All posts by paulhogarth

Marriage Equality

Marriage Decision Sets Huge Precedent, But Struggle Far From Over

Cross-posted with Beyond Chron:

Yesterday’s decision by the California Supreme Court was historic because it set a huge precedent.  Not because the Court found the ban on same-sex marriage similar to earlier bans on interracial marriage, nor because it said domestic partnerships are inherently unequal.  What really mattered is that the Court ruled sexual orientation a “suspect class,” which means that all laws that discriminate on that basis must now pass strict scrutiny – a crucial step forward in the rights of LGBT people.

But same-sex couples in California still lack the federal benefits of marriage that straight people take for granted – like Social Security and immigration – because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes them from doing so.  Marriage equality supporters must defeat a constitutional amendment in November that would repeal the Court’s ruling, but they also need a President Obama.  If DOMA gets repealed in 2009, gay couples in California will finally be equal in the eyes of the law.

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March on whether the state’s marriage law is unconstitutional, most legal observers predicted that the Court would uphold the ban on same-sex marriage.  If California’s Domestic Partnership Law offers many of the same legal rights as marriage, how are same-sex couples harmed by not getting married?

The Court answered this question by ruling that the term “marriage” is a necessary part of that constitutional right.  By framing the right to marry within the right to have a family, families of same-sex couples must be accorded the same “dignity, respect and stature” as other families enjoy. Offering the “historic and highly respected designation of marriage” only to straight couples – while giving gay couples “the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnerships” presents a “serious risk” of denying them such stature.

It’s what gay marriage supporters have argued for years, and is similar to the “separate is unequal” argument made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004.  But while that was a victory for California, it wasn’t the best part of yesterday’s ruling.

California’s law defining marriage as being between “a man and a woman” discriminates against gay couples – but to strike it down a court would have to rule that it violates equal protection.  If a law discriminates against a “suspect class” – like race, gender, religion or national origin – it must pass “strict scrutiny.”  In other words, the law is presumed to violate equal protection – unless the state can prove that it serves a compelling public interest, and is narrowly tailored through the least restrictive means toward that end.

But the courts have not recognized sexual orientation as a suspect class – so laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians have been upheld on “rational basis” grounds.  That means a law does not violate equal protection as long as the court can find some intelligible argument for why it makes sense.  New York, for example, upheld its ban on gay marriage through the “rational basis” test – its high court said the state had a greater interest in marrying straight people because they might accidentally have kids.

For decades, LGBT advocates have gone to Court and argued that laws discriminating against them are “gender discrimination.”  Hawaii’s landmark decision in the mid-1990’s on gay marriage was argued on this basis, and S.F. Superior Court judge Richard Kramer originally ruled in the present case in favor of marriage equality on the basis that it was sex discrimination.  The reason for taking this route was strategic: the courts have long considered “gender” to be a suspect class – but not “sexual orientation.”

Yesterday’s decision was historic because it ruled “sexual orientation” a suspect class.  I predicted this might happen when I read the Appellate Court decision in October 2006, where the lower court actually laid out what are the “necessary” elements of a suspect class: (a) the group has historically been oppressed, (b) the trait does not relate to a person’s value to society, and (c) the trait is immutable – i.e., cannot be changed.

Back then, the Appellate Court agreed that sexual orientation fit the first two categories – but said that they lacked evidence to conclude the third point.  At the time, I urged gay marriage advocates in Beyond Chron to give the Supreme Court ample factual evidence that sexual orientation is an “immutable trait” – and that if successful, the Court would have no choice but to strike the ban on same-sex marriage.

But the Supreme Court ruled that it didn’t matter if sexual orientation is “immutable” – because that’s not a necessary element of a suspect class.  “A person’s religion,” said the Court, “is a suspect class for equal protection purposes – and one’s religion is a matter over which an individual can control.”  The Court added that one can cease to be an alien (which is also considered a “suspect class”) by applying for U.S. citizenship.

Treating sexual orientation as a “suspect class” is a breakthrough for gays and lesbians in achieving their rights that will go beyond yesterday’s marriage decision.  In the future, any state law in California that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation must pass “strict scrutiny” – just like laws that discriminate on race, gender, religion or alienage.

