relieve us from war.

Our generation has a responsibility to figure this out now. San Francisco has the immediate opportunity with Proposition H to lead the world in the fight against global warming and lead the nation in the quest for energy independence.
Let’s not underestimate what one city can do. San Francisco has been out in front on so many issues in the past, from gay marriage to the most progressive minimum wage in the country. Two years ago a bunch of young workers in San Francisco past a paid sick days measure and now Barack Obama is talking about implementing it nationally. Just a few months ago a rag tag group of San Francisco activists put a 100% Clean Energy initiative on the ballot. A few weeks later, Al Gore issued his now famous energy challenge to America. If San Francisco passes Prop H, other cities and other states and countries around the world will follow.

We now face the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. It has become glaringly apparent that the free market and unregulated rule by private profiteering financial institutions and corporations is not a model that will sustain a healthy economy in this country. Wall Street’s greed has been matched only by Big Oil companies that have made windfall profits while moving at a snail’s pace towards developing alternative energy sources. In San Francisco, financial mismanagement of the private-investor owned utility PG&E has left us with skyrocketing electric rates for natural gas and a paltry supply of renewable energy. It’s time for the public accountability and stewardship of our energy resources and infrastructure that we will get with Proposition H.

At this pivotal moment in history we are faced with profound choices about our place in the world and our future on the planet. We can continue with the folly of national debt, oil profiteering and war or we can create a new clean energy economy, a fearless new ‘new deal’ that builds the next great public works projects, employs the next generation of workers, and ensures peace and stability in the 21st century. With Proposition H, San Francisco will be ready to work with the next President and the federal government to lead the clean energy revolution and build the renewable energy infrastructure that we need to sustain life on earth.

The Chron’s supervisors

3

By Tim Remond

Interesting endorsements from the Chron.. I’m not surprised they gave Ross Mirkarimi the nod in D5; he has no real competition, and has done a great job in office from almost any perspective. But the nice words

he’s shown an ability to find common ground on many issues – and has pushed the mayor for more police foot patrols, authored a crackdown on rogue pot clubs and led efforts to ban plastic bags.

fit in with the Chron’s obvious bias in this election. Although Mirkarimi can push the political edge as well as anyone on the board (jeez, did the Chron even support the plastic-bag ban?), the daily paper lauds him for “an ability to find common ground.”

That seems to be why the Chron, which is typically in lock step with downtown’s agenda on local issues, chose Mark Sanchez, another Green, in D9. Sanchez, the paper says, has

proved to be a reasonable consensus builder as president of the Board of Education, and he’s promised to make civility and compromise a priority as supervisor.

I think civility is the word he used with us, and it’s a fine one (actually, I think all three of the D9 progressives can claim they’ll bring civility to the board). But what the Chron wants is “compromise,” which is a buzz word for getting along with, and not defying, the mayor.

It’s not exactly what I think of when I think of Sanchez, who as a progressive on the school board fought bitterly with Arlene Ackerman when she was school superintendent. And in fact, I just called Sanchez and he told me that “I didn’t use the word compromise.” But he did point out that he has a good relationship with the mayor on education issues, and that glimmer of hope was apparently enough for the Chron.

In D 11, the endorsement of Ahsha Safai comes as no surprise, but it’s a bit warped. The district, the Chron says,

needs an active leader who can work with other supervisors and City Hall figures.

(Who do you suppose those “other City Hall figures might be?)

The problem is that Safai has no real political experience and isn’t going to get along at all with the progressives on the board. He won’t even talk to us.

And in D3, Denise McCarthy gets the nod because

In facing a worsening city budget, she’s willing to consider the tough options of budget cuts and layoffs. Though her policy position put her on the left of the spectrum, she is open to other viewpoints and groups in this fractious corner of the city.

You see a pattern here?

The Chron wants people who will avoid fights and all play nicely with Newsom. That’s not what the legislative branch of government is supposed to do, particularly with a mayor who is so focused on running for governor that he isn’t spending much time running the city.

I’m not sure Sanchez is really going to be as willing to compromise as Chron seem to think… but then, I’m not sure the Chron endorsement means that much in D9.

The other candidates in D3 and D 11

2

By Tim Redmond

We poured a lot of ink this week into the races in D1, D3 and D11,, since those are the swing districts.

And while most of what we wrote about focused on the front-running progressives in those races — Eric Mar, David Chiu and John Avalos — I don’t want anyone to forget that these are ranked-choice voting contests.

