By Pat Monk, special to Fog City Journal
June 6, 2008
The latte liberals and pusillanimous progressives are out in full force, especially on the San Francisco Bay Guardian website, lambasting and blaming Supervisor Chris Daly for everything from the price of tea in China to the Fall of the Roman Empire.
While I don’t always agree with Daly’s tactics, some things should be clarified. The sad state of progressive politics in this city does not arise from his sometimes abrasive championship of controversial issues, but rather from their cowardice and refusal to speak out and publicly support causes that might put them at odds with the corporate power structure that is, selling out our neighborhoods and communities – especially those minority and low income communities that are under imminent threat.
I am not an apologist for, nor am I defending Chris, he is more than capable of doing that himself. But all this whining and pontificating about one slate card that may have been misleading, is ridiculous sophomoric bullshit. As Big Bruce might say: “This is San Francisco politics GODAMNIT.”
Where is the outrage at Newsom’s corrupt administration that continues to give away priceless city assets to a developer in financial distress, whose stock is rated as “junk?”
It seems like these Daly haters have bought into the lies and jive of the Kronikle and Eric Jaye. Particulary disgraceful was the collusion of many current and future elected officials, eg: Mark Leno, Union Bosses, and some “community” organizations with Lennar, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and big business in their campaign supporting Prop G. Their mailers continually portrayed Prop F as ‘Daly’s poison pill.’
That was an outright lie.
Prop F was partly a response to the City Attorney’s disenfranchisement of 33,000 voters, under pressure from Gavin Newsom and others, who petitioned to have a voice in the future of Bayview-Hunters Point. Despite their assertions to the contrary, the public has not been heard. The ten year process of public input they keep referencing came from a community group that was comprised mainly of RDA and Lennar advocates, many of whom have a vested personal or financial stake in the outcome.
It was a a sham.
Prop F was NOT Daly’s initiative. It originated in the community and was the work product of Bayview neighborhood activists and concerned citizens. It was another tactic in the ongoing battle to save minority/low-income communities from further gentrification, displacement and racial cleansing.
The sad fact is that Chris Daly was the only elected progressive leader who was willing to carry the legislation and give his full unequivocal support. Whatever other motivations or agendas he may have, it is undeniable that he has been the most steadfast of the motley crue in the hall of smoke and mirrors. And for the last couple of years, Daly has been the most vocal and effective advocate for the cause of civil rights, racial equality, human services for the less fortunate, etc; and a fierce opponent of the socio-economic racism that continues under the Newsom administration. For this he has earned, and deserves, the gratitude and support of those of us who continue to resist these despicable policies.
The manipulation and duplicity we have just been subjected to, again, was on full display when our smirking self aggrandizing mayor said, “Do we want the special interests to decide the outcome of elections, or do we want to level the playing field?”
At the same time Newsom was celebrating the passage of Prop G thanks to the infusion of over 3.5 million dollars of special interest money. What a smarmy, shallow, duplicitous creature he is.
Plans are already under way to revive this issue in November. Maybe then some of the MIA liberals and progressives will get off their butts and finally listen to and stand with the folks in the community instead of engaging in divisive personal attacks and petty political gamesmanship.
I could be wrong, but I suspect an analysis of votes cast by district, zip code, etc; will be very ‘interesting’ and may reveal that the majority of people who voted for the redevelopment and ‘repeopling’ of the Bayview, do not live in the neighborhood. Many have never even set foot on Bayview streets and could care less about the fate of the community, provided it doesn’t inconvenience them.
While we celebrate the fact that 99,000 people voted to preserve Rent Control and their own homes, it is shameful that only 47,000 showed similar concern for survival of the last black homeland in this once inclusive and diverse city.
ACORN, the San Francisco Labor Council, and other sell-out groups, are probably too co-opted and beholden to the corporate power structure to be of any help or relevance to the people’s needs and struggle. But if we act together and demonstrate compassion, concern, and commitment to all our brothers and sisters – regardless of caste, color or creed – we the people can still prevent the whitewashing of Bayview-Hunters Point, save the community and small businesses from devastation and disruption, and more decades of inhaling toxic contaminants resulting from unmonitored construction activities.
We can and should look to the future and engage in the revitalization and renewal of long neglected and marginalized communities, but on a human scale, and with local control and with full participation in the planning and execution of any development. Not some grandiose, gerrymandered, gentrifying occupation and land-grab that will enrich speculators and corrupt, lying politicians.
In November, VOTE YES on whatever the offspring of Prop F is.
The Hunger Site
June 11, 2008 at 8:22 am
Many good points and feedback, but to , all I would say is :-
“In Germany, first they came for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist,……
And then, they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up”
Pastor Martin Niemoller. 1892-1984.
June 8, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Remember that’s 4,000 TOTAL votes , the lennar/james bryant people and the prop F forces combined, 4,000 out of 15,000 registered voters. I cannot articulate how pathetic these numbers are.