San Franciscans were in a festive mood yesterday – after having waited 4 years for this outcome – but the practical legal effect on gay couples is rather minimal.  That’s because California Domestic Partnerships already gave same-sex couples most of the legal rights of marriage.  Moreover, California’s Supreme Court could only require that the state let gay people marry – without extending any marriage rights under federal law.

And the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, explicitly says that same-sex couples cannot enjoy any federal rights – such as Social Security benefits, immigration laws that allow you to sponsor a foreign spouse, and the right to file a joint federal tax return.  Even Massachusetts, where gay couples have had the right to marry since 2004, does not have complete marriage equality for this reason.

But a President Barack Obama – along with bigger Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress – could change this after the November elections.  Obama has pledged to fully repeal DOMA, whereas Republican John McCain would not.  There will certainly be a fight in Congress, so marriage equality advocates must focus on the various House and Senate races in November – to ensure that a Democratic Congress will make it possible.

Meanwhile, the extreme right in California will put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to prohibit marriage equality.  Because yesterday’s Court ruling was based on the California Constitution – not the U.S. Constitution – passage by the voters would effectively repeal the Supreme Court’s decision.  Therefore, much is at stake this November – and marriage equality supporters must mobilize now to defeat the initiative.

Yesterday’s court ruling was historic – and has created an exciting new precedent for gays and lesbians in California.  But we now run the risk of losing in November at the ballot box – and we still need to repeal DOMA at the federal level to get full marriage equality.  Defeating the initiative and repealing DOMA are both doable goals.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was a law school intern at Equality California during the summer of 2005, and got his J.D. from Golden Gate University in 2006.  He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California.

Uncategorized

Nebraska Senate Race Features Candidate of Change

Cross-posted at Beyond Chron.

With the presidential primary fight now behind us, activists can focus their attention on Congressional races to expand the Democratic majority.  On May 13th, Nebraska will hold a statewide primary for a U.S. Senate seat currently held by a Republican.  And Democrat Scott Kleeb, a 32-year-old rancher, is running an Obama-like campaign for change.  His opponent, Tony Raimondo, is a manufacturing executive who switched parties because the Republican establishment rallied behind another candidate.  Like Obama, Kleeb’s campaign has been fueled by small online donations – and has grassroots appeal that has energized the Democratic Party.  If 2008 is going to be the year of change like many are predicting, Kleeb should do better than expected.

“I’m running for the Senate because I want to be a part of this moment in history,” said Kleeb.  “It’s happening at the presidential level, and will affect the future of our country.  I know that I have something to contribute on a number of issues, including energy conservation.  I want to be part of this overwhelming call that people have for engaging in politics, and inspire people to get involved.  It’s a year of change because people are re-engaging and re-enlivening our democracy.”

After getting his PhD in history at Yale, Scott Kleeb moved back to Nebraska in 2006 and ran for Congress in the state’s most Republican district.  He got 45% of the vote – in a district where John Kerry only got 22% just two years earlier.  He got married after the election, had his first child and took a teaching job at Hastings College.  When Senator Chuck Hagel announced his retirement at the end of his term, Kleeb entered the race to replace him – giving Nebraska its first competitive Democratic primary in decades.

Nebraska’s a solid red state – but with Obama at the top of the ticket, Democrats sense an opportunity to expand the map.  A Survey-USA poll from early March showed John McCain winning Nebraska in a match-up with Obama, but only by a three-point margin.  Nebraska awards its electoral votes by Congressional district – so Obama could win a few there, and his campaign could help elect more Democrats to the House and Senate.

And the Obama campaign has energized Nebraska Democrats.  “We’re seeing people coming into our campaign offices,” said Kleeb, “and it’s enlivened people to become involved.  What I learned in 2006 is that people don’t get involved in a campaign because of you.  They get involved because of them.  And we’re seeing that impact across Nebraska.”

At this point, the Kleeb campaign has recruited about 2,500 volunteers – and has raised about half a million dollars (mostly in small donations.)

