Supervisor Chris Daly. Photos by Luke Thomas.
By Chris Daly, special to FogCityJournal.com
November 12, 2010
Every four years, there’s one political contest that dominates San Francisco’s political landscape, and for good reason. The Mayor of San Francisco is not just the most prestigious position in City Hall, it is by far the most powerful. And the ability to sign or veto legislation is only the tip of the iceberg. With over 100 staffers in the Mayor’s Office, over 40 department heads, and hundreds of commission appointments, the Mayor of San Francisco has the resources to alter the course of the City, instantly creating new programs and initiatives. Always in the spotlight, the Mayor can set the course of political discussion and with unmatched ability to reward friends and penalize enemies, the Mayor can quickly raise political capital for allied political campaigns.
With respect to San Francisco’s $6.5 billion budget, we’ve seen how the Mayor of San Francisco is more powerful than all 11 Supervisors combined. The incumbent has unilaterally made mid-year cuts and replaced vital health and human services with more pork for his friends in the police and fire unions. In 2007, he refused to spend a veto-proof $28 million appropriation for affordable housing, and then redirected the monies into his pet programs in his subsequent budget submission. Even when the budget is in the Board’s hands, the Mayor makes technical adjustments and can even raise the budget’s ceiling, giving him the upper-hand in the Board’s deliberation of budget restorations.
With a systematic attack from downtown special interests, Progressives have been shut out of the Mayor’s Office for 20 years. While we have had success with district elections, where big money and the daily newspapers’ influence can be negated by direct contact with voters, the closest we’ve come to Room 200 was in 2003, when a Herculean late effort to elect Matt Gonzalez still came up 6 points short. Anyone involved in that race, or in Tom Ammiano’s underdog run in 1999, appreciates the opportunity we have now. In the next 2 months, the Board of Supervisors will decide everything that’s otherwise at stake in a grueling, citywide Mayor’s race. And while downtown is doing everything they can to influence or at least mitigate the outcome, no one should forget that 7 Supervisors got to the Board riding a wave of Progressive support.
And Progressives have no shortage of individuals who could step into the Mayor’s post in January and immediately outperform the incumbent. Tom Ammiano is the statesman for Progressive San Francisco. His record of public services is unsurpassed, having served from the School Board to the state capitol, with 14 years on the Board of Supervisors, including 2 terms as President. Aaron Peskin also has served as Board President for 2 terms, and as Chair of the Democratic Party, has done more to deliver for Progressive campaigns than any other individual. In the past 6 years, Ross Mirkarimi has posted some of the largest progressive wins in City Hall, and has inspired a national discussion on cutting edge environmental legislation. With a more limited tenure, David Campos and John Avalos have already taken the banner of the future of Progressive politics in San Francisco. Avalos has applied his unmatched community credentials to tackle 2 of the most difficult budgets in San Francisco history. Campos’s steadfast and whip-smart engagement has held the line on countless progressive issues.
Former Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano has six votes, but so far remains committed to advancing Progressive policies in the California Assembly.
Former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin became a solid Progressive in his last term in office. He heads the DCCC after Peskin and Daly wrested Party control from moderates.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has already left his Progressive mark on the local and national levels.
Supervisor David Campos has proven to be an effective legislator and a compassionate Progressive.
Supervisor John Avalos heads the Budget and Finance Committee and is working to advance local workforce hiring practices in San Francisco.
Unfortunately, very little about a conventional leadership battle is progressive. Usually, by the time the leadership vote is taken, it has already been worked out. An “orderly process” that is not messy, almost always is based on backroom deals where select individuals are promised political favors and personal advancement, while entire constituencies and the public at large are left in the dark and out in the cold. This “orderly process” was well under way in City Hall, when Supervisor John Avalos called it out with the introduction of motions to provide for public comment on the process to appoint a successor Mayor and possible additional public comment on the action itself.