That means there will be no runoffs. Randy Shaw thinks that might be a bad thing; he says Avalos would easily beat Safai in a December runoff, but given the anti-Avalos money, I’m not sure that’s true.

At any rate, RCV is the process now — and in every one of these swing races, the outcome will depend on the second- and third-place votes.

So if you live in D1, D3 or D11, remember: It’s not enough just to put your top candidate first. It’s also important NOT to put Sue Lee, Joe Alioto or Ahsha Safai on your list at all. The don’t-vote-for vote is as important as the do-vote-for.

We’ve endorsed three candidates in D 11 and D 3. And I’ve urged that in D3, Chiu and Denise McCarthy work together to stop Alioto. As a matter of strategy, I think it makes sense to vote a full ballot in those districts. (I wish I could say the same in D1, but other than Eric Mar, there’s really nobody worth voting for, so bullet vote in that one.)

A classic Kopp smackdown

3

Watching former Sup. and State Sen. Quentin Kopp take on a bumbling politician or incompetant bureacrat used to be one of the great works of political theater in California. Now that he’s a retired judge, who has to show some sort of judicial temperament, you don’t see it as often, but this smackdown of Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn, in a hearing on high-speed rail, is one for the ages.

(Thanks to Ken Bruce for the tip, and for pointing out the wonderful YouTube title:

October 23, 2008, in the California State Senate: Quentin Kopp delivers an epic smackdown to galactic
asshat Senator Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield

The Chron misses the dirty money story

2

By Tim Redmond

I’m glad to see that the San Francisco Chronicle is covering the downtown-money campaigns in District 1, 3 and 11. But the paper misses the real point. Not only is downtown spending a lot of money, it’s creating fake political groups and promoting outright lies.

Take this fake “San Francisco Democratic Club” that Sue Lee’s campaign consultants have fabricated in D1. A serious daily newspaper would be all over this story, but since the Chron has missed it, the San Francisco Democratic Party ought to force the issue. Chair Aaron Peskin has made good, strong comments, but why not pull together a press conference with all of the progressive members of the DCCC denoucing this fraud>

If we don’t stop it here and now, it’s going to keep happening.

UPDATE FRIDAY 10/31: Heather Knight at the Chron emailed me to say that the paper did cover the fake Democratic Club.I stand corrected. I still don’t think lies and bullshit coming out of downtown have gotten enough Chron attention, though. This is ongoing, big-story stuff, not small items for the insider column.

Tom Ammiano and the Greens

14

By Tim Redmond

I respect the Green Party. We’ve endorsed a lot of Greens, from Matt Gonzalez to Ross Mirkarimi to Medea Bejamin. We even endorsed Nader the first time around. In San Francisco, the Greens are doing the right thing — they’re running local candidates for local office and building a base that way before they get all agitated about statewide and national races.

And if the Green Party wants to take the position that it endorses only Greens and not Democrats in partisan races, that’s fine, too.

This fall, though, the Greens endorsed Mark Leno for state Senate, saying that

We are pleased that Mark Leno has represented our Key Values well in the State Assembly, and therefore we endorse him for a promotion to the State Senate.

Again, that’s fine — we endorsed Leno, too, and he’ll be a great state Senator and will do his best to promote the progressive values that the Greens and I share.

So why did the party decline to endorse Tom Ammiano for state Assembly?

I mean, with all due respect to Leno (and I mean that, sincerely), Ammiano has always been more a leftist than Leno, and closer to the Greens core values. Leno endorsed Gavin Newsom for mayor. He’s supported more moderate Democrats in a lot of races. That’s not to say he isn’t a good legislator and shouldn’t get the Green nod — but if he’s good enough for the Greens, then Ammiano sure ought to be.

The party’s take on Tom?

We are disappointed that Ammiano has not followed Supervisor Mirkarimi’s lead in pushing for a Green approach to improving law enforcement, particularly as Mission residents feel that City officials have overlooked growing concerns about crime and public safety. Ammiano has also taken an increasingly partisan tone in recent years, and may as a result be ineffective in passing progressive legislation in Sacramento.

Gimme a Green Fucking Break, folks. Ammiano has been right there with Mirkarimi on foot patrols, against the ICE crackdown on immigrants, for progressive approaches to crime — certainly as much as Leno has. And “too partisan?” I’ve never, ever heard the Greens argue that one before.