That’s how much his primary opponent, Tony Raimondo, has raised by cutting himself a check – and who’s now outspending Kleeb 3-1 on television.  A millionaire industrialist who was George Bush’s first choice as manufacturing czar, Raimondo had planned to run for the Senate seat this year as a Republican.  But once the GOP establishment rallied around ex-Governor Mike Johanns, he saw no chance of winning the nomination and switched parties to run as a Democrat.

Raimondo was recruited to run by Senator Ben Nelson, the most conservative Democrat in the U.S. Senate – and Nebraska’s only statewide elected Democrat.  For years, Nelson has built a political career in Nebraska by running against his own party – and campaigns with photos of himself hugging George Bush.  It’s helped him get re-elected in a deep red state, but does nothing to build the Democratic Party or push progressive causes.

Kleeb believes that to be competitive in Nebraska, Democrats must invest in the state party’s infrastructure – and field candidates for local and county office.  “If you grow up in a town and there’s only one church,” he said, “what denomination do you think you’ll end up joining?  Well if you want to get involved in Nebraska politics, you end up being a Republican. Democracy demands conversation.  When we don’t build parties, we don’t build that conversation.  We need to engage people who’ve never met a Democrat.”

Kleeb’s campaign has energized Nebraska Democrats – many of whom resent that Raimondo is running in their primary.  The state AFL-CIO has endorsed Kleeb because he supports the Employee Free Choice Act, and probably because of Raimondo’s labor record.  “Unions have been a strong force for the middle class in stopping stagnant wages,” said Kleeb, “pushing for retirement health, and a strong voice for education.”

As a college professor and an Ivy League graduate, Kleeb has endured predictable right-wing attacks of being elitist.  Raimondo has even shot a TV commercial calling him an “academic.”  But Kleeb doesn’t shy away from that target.  “Education is a strength,” he said.  “When we talk about health care, when we talk about energy, we’re ultimately talking about education.  It’s the silver bullet that touches on each of these things, and is something that we should celebrate.  Let’s not run from education.”

Loyal readers may recall my prior conversation with Scott Kleeb in August at the Yearly Kos Convention, where we had some disagreements on how to get out of Iraq.  It’s an issue that should give progressives pause, because Kleeb would not be replacing just any Republican in the Senate – but Chuck Hagel, the most vocal and consistent Republican critic of the War.

But Kleeb assured me that his position on Iraq is no different from Hagel.  “There is no military solution in Iraq,” he said.  “We must signal right away to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and that their future is ultimately up to them.  We will start reducing our troop presence, and we must use our diplomatic levers. Any future funding must be tied to political and economic benchmarks.  The War has made us weaker, not stronger – but the real question now is how do we get out responsibly.”

On Iran, Kleeb echoed Barack Obama in saying that we must be willing to meet with foreign enemies.  “We have a lot of leverage with Iran – diplomatically, economically and politically,” he said.  “JFK said that we should never negotiate from fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.  We can recognize and achieve a common cause that is beneficial to the United States – without always turning to military strength.  Diplomacy, if done right, is a great tool.”

It will be a tough battle for Kleeb to win the primary on Tuesday, and it will be an even greater challenge in November against Mike Johanns – the popular former Governor of Nebraska, and George Bush’s former Secretary of Agriculture.  Right now, the Nebraska Senate race is not on the radar of most political observers – as conventional wisdom says that Republicans will keep the seat handily.

But Kleeb could benefit from a “perfect storm” of this year’s political dynamic.  Voters are demanding change, Obama’s campaign will make Nebraska competitive for local Democrats, and Kleeb fits the bill of the young idealistic candidate who is popular at the grass-roots level.  I predicted in January that 2008 will be the year of change – which creates the perfect opportunity for Kleeb to run for the Senate.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth has made a few small donations to Scott Kleeb’s campaign.

San Francisco

Editorial: The Case Against Proposition G

5 Comments

(The Prop F/G debate is a really, really big deal in San Francisco. The Bayview Shipyard is a huge mess and something needs to be done about it. The question is whether Prop G is the best means of getting that done. The good folks at Beyond Chron think no. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Today, Beyond Chron comes out against Prop G – a local San Francisco measure on the June ballot to redevelop Bayview-Hunters Point.