June 8, 2008 at 7:25 am
This community is not engaged, and I see no real advantage in pretending it is. When you draw 4,000 out of 15,000 eligible votes and you have two props on the ballot , one dealing with the future of YOUR community and the other dealing with the very existence of rent control, and your 10% points BELOW the city wide average wtf do you expect to happen. Malcolm X said this 40 years ago, GET YOUR HOUSE IN ORDER FIRST….You CANNOT make coalitions with folks when they perceive you have no power, it’s a hat in hand approach, until this community decides to manifest some power with some approach that will advance their agenda all is lost…The churches, the Muslims, the community activists and all they can get is 4,000 out of 15,000 votes, look down our pants are wet.
June 8, 2008 at 7:14 am
Prop G lost because Bayview residents (and Vis Valley residents) for the most part did NOT vote. (again) In fact it’s really difficult to advance an argument that Bayview residents believe in the model of electoral politics as a vehicle to enhance education, political power, social justice issues etc. The voting for these two areas are approx 10% BELOW the city wide average. I’m not making this up, look at the numbers because until these issues are addressed we’re pissing in the wind and wondering why our pants are wet. There needs to be a discussion (it may already be too late) as to what is a viable strategy to empower what residents are left. This is groundhog day folks, the same battle has been fought since the inception of district elections. Bayview residents have been UNABLE to take-out Supr. Sophie Maxwell, they didn’t produce the votes the first time, they didn’t produce the votes the 2nd time, they did not produce the votes to have her “recalled”, and the same dynamics were at play yet again. This is NOT an accident.
June 7, 2008 at 11:12 am
I think you made a lot of valid points about Chris Daly and other “community groups”. On that note, I don’t think that any community group or set of “activist” should be putting all their stock in one politician, Chris Daly or otherwise. If this was more of a community fight, there would have been more community residents voting. Instead, many of the prop. F people pulled out their friends to fill out their rallies (see Francisc Da Costa’s Flicker page). The majority of the people at the rally were other organizers from different organizations. The prop. G people, even with all their money and “evil doings”, set out their campaigning and organizing really early, talking to voters. The failure of prop. F was not so much that Lennar had more money, there are alot of grassroots campaigns that have won despite the lack of funding. This came down to strategy and progressive unity. What was the timeline and outreach to people before January to other progressives and community groups? Was this campaign about Lennar or could it have been about real solutions? In short, F lost because the prop. F people a) didn’t do enough foot work to reach out to voters b) spent too time focusing on Lennar when they should have been organizing the communities and c) relying on one politician and a slew of allies that may or may not have had a broad membership base.
June 6, 2008 at 3:53 pm
You are right to assume that the “majority of people who voted for the redevelopment and ‘repeopling’ of the Bayview, do not live in the neighborhood.â€, myself included. But that is the risk that you take when you put an issue for the neighborhood on a citywide ballot. Most of the residents of the city, again myself included, have never been to the Bayview… and we voted for Prop. G and against Prop. F because it stood as the best chance of making real change in the area.
Will it fix all of the problems in the Bayview? No. Will it displace residents who will not be able to afford living the the “New Bayview?†Probably some. Will some local business go under due to the rise in commercial rents? Sure again some. But is all of that bad? No. The old residents will be replaced by new residents and the old businesses will be replaced by new ones. That is just the cycle of any city.
I for one will be voting NO on any attempt to revive Prop. F
June 6, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Daly has been successfully marginalized by the Chronicle at Newsom’s behest for the past five years, just as Mark Sanchez was for Ackerman.
The only way to contest this marginalization is at the ballot box, and we tend to win as often as not unless we are overspent significantly.
Chris has issues, but the squishy center of the Board of Supervisors appears to be dropping the ball on land use, instead looking at a landing spot after being termed out, probably as a government relations director for one of our local builders.
The progressive coalition, electeds, nonprofits and unions have given up the fight. It is expensive to live here, and many of them probably fear losing their sinecures and will only suck up to power, both public as in the Mayor and city staff as well as corporate San Francisco that buys them off with grants, rather than challenge power.
It is not acceptable for Chris Daly to be used as an excuse by either electeds, progressives, liberals or moderates to buy into racist policies.
When Daly is used to justify racism, that reflects not on Chris but on those who are using Chris as an excuse to enrich developers at the expense of poor communities and communities of color.
-marc
June 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm
i hate to tell you this but daly is part of the problem. sure he may not have been responsible for the proposition losing, but he is responsible for the marginalization of progressives in the city. the reason is that as the most vocal of that camp he gets most of the press. then we he does stupid shit, it reflects on the whole group. sure he has done some good thing and i do believe he truly cares about his constituents but the fact is that his childish behavior turns many off, including those who agree with him. he is the cause of his own problems and by extension those of the whole movement. he would be better served to shut his mouth and get to work forming coalitions with other supes and the mayor. then he could actually back his rhetoric up with action. as it stands now he’s just a progressive side show and that is all his fault.