No, I think this is simple: Leno endorsed Mark Sanchez, a Green, for supervisor. Ammiano endorsed a Sanchez rival, David Campos. Both are qualified candidates for supervisor; it would be entirely appropriate and reasonable for any progressive to support either of them. Penalizing Ammiano for not supporting Sanchez makes no political sense.

It’s a silly thing to fight about because both Leno and Ammiano are going to win overwhelmingly anyway, and I have no right to tell the Greens what to do with their endorsements — but this just looks awful. It looks petty and yes, partisan, and frankly, drives a wedge between the Greens and the left wing of the local Democratic Party, which is the last thing we need.

Grow up, Greens.

Backroom brokers

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

It’s not the invisible hand of Adam Smith tossing hate mail on your doorstep this fall like ugly confetti. It isn’t a distinct and independent group of candidates and civic organizations that just happen to be saying the same things, either. There is a carefully orchestrated campaign going on to undermine the progressive agenda, block affordable housing and clean energy, and give Mayor Gavin Newsom a majority on the Board of Supervisors.

It’s well funded; it’s serious; it’s based on lies — and it’s a threat to rent control, sustainable environmental policies, universal health care, the city’s living wage law, and the rest of the accomplishments and goals of the progressive majority on the board.

If that sounds overblown, listen to what the organizers of this campaign are saying themselves.

On Aug. 15, after progressives took control of the Democratic County Central Committee and installed Sup. Aaron Peskin as chair, John Keogan, the head of a year-old organization called the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth, a pro-downtown group founded to counter the progressive movement, announced his intentions in a letter to allies.

"CRG are [sic] preparing for an all-out attack with other like-minded groups and now is our time to stand-up [sic] and be counted," Keogan wrote. He asked members to support "taking SF on a sharp turn to the right."

Those "other like-minded groups," according to campaign finance reports, are a Who’s Who list of downtown-based organizations that have consistently fought to roll back tenant protections and slash government spending on social services: the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Committee on Jobs, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the Association of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, Plan C, and the Police Officers Association.

By law, political candidates can only raise and spend limited amounts of money. But organizations like BOMA, the Realtors, and Plan C can put as much cash as they want into supporting and opposing candidates — as long as the efforts are "independent."

But the orchestration of the attacks on supervisorial candidates Eric Mar, John Avalos, and David Chiu, and the support for their conservative rivals, Sue Lee, Ahsha Safai, and Joe Alioto, is so sophisticated it’s impossible to believe that these groups and candidates aren’t working together.

Between Sept. 9 and Oct. 20, public records show, the groups spent a combined $363,754 ($178,177 in District 1, $104,308 in D3, and $81,269 in D11) on independent expenditures attacking Avalos, Mar, and Chiu and supporting their opponents. They also spent $20,000 supporting Eva Royale in her long shot race for the solidly progressive District 9 seat.

The landlords and downtown aren’t the only ones organizing. All that spending, and the threat of even more to come considering the hundreds of thousands of dollars these downtown groups still have in the bank, has served to unite tenant and labor groups in ways unseen in previous San Francisco elections.

"There’s an unprecedented coalition between tenants and labor," labor activist Robert Haaland told us. "We’re working together to defeat the landlord candidates, who are also anti-labor."

"We have a tremendous fear that the spending and progress on health care and social services will be rolled back," Tim Paulson, president of the San Francisco Labor Council, told us. "Anything less than our candidates [being elected in each of the three swing districts] will pose a real danger to the movement."

NEWSOM’S SLATE


One of the central players in this attempt to take the city away from the progressives and hand it over to downtown is Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is actively supporting Alioto, Lee, and Safai.

Eric Jaye, the mayor’s chief political advisor, has no formal role in the three district campaigns, but Newsom rarely makes a move in local politics without consulting Jaye. In fact, when reporters call the mayor’s press office to ask for comments on local candidates and initiatives, they are typically referred to the private consultant.

Jaye told us he’s talked to all of Newsom’s candidates. "I told them to run on district issues," he said.

The mayor and the latest member of the Alioto clan to seek office (Joe’s sister, Michela, is already on the board) have walked precincts together. And Newsom is so involved with the downtown effort he’s skipping a major Democratic Party gala (where he was slated to get an award) to spend time instead with the Republican-led Coalition for Responsible Growth (CRG).