Immediately, the Newsom administration pushed back, “It sends the wrong message to the people of this city when those with designs on Room 200 start measuring the drapes before Mayor Newsom has even left office.” Never mind that once Newsom leaves office, somebody will immediately begin to occupy it. Newsom and downtown would love to put off a public discussion about this, because they are more comfortable with the backroom discussions. And the closer we can get to the next seating of the Board of Supervisors without a decision, the more likely that their calls for a “caretaker” or “placeholder” Mayor will come to fruition.
Meanwhile, the elusive 6th vote for a genuine Progressive successor Mayor has been quietly trying to assemble the votes for himself. David Chiu was elected to the Board of Supervisors with the near unanimous support of Progressive San Francisco. Without the Progressive sweep of the Democratic County Central Committee and the unflinching support from the past President of the Board of Supervisors, David Chiu would likely not have won his seat on the Board.
Supervisor David Chiu was elected as a Progressive, calls himself a Progressive, but some worry that his drive for self-advancement will jeopardize the opportunity to appoint a Progressive interim mayor.
Once elected, Chiu cleverly positioned himself as a “compromise” candidate for Board President when no other Progressive could assemble the necessary 6 votes for the post. Starting as nobody’s first choice for Board President, Chiu slipped into the position on the 6th round of voting. Over the next 2 years, Chiu worked to recast himself as a centrist. While he sided with Progressives more often than not, David Chiu cast deciding votes for the Lennar Corporation against critical environmental and economic justice issues, cut deals behind Progressive backs with the Mayor on the budget, and blocked progressive Charter reform for MUNI, the Rec and Park Commission, and the Rent Board.
David Chiu must realize that he can no longer slip in as the “placeholder” candidate for the Progressives. His clearest path to Room 200 is through delay—putting up enough roadblocks in front of the current Board, so we do not make a decision before he assumes the Mayor post in an acting capacity on January 3rd. His best course is with the next Board of Supervisors, where 5 votes plus his own would keep him in Room 200. His math was made easier when his endorsed candidates (one with few progressive credentials) emerged the victors in District 6 and District 10. Chiu has introduced his own motion to direct the Clerk to develop a process to select the successor Mayor, even though existing Board rules already provide the Board that ability.
While Chiu’s proposed process has not yet been released, a preview of it included a super-majority threshold for adoption and sequestered Board members with the possibility of participation by lot. While it is uncertain whether the Board President or his supporters had any hand in creating the proposed process, it is clear that his process produces more obstacles and delay than necessary to select a successor Mayor. This strategy also is problematic for Progressives, because it plays into downtown’s hand, increasing the chance of either a “placeholder” Mayor or even someone from the Moderate political camp.
Progressive San Francisco has a once in a generation opportunity. We are at our best when we get out from behind closed doors and let the sun shine in. Progressive stakeholders, organizers, artists, activists, and everyday people have as much at stake right now as anyone else. It’s time that we hear from you. Please make your voice heard at this Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. We can’t afford to do it without you.
Photo captions by Luke Thomas.
The Hunger Site
December 14, 2010 at 7:44 am
Why are so many of the comments off topic which is about transparency in the mayoral appointment and Daly’s opinion about Chiu and his support for Lennar among other things? Can’t people just email if they are going off topic? Mark Barnes
November 18, 2010 at 8:19 am
@David: I’d love to have some coffee and would be glad to try clarifying any confusion. Don’t think I can do much more than show up at any further public meetings re the mayoral succession, but I’ve been hoping to talk to you, Rafael Mandelman, and Cary Bass, before Bishop Christopher Senyonjo returns–any day–to talk about immigration and sanctuary for persecuted Ugandan Africans, from a region where racism, homophobia, and resource war intersect. I’ve been following all this for years, but here’s some of the latest context: “Congo’s Sex Practices Against Nature Bill to criminalize homo sex and animal sex,” http://bit.ly/aMHspL/. The LGBT community risks a response that backfires, once again, as previous responses have. Will send you Facebook e-mail.
November 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I apologize, for going on about D6/Jane Kim here, as though the issue had not been raised. I just read through this again and saw I had failed to note that Chris Daly addressed the D6/Jane Kim, and D10/Malia Cohen issue, quite directly:
“His math was made easier when his endorsed candidates (one with few progressive credentials) emerged the victors in District 6 and District 10.”
