San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Photo by Luke Thomas
From the Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
Editor’s Note: Supervisor Chris Daly’s reaction to Herrera’s conclusion: “Hats off to City Attorney Ethics Team Chief Jon Givner and Chief of Investigations Thomas Boyd for being so thorough in their investigation. I hope that the people who have been writing spurious things about me, read this document.”
August 17, 2009
Analysis of Documents, Interviews Corroborate Supervisor’s Assertion That He Remains Legally Domiciled on Stevenson Street in San Francisco
City Attorney Dennis Herrera today published the conclusions of his office’s investigation and legal analysis into questions surrounding the legal domicile of District Six Supervisor Chris Daly, who along with his wife, Sarah Low Daly, recently purchased two houses in Fairfield, Calif. The City Attorney’s probe, which was initiated after Daly volunteered to be investigated late last month following his announcement of the purchases, concludes “that Supervisor Daly currently remains a resident of District Six, as required by the San Francisco Charter.”
Daly has maintained that he continues to reside at the couple’s condominium on Stevenson Street in San Francisco, where he has lived since Nov. 2001. His wife and two children recently relocated to Fairfield. The 15-page public memorandum jointly authored by City Attorney Ethics Team Chief Jon Givner and Chief of Investigations Thomas Boyd found the following:
“Supervisor Daly has consistently stated that he spends most of his time in San Francisco and that he intends to remain at the Stevenson Street residence. His actions — as evidenced by witness observations as well as public and private documents — corroborate that intent. We have reviewed a number of documents, including Department of Motor Vehicle registration records, voter registration records, tax returns, utility and related bills, homeowner’s exemption records, and other public documents, all of which are consistent with Supervisor Daly’s assertions and link him to the Stevenson Street residence. In contrast, we are aware of no documents that demonstrate Supervisor Daly has changed his domicile to Fairfield. Additionally, a number of witnesses, including Ms. Low Daly, Supervisor Daly’s Stevenson Street roommates and third party neighbors in San Francisco and in Fairfield, corroborate his statements. Based on our inspection of his bedroom and other rooms in the unit, it appears that Supervisor Daly resides at least part-time at Stevenson Street.
“Applying the established legal standard, we conclude that Supervisor Daly currently remains a resident of District Six. Under the Charter, he must remain a resident of that district and intend that it continue to be his fixed home for as long as he remains in office as the District Six Supervisor. We do not reach any conclusions here about whether Supervisor Daly’s domicile will change at any point in the future.”
The City Attorney’s memorandum additionally offers a comparative analysis of facts and applicable laws involving the office’s 2007 investigation into the residency of former Supervisor Ed Jew, whose failure to establish legal domicile in San Francisco’s District Four prior to seeking that office violated provisions of the City Charter and contributed, in part, to his decision to resign the office in January 2008. Daly’s disclosure last month of his family’s property purchases in Fairfield led several news organizations to draw parallels between the two district supervisors and the extent to which each met the residency requirements of state and local law.
A PDF copy of the complete City Attorney memorandum on Sup. Daly’s legal domicile is available online at the following URL:
The Hunger Site
August 29, 2009 at 9:49 am
I love watching people who call themselves progressives make excuses for the cheesiness of politicians.
August 27, 2009 at 9:52 pm
There are a couple phenomena that this ridiculous “controversy” lays bare.
First is certain folks’ disposition to accept anything negative they can get regarding Chris Daly. Whether you like the supervisor or not, the man lives in San Francisco. If you don’t believe that much, then maybe there are more important things you should be doing–protesting death panels and the like…
I believe the less-recognized second phenomenon demonstrated here is a certain SF exceptionalism–as if, no matter how long-time a San Franciscan, one immediately loses one’s it-ness the moment they have any personal interests east of the Embarcadero. As if, whether or not they live in SF, there’s no conceivable way anyone who would own property in Fairfield could be competent enough to hold elected office. Get over it, Daly-haters. Your beloved Newsom owns a hotel in Squaw. Maybe we should revoke his citizenship in the City and County of San Francisco?
–An SF-born progressive who lives east of Sacramento.
August 23, 2009 at 10:38 am
Jerry, you ask a good question -what exactly does it mean when they say someone has “no class?”
I think I’ve figured it out. When the ruling class says that someone has “no class,” that means that the person is not serving the interests of *their* class.
August 19, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Whenever politicians strike righteous postures and wag their fingers in people’s faces, they have to be careful to live by the values they preach.
Otherwise, they will be remembered as hypocritical and cheesy, even if they have stacked up some positive accomplishments to their credit.