Jaye’s main job this fall is running the PG&E campaign against the Clean Energy Act, Proposition H. So far PG&E has spent more than $10 million on the effort, and that number will grow in the final week before the election. Part of that same campaign has been propping up Newsom ally Carmen Chu, who has benefited from thousands of dollars of PG&E spending on her race. Chu’s face is all over PG&E’s No on H fliers.

Another central operator is Alex Tourk, the former Newsom aide who resigned after learning that the mayor had been sexually involved with Tourk’s wife. Tourk is now running the CRG operation.

"They brought me on board to do a volunteer campaign that, yes, they funded, but which seeks to inform voters in a non-partisan fashion where the candidates in D1, 3, and 11 stand on key issues," he said.

That campaign’s goal was to get 10,000 people to mobilize — he called them, using a term popularized by Richard Nixon, the "silent majority."

Tourk maintains that door-hangers the group has been distributing don’t endorse any candidates or push any initiatives. But the messages fit exactly with the overall downtown strategy — they seek to discredit the progressives by linking them with controversial ballot measures such as Proposition V, which would urge the School Board to save the military recruitment program, JROTC.

The supervisors have nothing to do with JROTC, but downtown and the Republican Party are using it as a wedge issue.

CRG is facing some political heat of its own: SF Weekly reported in its Oct. 22 issue that CRG’s recently elected president, engineer Rodrigo Santos, accepted money for professional work from someone who had business before the Building Inspection Commission while he served as commission president. Santos is a Republican, like several key Newsom appointees.

Making matters worse are revelations that Mel Murphy, vice president of the inspection commission and a CRG member, distributed invites in City Hall to an Oct. 17 CRG fundraiser for Safai and Alioto. City officials aren’t supposed to do political work at City Hall.

Alioto’s filings show that on Oct. 17, he received $500 from the firm of Santos and Urrutia’s structural engineer Kelton Finney and $250 from S&U engineer Calvin Hom.

PG&E’S FAKE DEMOCRATIC CLUBS


Political consultants Tom Hsieh Jr. and Jim Ross are involved in the District 1 race (Hsieh also responded to the Guardian on Safai’s behalf) — and are using PG&E and downtown money to support Sue Lee.

Beyond Chron reported Oct. 27 that Hsieh has been sending robocalls in Cantonese to voters saying that Lee is endorsed by the "San Francisco Democratic Party Club." Actually, the Democratic Party endorsed Mar.

What is this new "party club" anyway? Well, the Web site reported, the club started raising money just two weeks ago, and already has collected $30,000 from PG&E, $2,000 from the Chamber of Commerce, $5,000 from GGRA (Golden Gate Restaurant Association), and $70,000 from the Committee on Jobs. Another new club, called the Richmond Reform Democratic Club, is opposing Mar — and has $18,000 from the Committee on Jobs, $5,000 from PG&E, and $2,000 from BOMA.

In television ads paid for by the Realtors, a voiceover tries to link Mar, Avalos, and Chiu to Sup. Chris Daly, whose popularity outside his district is low — although neither Mar nor Chiu has much of a discernable connection to Daly. Avalos was a Daly City Hall aide.

One of the Realtors ads was so utterly inaccurate and deceptive — it claimed Chiu and Avalos support decriminalizing prostitution, when both have publicly opposed the decriminalization ballot measure — that Comcast pulled the ad off the air when Chiu filed a complaint.

Fog City Journal uncovered what appears to be illegal collusion between the police union and Safai. Although candidates are barred from coordinating with groups making independent expenditures on their behalf, POA president Gary Delagnes told FCJ editor Luke Thomas that Safai had given the group a photo of him to use on a mailer, a copyrighted image that Thomas took. Safai denied wrongdoing, but refused to answer further inquiries about the matter.

It’s a pitched battle — labor, the tenants, and the Democratic Party against the landlords, PG&E, downtown interests, and the Republicans. It’s pretty clear which side you want to be on.

Steven T. Jones, Sarah Phelan, and Amanda Witherell contributed to this report.

The nonsense about Daly

0

By Tim Redmond

And while I’m raving about the D1 race: The attempts to link Eric Mar to Chris Daly would be laughable if they weren’t so toxic.

This ad

despite its pretty lame graphics and production values, suggests that the three progressives in the swing districts are all Daly “puppets.”