Someone else just told me that David Chiu had also been a big fundraiser for Malia Cohen and that Willie Brown raised the most money for Jane KIm. Not promising, but the same people who told me that again repeated that Jane Kim is not for sale. And again, Malia Cohen seems to be a big question mark to most.
Someone also just told me that they don’t think the Brown Act, a.k.a., the Sunshine Law applies to conversations with Supes till they’re seated, meaning not to Jane Kim, Scott Weiner, Malia Cohen, and Mark Farrell between now and whatever day they’re sworn in, in January.
Anyone know whether that’s true? That the issue, or part of it? Chris? I don’t know how seriously the Brown Act is taken, but I appreciate the amount of sun that the Daly/Avalos/Campos motions have already let shine.
November 17, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Thanks again, Ann, for your further thoughtful explanation. Perhaps I was reading too much into your earlier posts. We could probably have a much better conversation in person.
November 17, 2010 at 6:33 am
I fear I’m expressing myself very poorly here because this is not what I meant, not even remotely:
“But to presume that identity politics is the only or primary factor for an entire group is problematic. Similarly, to suggest that Asians aren’t as progressive (“may be a less progressive outcome”) as some other groups is hardly constructive.”
I did not say that, not at all. Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote, and try not to favor the interpretation that I’m a racist? Another attempt to explain what I meant might well trigger another misinterpretation about something that’s ultimately not that important, so let’s just forget the racial identification factor in this.
I said there’s an elephant in the room because no one—except one other commenter here—seems willing to talk about the change in the composition of the Board in January, though Board progressives, and the Bay Guardian, are both determined that this Board, not the January Board, make the decision.
Chris Daly says there’ll be too much back room dealing between now and then. Not more sunshine? As I said, he knows better than I but there seems to be an elephant in that argument. Why do he and Javalos and Campos want this Board rather than the January Board to decide?
The Bay Guardian says that the January Board won’t have enough political experience to make this decision, but that’s totally lame. These incoming Supes all know what the consequences of their choice of the next mayor will be; you don’t need to spend years on the Board, or even months or weeks to know that. Most anyone reading this knows that.
So why isn’t the Guardian willing to say it’s uneasy about who the January Board might choose?
Chris Daly’s explanation is sorta kinda maybe plausible; the Guardian’s is not, not even remotely.
What’s going to change in January? Is Scott Weiner going to vote differently than Bevan Dufty? Mark Farrell differently than Alioto-Pier? Malia Cohen differently than Sophie Maxwell? (Who knows much about Malia Cohen except that she served two years on the Newsom “executive staff,” which suggests that change is unlikely.)
But, Jane Kim will take Chris Daly’s seat in D6 in January. Another progressive, everyone seems to agree, but, again, David Chiu went all out to elect Jane Kim. He introduced her campaign kick-off and raised more money for her than anyone else—or so I’m told. Please someone correct me if I’m wrong. I also believe that David Chiu wanted the DCCC to endorse Jane Kim when they endorsed Debra Walker and then argued for at least giving her the #2 endorsement that they didn’t give anyone in D6.
David Chiu and Jane KIm both happen to be Asian, but forget the politics of racial identification; they may be altogether irrelevant. He did all he could to support her campaign and they seem to be allies, for whatever reason, as Daly and Chiu are not.
Re Chiu’s 2011 mayoral nomination, the one vote likely to change in January is not the D8, D2, or D10 vote, but the D6 vote, when Chris Daly steps aside for Jane Kim.
That seemed like the elephant in the room.
November 16, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Thank you for the clarification and explanation Ann. But why do you characterize race as an elephant in the room?
Of course race is a factor, as are gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. But to presume that identity politics is the only or primary factor for an entire group is problematic. Similarly, to suggest that Asians aren’t as progressive (“may be a less progressive outcome”) as some other groups is hardly constructive.
November 16, 2010 at 6:42 am
You never hear white folks talking about all the white people who vote for white people simply because they are white? I do. I talk about them, and hear other white folks, and people of color, talking about them all the time. They’re real; they exist. They’re called racists. People of color who vote according to racial identification have the moral high ground, understandably, in the face of white supremacy.