No SF politician has been a bigger finger-wagger than Chris Daly. His principle supporters are cut from the same mold. They have often justified his boorish behavior on the grounds that he’s acting for a higher moral cause – integrity in politics.
However, Daly’s rise was made possible by district elections. The spirit of district election is the spirit of lived commitment to one’s neighborhood and community. That’s why the matter of a supe’s principle domicile is so important.
Daly worked the system in order to get around the spirit of district elections, while satisfying (barely) the letter of the law in regard to district elections.
And that’s why he now faces a crisis of credibility. He made a career out of attacking others for working the system to get around the spirit of the law, while barely satisfying its letter.
He also turned his back on constituents in his district who wanted to make their neighborhoods safe, clean, and peaceful. At the same time, he bought two houses in a bourgeois suburb in order to provide his family with a neighborhood that is safe, clean, and peaceful.
No amount of damage control by his followers will ever succeed in covering over these contradictions.
August 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Chris Daly is a champion of San Francisco values, and always will be no matter where he lives: affordable housing, healthcare, education, immigrant rights, GLBT rights, labor, and bedrock progressive values. Chris Daly deserves credit for being a solid voice of the traditionally marginalized and oppressed. I applaud him and all his work, and I am happy for him and his family.
August 18, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@ kwk-
I see a lot of numbers thrown around here but I see no links backing it up.
@ chris pratt-
If Daly didn’t want to continue representing D6, he would have resigned and moved to Fairfield. And you speak of class, what is your interpretation of showing class. A pimp thinks it shows class when he pops his collar.
@ el Greco-
What letter are you talking about. Link it please.
@Luis-
People like whipping posts. That’s all the fun they get out of life. Makes them feel superior some how.
August 18, 2009 at 8:23 pm
No Chris, people were not “writing spurious things” about you–for example, no one has accused you of using PCP even tho it would explain a lot of your actions–those people were merely Speaking Truth To Power.
Daly doesn’t even represent 50% of his district by voter count and he represents less than 1% of the total residents of SF, yet his “legislation” has wasted millions of dollars and made the City more expensive for the average income working folk to reside in.
Why didn’t he take the over $200,000 for that third home (money paid him by SF taxpayers) and distribute it to Our Most Vulnerable there in his district? Why, when it’s his money, does he allocate it exactly like a Conservative Suburban Republican but when it’s the taxpayer money he spends it like Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive.
August 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I am not hiding my political disdain, I think it’s obvious. During his tenure he has shown very little class, any good he has done is over shadowed by his spoilt child act; treating his political adversaries with contempt.
As for his record for the poor, homeless and immigrant families, I believe he is ignorant of the unforeseen consequences of his policies. If you hadn’t noticed, the poor and immigrant families are far from being the disenfranchised in this City and to contest other wise is to be naive at best. But it serves peoples political agendas and careers to continue to help only those communities. Let’s not forget San Francisco has other communities that also need to be represented, and Daly has certainly failed there.
August 18, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I have been following this whole stupidity for weeks now, and the three comments here represent a shallow and silly attempt to level sanctimonious bs about Sup. Daly and whether or not he is representing his district.
Having worked in the Tenderloin for five years Sup. Daly has been the most prolific, and hard working supervisors who has done great work with the poor and disenfranchised that make up a large part of his district. Sup. Daly has been a champion for the poor, homeless, immigrant families, youth, lgbt and other disempowered communities.
Stop hiding your political disdain for him because he does not represent your interests and get over it. Its unfortunate that all of the good things that Sup. Daly has accomplished is overshadowed by silliness and pettiness.
August 18, 2009 at 6:54 am
I won’t reiterate the many comments that have been made about Daly’s hypocrisy; he won’t respond anyway, because he holds those of us who live in District 6 in such disdain.
Yes, Chris you skated through with this whitewash determination on where you live–you may have complied with the letter of the law just enough to get by, but in upholding the spirit of the law you’ve failed miserably.
August 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm
There was little doubt Daly is living there by the letter of the law; what is so repugnant is Daly’s disregard for the intent of the law. He is undermining the whole point of district elections if his intent is not to continue as a committed member of the community.
August 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Congratulations to Supervisor Chris Daly for convincing City Attorney Dennis Hererra that his primary domicile is in San Francisco.
That was quite a feat. After all, Daly owns two houses in Fairfield, has moved his wife and children and most of his personal possessions into one of them, shares his SF unit with three other roommates, and sleeps there on a mattress in a utility room.
This feat reminds me of Tom Ammiano’s success some years back, when he was a supe. He convinced City Attorney Dennis Hererra to exempt him from the term-limits requirement in the City Charter.
Have you ever wondered why voters hold politicians in such low esteem?