A little reality here:

Chris Daly is not much of a power broker these days. You could argue that Aaron Peskin, board president and chair the Democratic Party, is pushing a slate of candidates, and that would be accurate. But Daly’s off in the wings. He’s termed out in two years, he knows he’s not that popular outside of his district and, while I like and respect Chris, none of these candidates (except possibly John Avalos, his former aide) would owe him anything.

Peskin, the DCCC and the Labor Council are the ones pushing Avalos, Mar and Chiu. But nobody wants to run ads in San Francisco saying that a candidate would be a puppet of the Democratic Party or the Labor Council. So they’ve picked a guy who polls badly in those districts.

I had this argument with Eric Jaye the other day. He kept telling me that there’s a “Peskin Machine” and that the DCCC is now Peskin and Daly’s personal political operation. Nobody who understands the San Francisco left would ever believe that.

The left is notoriously fractious. We fight with each other, we fight with our elected leaders – and most of us never do what we’re told unless we want to. Peskin has very little ability to enforce his will on the DCCC or the progressive movement; his constituents in both areas are just too independent.

That’s the problem with building a left machine. The left in San Francisco doesn’t follow orders.

Sue Lee and segregation

1

1028SKL.jpg

By Tim Redmond

I find it hard to believe that D1 supervisor candidate Sue Lee is allowing her supporters to resort to this sort of pandering, but here it is: Fliers from the landlords are going out attacking her main opponent, Eric Mar, over “neighborhood schools.”

That’s a buzzword for re-segregation. I hate to be that harsh and blunt, but it’s the truth. THe pro-neighborhood schools people may be well-meaning, but if they get their way, and school assigment is done primarily on the basis of where you live, the schools are going to face some ugly problems.

Eric Mar’s been on the school board. He understands this better than most. Sue Lee ought to understand it, too.

I get the frustration that some parents in the Richmond feel: After all, there are quite a few good schools in that part of town, and their kids won’t necessarily get into those schools. But there’s a very good reason for that: If every kid went to a school in his or her neighborhood, we’d have a lot of segregated schools. That’s not only terrible for the kids, it’s against federal law.

Imagine: All the Asian and white families in the Richmond could keep their kids in schools that were almost entirely Asian and white — and the kids in Bayview Hunters Point would go to schools that would be almost entirely African American. Where do you think the resources are going to go?

My kids go to McKinley Elementary in the Castro. Their classmates are a picture of San Francisco — black, white, Asian, Latino, Pacific Islander; kids from single-parent families, kids from traditional families, kids from gay families … not all of them can walk to school (we commute from Bernal Heights), but it’s a wonderful educational situation. It’s what public schools ought to be.

And it’s tricky in a city like San Francisco, where we still, sadly, have some hihgly segregated neighborhoods. But it’s worth the effort.

Frankly, I can’t believe anyone in this liberal city really thinks the schools would be better off if we didn’t have policies that seek to integrate the classrooms.

Besides, San Francisco parents have made it very clear, over and over, that they want school choices. They don’t want to be forced into one neighborhood school (especially if they live in a poor neighborhood or one where the local public school isn’t very good). Why can’t kids from Bayview go to Rooftop and Clarendon?

I’ve been through the San Francisco school assignment process, and it isn’t perfect. And every time someone complains to me about it, I ask them the same question: How would you make it better? It’s a tough one; either you accept that some schools are going to be segregated and some kids denied the opportunity to attend the best schools in town and all kids denied the value of learning in a diverse environment — or you accept that fact that not everyone can go to the neighborhood school.

Of course, you can insist that San Francisco provide excellent schools in every neighborhood, and we should — but really, that’s a copout. It isn’t happening now, and it’s not going to happen in the next five years, and unless the state spends a lot more on education, it’s not going to happen at all. Look: My school has some fairly well-off parents with organizing skills and time on their hands. We can raise money for special programs, and we have an active PTA and lots of volunteers. We just got a new playground built.

In a school that serves almost entirely a low-income community, the parents don’t have money to pour into special programs, they’re working two jobs to pay the rent and don’t have time to spend on the school — and it’s not fair. Clarendon parents raise $200,000 a year, because they can. So Clarendon gets programs that other schools don’t. If the state doubled education spending, we’d be better off, but it won’t, and we’re not.

So you simply have to let parents choose to send their kids to schools out of their neighborhoods — and you have to accept the fact that some kids from richer parts of town won’t be able to attend their local school.

Sue Lee ought to know that. It’s a disgrace that she is allowing this to happen in her name.