If you re-read my comments, David, you’ll see that I didn’t impugn anyone. I said that the politics of racial identification are real. Are we supposed to pretend that they aren’t so we can all feel more comfortable?
Is there a reason Asian supporters of Jane Kim or the other Asian Supervisors should not urge them to elect an Asian mayor, which would be a milestone for them, just as Jane Quan was in Oakland, for both Asians and women, as Barack Obama was for Blacks, and as Harvey Milk was for LGBT people? I don’t think so, though I’d like to see broader progressive politics take the lead, as I wish they had in D8, where no one seems to imagine that anyone who’s not gay could be elected.
Each of those elections, of Milk, Obama, and Quan, was a triumph over racism and bigotry, as the election of women has been, though neither Obama, nor, e.g., Pelosi, Feinstein, or Boxer, are progressives, if we define progressives, as anti- war, and favoring the rights of individuals and peoples over corporations and plutocracy.
Are we supposed to pretend that race was not a factor inspiring Black voters, or, e.g., white liberal survivors of the Civil Rights Movement, to vote and get out the vote for Barack Obama?
Or, that much of the world somehow imagined that Obama would signal the end of 550+ years of Euro conquest, just because he’s Black?
Would you say I was impugning Blacks if I said that Black voters displaced by Hurricane Katrina, but still registered to vote in the City of New Orleans, drove and bussed home to re-elect its black mayor Ray Nagin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin, in 2006? They did and I’m not impugning them by remembering.
That happened.
Please note also that I began, before raising the race factor, by asking whether David Chiu hadn’t kicked off Jane Kim’s campaign and raised more money for her than anyone else in town?
I said I think there’s an elephant in the room, though I probably should have said several. Money, race, and political debts.
Why’s this Board have any more legitimacy to elect the next mayor than the Board seated in January? I believe Chris Daly said there’ll be too much back room dealing if the process drags on that long. Possibly true, though isn’t that also more time for more sunshine? Chris Daly knows, far better than I, how much smoke might fill back rooms between now and January, but let’s get real.
Time will not only pass; a new Board will also be seated. Chris Daly, and it seems, Supervisors Avalos and Campos, who wrote today’s motions before the Board, want this Board to vote. Clearly they imagine a more progressive outcome from the outgoing than incoming Board, for whatever reason.
I didn’t say I know how Jane KIm will vote if the new Board decides this. I said I don’t know her or her record on the School Board, but, that those who do assure me that she’s not for sale. Several more people who know Jane Kim and her public record have told me the same. I don’t have reason to believe otherwise, but, if we’re going to honestly analyze what all’s in play, we shouldn’t pretend that money isn’t talking, in more ways than one, including the back room dealing Chris Daly warned of—or, that the politics of racial identification aren’t real.
I don’t really know how Eric Mar will vote, only that other people seem to agree he’ll support David Chiu—(or, maybe now, Leland Yee?)—and I think it’s ridiculous, considering that he represents District #1, to imagine that he won’t feel any pressure, from his constituents, to support an Asian nominee.
I’d be glad to finally see the first Asian mayor of San Francisco, or to see Tom Ammiano, the only possible nominee who seems to have six votes thus far, become the first gay mayor of San Francisco. I’m just more concerned with a progressive outcome.
Chris Daly would be the most progressive candidate, despite being another straight white male, and I’d prefer that outcome to any others suggested yet, but he doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s list, because, I imagine, he’s moving to Fairfield with his Asian/Caucasian family.
November 15, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“Isn’t it likely that she might be under pressure from a good number of her Asian supporters to back his bid to become mayor, after the new Board is seated?”
Wow. I never hear white folks talking about all the white people who vote for white people simply because they are white. To impugn the integrity of an entire people in this city strikes me as profoundly offensive. While I frequently agree with you Ann, I find this line of reasoning quite twisted.
November 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
‘Scuse me; four Asian Supervisors, after the new Board is seated. Only slightly over-representative of the City’s 30% Asian population, if that’s an accurate figure. I have a habit of forgetting Carmen Chu.
