Candidates for District 5 Supervisor, Hope Johnson and Andrew Resignato, have joined forces on “The People’s Ticket” in the ranked choice race that will be decided by voters on November 6. Photo by Clayton Mitchell.
From the campaigns to elect Hope Johnson and Andrew Resignato to District 5 Supervisor
October 19, 2012
District 5 supervisorial candidates Hope Johnson and Andrew “Ellard” Resignato announced today that they have joined forces in the highly contentious District 5 race. They will officially launch what they are calling The People’s Ticket on Wednesday, October 24, at Madrone Art Bar (500 Divisadero) in District 5.
Driven to take action after four of the eight D5 candidates were excluded from participating in the USF and SF Human Services Network Candidate Forum earlier this week, the pair confirmed that the forum’s hosts believed it was best for the residents of the district to only hear from the four candidates who had the most money in their campaign coffers.
“This trend of recognizing only candidates backed by big money mirrors the national trend of candidates being shut out by mainstream political parties like the Green Party’s Jill Stein who was arrested on Tuesday for trying to attend the second Presidential debate,” said Resignato. “People are tired of money driving politics. Hope and I are running people powered campaigns that represent a direct threat to San Francisco’s status quo of politics as-usual,” he continued.
Johnson and Resignato are launching The People’s Ticket to give voters a better choice than the big- money downtown and progressive machine candidates who are constantly at odds with each other. They are asking D5 constituents to vote for them in either the first and second or first and third positions, in any order, on November 6’s ranked choice ballot.
“We’re lucky to be running in District 5 where voters are more sophisticated than simply voting for candidates with tired campaigns run by well-paid political consultants and well connected career politicians,” commented Johnson. “We need more accountability in government and it’s difficult for that to happen when our elected officials are beholden to the special interests that support their campaigns and expect preferential treatment in return.
This is what Andrew and I offer to our neighbors in District 5 – a commitment to serving our community, not big money.”
Johnson’s work promoting the enforcement of ethics and her strong message around demanding accountability to combat corruption in City government complement Resignato’s 20 years of experience in the public health sector and his strong stance on improving public safety and Muni by delivering policy changes that reflect the collective voice of the people.
The People’s Ticket will celebrate its official launch on Wednesday, October 24, 5 – 9 PM, at Madrone Art Bar, 500 Divisadero.
The Hunger Site
October 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Anyone know when the next debate is? I see one for Nov 1, but anything before that? Thanks.
October 22, 2012 at 11:59 am
Once again,
I was able to resist the urge to click on the quicksand link to Rob’s
web site. Sitting kitty in D-5 this week and digging the closing
street action on D-5 race from out the window of the 6 Parnassus.
Johnson’s class of the field.
I love it when campaign signs get all wet and soggy.
It means the end is neigh.
Go giants!
h.
October 22, 2012 at 8:48 am
Pretty sketchy on how they differ from the other candidates, except for the money raised. The reality is that all the D5 candidates agree on anti-carism and development. GroupThink uber alles. None of them are worth a vote.
October 22, 2012 at 9:17 am
Interestingly, even when Mr. Anderson sees that a candidate differs from the others he won’t admit it or tries to explain it away. In his own words about the District 5 candidates
” . . .instead the candidates are more of an example of herd behavior . . .That unanimity is disturbed only by two answers by Hope Johnson,” (see District 5 Diary entry at http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2012/09/groupthink-in-district-5.html).
October 22, 2012 at 10:31 am
Yes, you get credit for a couple of minor dissents from the Bicycle Coalition’s agenda, but you of course support everything else they want to do to our streets, including the Fell/Oak bike lanes and screwing up traffic on Masonic Avenue—taking away 167 parking spaces from Masonic!—to make bike lanes. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is queen.
October 23, 2012 at 10:01 pm
The blind, of course, are the car drivers, dude. Wake up and smell the shithole you are creating. San Francisco has a small chance to become more like Medellin, Columbia, or Helsinki, Copenhagen, Oslo or Stockholm: clean, livable cities no longer in the grip of the 20th century. How will you look your grandchildren in the face, Rob? Be sure they will understand that people like you were in the front lines in making the earth completely unlivable. Fuggin’ dinosaur.
October 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
San Francisco is “a shithole”? That’s news to both the people who live here and the millions of tourists who visit the city every year. As the EIR on the Bicycle Plan told us, these projects will actually make traffic worse for everyone but cyclists. But the city and lemmings like you continue to support them based on nothing but the hope that somehow people in a major American city will give up cars and trucks and take up riding bikes, which is a faith-based transportation policy.
October 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Yes, by all means, let’s be more like Medillen, with 2,899 violent deaths, or about 110 deaths per 100,000 people, 2.5 times the average homicide rate in Colombia and 20 times the average homicide rate in the United States for that same year…..what a joke. By the way there are ZERO hills in Copenhagen – the real reason bikes do so well there. However, improving the Wiggle to GGPark is a good idea, unlike the stupid Masonic changes.
October 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm
GREAT IDEA!
Love the thought of these two candidates teaming up. They both have raised points and issues at debates that were quite worthy of discussion. Why would we want to limit the numbers of people interested in representation – let alone allow money to be what determines who gets to compete.
I’m looking forward to the event this week.
October 19, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Hey ‘Gust’,
If you want to take your reasoning to its logical conclusion then no one in the audience who hadn’t donated at least $500 directly to a campaign should have been allowed to view it?
Go Giants!
h.
October 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Um, no. I said I was for inclusion–pretty clearly. I think it’s been valuable to hear Hope and Andrew at the debates. I’m not a fan of winnowing. Let the voters decide who is serious.
Was just pointing out what I understood to be the basis of USF’s decision. And disagreeing factually with the contention in the story that USF wanted to limit the debate to the “candidates who had the most money.” Qualifying for public financing has its own rules and requires showing broad support from lots of people giving small amounts. We need to be more discriminating about money. Grassroots money–the basis of Selby’s and Rizzo’s campaigns–is a good thing for democracy. Big money from people who stand to make money is a different thing altogether. That’s why we should worry about Olague and Breed.
October 19, 2012 at 8:38 pm
@ Gust – just an fyi – John Rizzo was not allowed to participate in the forum either. I am disappointed in the candidates who would consider it appropriate to go forward with such an event.
October 20, 2012 at 11:45 am
I’m not sure what the rules of the debate were, but let’s not pretend like qualifying for Public Financing is a big barrier. Public financing requires a whopping *75* San Franciscans donating to a campaign, with a total of only $5,000. This isn’t ‘big money’ politics here, people.
October 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm
@Triple0 – fact check correction comment only to avoid misinformation –
public financing now requires 100 (150 if you are an incumbent) and
$10,000 ($15,000). Also, John Rizzo qualified but was not allowed to participate.
October 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Thea Selby isn’t taking money from the powers that be. She’s raised a lot of money in fifty dollar increments–which is good for democracy. Olague and Breed, of course, are rolling in the kind of money that comes with lots of strings.
I like seeing all the candidates at a debate. My understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that UCSF limited its debate to candidates who had qualified for public financing and completed their questionnaire. I would probably opt for more inclusion, but that seems like a reasonable decision
October 19, 2012 at 11:43 am
Right on! Smart move. You two getting together actually represents the people power you stand for. Keep standing for those values…appreciate it.
October 19, 2012 at 11:31 am
2 outta 3 ain’t bad,
Best of luck.
h.
October 19, 2012 at 10:27 am
La fuerza de la gente!