And again, nothing shocking. The politics of racial identification are real.
November 15, 2010 at 9:25 am
I should have said I don’t think we should pretend that money doesn’t talk as loudly here as everywhere else AND that racial identification isn’t a factor here, with three Asians on the Board, and an Asian population that is now the largest minority in San Francisco, over 30%.
Or that the consequence of racial identification, not only of Asian Board members, but more importantly, their supporters, may be a less progressive outcome than most FCJ readers are hoping for.
It’s hardly news that money and race are factors in American elections; I just think we might as well be honest about what’s factoring into this.
San Francisco’s first Asian mayor would be a milestone, as Oakland’s is, but Jane Quan’s politics are more inspiring than David Chiu’s.
November 15, 2010 at 8:40 am
I also have a feeling there’s an elephant in the room.
Wasn’t David Chiu the kick-off speaker at Jane Kim’s campaign, and didn’t he raise more money for her than anyone else? Isn’t it likely that she might be under pressure from a good number of her Asian supporters to back his bid to become mayor, after the new Board is seated?
I don’t know Jane KIm or her history on the School Board, and when I asked someone who does whether there isn’t some anxiety about this, he responded that Jane Kim has never been known to be for sale, and has resisted similar pressures in the past.
I hope that’s so, but I don’t think we should be afraid to talk about real anxiety in the air for real reason, or pretend that money doesn’t talk as loudly here as everywhere else.
November 15, 2010 at 8:32 am
KPFA News; I posted to FB and Twitter, will see where else to post it before tomorrow: http://goo.gl/WP1Yl.
But, as is so often the case, I wish this were taking place during the evening. I think that most of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Tuesday meeting, most of all any items inviting public comment should take place in the evening, so that more people are able to attend after the 9-5 work day.
November 14, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Chris Daly is the real deal. He’s stuck it out for ten years and fought hard to protect the rights of tenants, the homeless and other marginalized folks in his district. He came out of a true grassroots campaign and has remained accessible to his constituentss. Oh, and he was the sole vote against the Lennar project. That’s right, Daly was the ONLY supe with the moral fiber to stand against the billionaires after they had co-opted every other politician. In short, he is the most qualified candidate for mayor. And he doesn’t stand a chance… Because he can’t be bought and isn’t beholden to corporate or downtown interests. And that’s a sad statement on progressive politics in SF.
November 14, 2010 at 12:03 pm
@Ann to Anthony Fest:
The items are two 4pm special orders, agenda items 45 and 46.
The Board Agenda is at:
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/agendas/2010/BAG111610.pdf
and those items are on page 18 of the agenda.
Item 45 can be read at:
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/bag111610_101405.pdf
Item 46 can be read at:
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/bag111610_101405.pdf
November 14, 2010 at 11:37 am
@Chris: I just talked to Anthony, who said he thinks he still has a cell # for you, so it seems like a question of whether or not you’re going to answer on Sunday. I told him I was trying to figure out whether or not there’s an agenda item. If this worked and I then posted a podcast on some news websites, it would be some of the only news produced AT KPFA rather than news ABOUT KPFA visible there.
November 14, 2010 at 11:27 am
@Chris Daly: Last night I talked to today’s KPFA Weekend News host re this being an important forward leading story to report today. I asked if he had a # for you and he said yeah, but he wasn’t sure it was one you’d answer on the weekend. I’m going in there right now to produce my Africa news, maybe help with this if there’s time and you’re reachable, so if you want to send me a number where he can call you, I’ll share it. with Anthony Fest, one of KPFA’s best, on the air and the LSB, and a San Franciscan who gets it better than a lot of East Bay reporters.
But I’m afraid I don’t understand what it is you want people to do on Tuesday. Just show up for the usual “HONK” insult at public comment? My other complaint about Aaron Peskin is that I asked him to do something about the HONK!!!, told him there’s no need to insult the citizenry like that, and he said “OK, lemme think about that,” but did nothing.
When I posted a few of my anti-Blue Angels fits to the Youtube, even people who hated what I was saying called for doing away with the HONK!!! I think you’ve got full-time audio-visual staff down there that could easily come up with something more respectful.
Your post ends “Please make your voice heard at this Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.” Is there an agenda item to speak to or are you just asking us to come down for the general pubic comment HONK!!!?
November 13, 2010 at 11:37 pm
@John, when confronted with someone who wants to overplay their hand on the budget, then you flip what Bill Clinton did in 1998 and shut the government down on good government principle rather than excruciatingly politicize it as Gingrich tried to do and Newsom did to you all.
What happened here is that progressive supervisors blinked and prioritized a relative pittance in nonprofit subsidy that does good work but is budgetary chump change over a few incremental steps in the ongoing project of reforming billions of dollars in the big ticket departments like Muni, SFPD, Rec/Park, SFHA, SFRA, DPW, etc., effectively rendering that project dead in the water.
The failure of our progressive supervisors to stand up to big corruption because folks are worried about their own private Idahos does not speak well to the voters for the progressive values that we’re supposed to hold. I’m glad that so many of our friends do work that is a drop in the bucket addressing social ills. But that is not the be all and end all for progressive voters as it is for progressive politicos.
In the same way that the recent “community congress” was held by nonprofits to gather volunteers for supervisorial races and dissipated afterwards, the organizing prowess put on display 10 years ago has been thoroughly coopted by public subsidy to the extent that those individuals will not or can’t do the organizing that it takes to coerce a favorable outcome over mayoral succession.
An acting or interim Mayor can only survive if s/he reconfigures how San Francisco government works so that the political calculus is not downtown and nonprofits working a protection racket to suck down public resources for their own private benefit. To do otherwise is political suicide for progressives.
-marc
November 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Given the budget deficit, it seems that whoever becomes the new Mayor will be at the end of their political career. The City is facing a $400 million+ deficit. Last year, negotiators secured “givebacks” (which largely amounted to deferring raises) to close the gap. I don’t know what givebacks will be available going forward. The City has a huge unfunded pension liability and a huge unfunded healthcare liability. While the Bay Guardian crowd likes to talk about raising revenue, they bury their head in the sand when it comes to addressing pensions and other unfunded liabilities–key reasons we have a deficit. And the City’s ability to raise revenue is limited, particularly given the passage of Prop 26 and the now-entrenched Prop 13.
Whoever assembles the next budget is going to have to cut deep into programs and non-profit allocations that matter to progressives–because pension and benefit costs are siphoning the money away.
I don’t see the “acting Mayor” or “interim Mayor” lasting past the interim period; too many voters will be pissed off at watching the City decay further while City workers like cops, fire, etc. get salaries and benefits those in the private sector don’t get. I think the next Mayor would be well-advised to remember he or she represents the citizens of the City, not just the City’s workers.
November 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
@John — David Chiu most definitely cut budget deals behind this Progressive’s back. He never bothered to talk to me. And while you may have known about it, you didn’t agree. Chiu went ahead anyway, without the support of the only two sitting Supervisors who have served as Budget Chair.
We did not need to illegally vote trade in order to pass a budget. We could have moved forward with our votes, wisely reserved Newsom’s priorities, and dealt with any subsequent vetoes. Important Charter reform would not have been sacrificed, no laws would have been broken, and we probably would have ended up with a very similar budget in the end.
November 13, 2010 at 11:52 am
Annie’s right,
Peskin was never ever a Progressive. From his vote in 2000 effectively handing over 500 million over the last 10 years back to Shorenstein and company (Gross Receipts tax deal), to his giving the Fisher family the freedom (with an OK from Phil Ginsberg now, Yabadabadoo before) to pave over every soccer and playing field in town without Board approval.
It was Aaron who guided the plan to throw all the smaller sail boats out of the harbor and plan a breakwater (he denied it and the plans were made public a couple of weeks ago) … he threw out the small boats and is creating an entry to the parking lot for huge yachts which requires a breakwater which experts have said is likely to divert the Bay waters sufficiently to bring down the Marina sea wall. Such a guy.
All his jive about historical buildings (First, his liberal use of the Mills Act to give his super rich friends tax breaks – now his ‘Historical Commission or whatever) … just a tax dodge to help his buddies.
David Chiu was a co-founder of ‘Grassroots Enterprises,’ an early and prominent PR Astro-Turf outfit that worked (and continues to) primarily for right-wing fundamentalists. He makes Peskin look moral and ethical and upright. When he backed down on the ballot measure to give supes a voice on the Park and Rec Board, Chiu did not say that he regretted this because the agency has been so poorly run and their assets from the Zoo to the golf course and soccer fields were being handed over to the rich … what Chiu said, as he made the trade, was that: “I was never in favor of making the Mayor give up appointments to Park and Rec anyway.”
Supervisor Avalos, you say that your only option was to reject the budget completely? Well, that is exactly what you should have done. You’re supposed to have equal representation in the budget process and mayors usurped that process long ago. The Class of 2000 almost challenged Willie with their first budget. I think they may have gotten 4 votes against (a vote against equating to a vote for people power). In the decade or so since then I don’t think we’ve had over 2 members of the Board vote against the budget. That’s a bad thing.
In short, the Class of 2000 made great strides but mostly sold out as the years passed and traded their souls for higher office or more money. The Class of 2008 talks big and votes a straight Downtown line. The Class of 2010? Looking more like the Class of 1996.
These Boards (including ever so called ‘Progressive’ except Daly) gave Lennar 700 acres of SF for a dollar. They rebuilt the golf course and gave them away for nothing and agreed to maintain them for Sandy Tatum’s buddies. All the marinas, including those in parks and every friggin’ hot dog stand and the Zoo and all the art museums? And they’re now handing over the most valuable waterfront property to billionaire Larry Ellison because we’re supposed to be in competition (there are no competitive bids as Chris Daly said weeks ago) … supposed to be in competition for a giant yacht race (you can stand on a hill and watch sailboat races every day in the Bay) … the City staff and the Mayor and all of Ellisons kiss-asses talk about SF having to bid against entire countries like Spain and Italy who are offering billions of dollars in incentives and the BayCitizen.com reveals it to be a lie and the Mayor’s Office says it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not … doesn’t matter if everything is a lie? What a sad mess.
Chiu will be your new mayor.
But, at least we have the Niners to divert us?
h.
November 13, 2010 at 10:14 am
In all fairness, David Chiu did not “cut deals behind Progressive backs with the Mayor on the budget, and blocked progressive Charter reform for MUNI, the Rec and Park Commission, and the Rent Board.” Most, if not all the progressive Supervisors were in on such deals. I protested making deals and urged my colleagues to pare down the BoS budget restoration list. They refused and effectively took the budget out of my hands. The refusal to pare down the list led to a scenario where the only way out of preventing a Mayoral veto on the budget was to cut a deal. When it came down to it, David Chiu cut the deal and took the fall for other supervisors not willing to pare down the restoration list.
Most, if not all, knew that in order to pass the budget someone had to fall on the sword and vote against the charter amendments. By linking the charter amendments to the city budget, Mayor Newsom was politicizing the budget process in a way it had never been politicized before. We had gridlock on the budget for weeks and the only way out was to have a restoration list that was not so ambitious or cut a deal, dropping the charter amendments. The deal was not cut behind people’s backs but most pretended the deal never occurred. At the full Board, I made similar comments to what I have written here.
November 13, 2010 at 9:26 am
Good point Chris. I remember at one of Rafi’s first House Parties, at Jane Morrison’s, that Aaron was there with him and when they left Aaron was going to accompany him to the next event. Rafi was a little nervous because it was a Chili contest and he had entered his Bean Dish.
November 13, 2010 at 8:17 am
@Ann – I too was disappointed with Peskin’s support of Lennar early on. His rationale wasn’t bad — to support the District Supervisor on a project entirely within her district, but the outcome was. However, Peskin was an early supporter of Proposition F, to require 50% affordable housing in the development and was pushing very hard behind the scenes this past year for better environmental protections in the plan.
For me, the biggest difference between Peskin and someone like David Chiu, is that Peskin has been one of the main forces for genuine progressive candidates in San Francisco. While Chiu was playing footsie with Prozan and Wiener, Peskin was dispatching every resource he could muster to help Rafael Mandelman. And without Peskin’s leadership at the DCCC, we probably wouldn’t have a Supervisor Avalos or Mar.
November 13, 2010 at 8:04 am
Also, @Chris Daly: I’m going to send this to KPFA Sunday News Anchor Anthony Fest and suggest he call you tomorrow. If that works out, I’ll volunteer to edit the segment and get it out on the Web.
November 13, 2010 at 1:27 am
Re:
“Aaron Peskin also has served as Board President for 2 terms, and as Chair of the Democratic Party, has done more to deliver for Progressive campaigns than any other individual.”
I never once saw Aaron Peskin cast a vote against the aggression of the Lennar Corporation and the RDA between 2006 and 2008. And in 2007, as the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and the U.S. covert wars in Africa dragged on, he voted to continue requesting the return of the Blue Angels Air Show.
Peskin is also adamant in his support of Nancy Pelosi, who not only joined San Francisco’s Young Republicans in endorsing Scott Weiner but also endorsed uber wealthy Republican James Fang in BART Board District #8, in addition to cattle driving Congressional Democrats behind every multi billion dollar war funding bill Obama has put forth since his election.
Now I realize that Chris Daly and most other progressive elected Democrats endorsed Pelosi as well, but not with such ardor. And, I do wish the rest of you would stop doing that. Democrat does not = progressive.
I’ve never understood why anyone characterizes Aaron Peskin as a progressive, perhaps because I didn’t much observe his voting habits before 2006, but two years was enough to make me ask that progressives, including Chris Daly, take him off their list of potential champions.
November 12, 2010 at 9:20 pm
The old man of progressive politics has done us one more favor. Daly puts his cards on the table and asks citizens to engage in the process of choosing our next Mayor rather than let self-serving elites hijack the process once again.
The next Mayor can serve the public interest, fight for those who lack a voice in our city or we can return to the familiar and install an empty, corporatist hack who is most useful to those who need government the least. That is the ugly status quo in our politics. In the Mayor’s office that is how it has been since Jack Shelley.
That’s the choice now at the Board. If the selection process is left to a broken down and poorly led Board of Supervisors, and all of the pressure outgoing Mayor Newsom is capable of leveraging here and throughout the Democratic Party establishment (Pelosi, Feinstein, Jerry & Willie Brown) then San Francisco’s next Mayor will be more of what we know all too well. The entitled and politically invested will continue to run the town, and exploit the alienation hard working men and women naturally feel towards a compromised political system.
So attention now in choosing the next Mayor can advance public interests have been walked all over by San Francisco’s dominant political class.
Yes we deserve a public process in choosing the next Mayor, but above we deserve a successful outcome. Thanks Chris, John and David (Campos).
November 12, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Chiu cannot vote for himself as a interim Mayor, but can vote to reelect himself to the position of Board President who would continue to serve as Acting Mayor until the Board of Supervisors could put together six votes to declare an Acting Mayor.
-marc
November 12, 2010 at 5:18 pm
…”His (Chiu) best course is with the next Board of Supervisors, where 5 votes plus his own would keep him in Room 200.”
I thought a sitting Supe cannot vote for him/herself…?
November 12, 2010 at 9:59 am
Great piece,
Looking forward to your opus on your 10 years on the Board. This is a great start.
I’d say Ammiano wins if you vote before the new Board is seated and Chiu if after. With Wiener and Farrell aboard he gets, them plus Mar and Chu and Kim and Cohen. Best Ammiano get’s from new group is Mar and Mirk and Campos and Avalos. Chiu might toss in with Tom for one round for appearances (screwing two mentors – Aaron and Tom – in one year might be a bit much).
That said, good piece of writing and this is gonna be some year. Come by and have a drink w/the Bulldog/FCJ/Pot Talk crew and we can kick the tires on some other issues and bad mouth everyone who isn’t there.
Go NIners!
h.