On June 3, San Francisco voters will decide the future of the largest remaining undeveloped acreage remaining in the City. Although its location at the Hunters Point shipyard and alongside Bayview’s low-income minority community has long kept it out of sight and mind, this land is our last opportunity to remake the City’s waterfront a striking community that continues to meet our city’s needs.

Remarkably, almost all the information sent to voters has come from political consultants hired to sell this proposal. It comes in brochures with attractive drawings but very little else, with campaign costs already over $2 million and likely to set an all-time record for a San Francisco ballot measure.

San Francisco, the leader in so many areas, appears to be on the verge of giving birth to yet another first-of-a-kind: the stealth campaign to write public policy out of public view, through a ballot measure exclusively funded by the corporation anxious to seize a billion-dollar prize, and offered in language that wriggles, weasels, and walks away from all the promises it boasts.

Proposition G on San Francisco’s June ballot challenges the old rule that public policy should be done in public. Why is a major decision involving the transfer of public land and rezoning of a neighborhood ignoring public debate?

It’s not the cumbersome process of public participation that is the reason. It is the fear of facing questions in public about the details and how they will translate even good intentions into good public policy.

If such a stealth campaign can succeed without facing rigorous debate and discussion, it will become the way to operate in other San Francisco important decisions – and likely be copied as a new model in other cities with equally eager consultants and special interests.

In the case of this June’s ballot measure to convey hundreds of acres for free to the Lennar Corporation, there’s a reason why this needed to be a stealth campaign.

The actual details – and lack of details – would send alarm bells ringing for every voter. In fact, the measure is unprecedented in any major land use decision in our City’s recent history.

Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in 8,500 to 10,000 units of new housing, with 25% of the units affordable for moderate to low-income buyers.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve has no written agreement that requires 25 percent of the housing be affordable, or even that requires 8,500 to 10,000 new units of housing be built. It merely states “this Initiative encourages the development of new housing in the Project Site with a mix of rental and for-sale units, both affordable and market-rate.”

Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in 8,000 permanent new jobs for San Francisco residents.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve actually repeals an earlier written commitment for as much as 50 percent of the jobs to be targeted for San Francisco residents in building out this site. Instead, the language weakly states “this Initiative encourages and anticipates construction and permanent jobs for local economically disadvantaged residents, particularly in the Bayview, and a range of economic development opportunities, including retail and commercial space.”

Claim: Voters are told that this measure will result in new parks and open space.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve will result in the loss of valuable waterfront parks and open space which now could be converted into commercial office space. The promised parks are actually replacements elsewhere of the lost parks and open space.

“This Initiative will permit the City’s park property at Candlestick Point, including land currently used for Monster Park and associated surface parking, to be transferred for development….At the same time, this Initiative requires that any park property transferred by the City be replaced with other public park and open space property of at least the same size in the Project Site….” As news accounts confirm, park of the “parks” to be built include an astro-turf like area of grass embedded into synthetic mesh to double as stadium parking.

Claim: Voters are told that there will be no new taxes required.

Fact: The real wording voters opens the way for General Fund dollars to be used and specifically taps into other city funds. The language states that this project should “minimize any adverse impact on the City’s General Fund relating to the development of the Project Site by relying to the extent feasible on the development to be self-sufficient.” Other provisions state that the Project will tap into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, use tax allocation bonds, rely on the issuance of community facilities bonds, and tax exempt financing tools.

Claim: Voters are told that the new owner will pay to clean up toxics at this site.

Fact: The real wording voters are asked to approve calls for the cleanup to be paid from state and federal funds. It states “To the extent feasible, use state and federal funds to pay for environmental remediation on the Project Site and help pay for transportation and other infrastructure improvements, and provide ways for other development project outside the Project Site to pay their fair share for new infrastructure improvements.” In short, taxpayers will pay to clean up the site.

Finally, it then discards even these weak and watered down goals by asking voters to approve that “market changes” and “economic feasibility” could take back every provision put before the voters in this measure if the developer decides it won’t be profitable.

The language states “certain variables, including, for example and without limitation, market changes, economic feasibility and the timing of the 49ners departure from Monster Park,” that “the final development plan for the Project Site may be materially different from the Project and the boundaries of the Project Site may be materially different …”

This ballot measure actually repeals some of the hard-won provisions of the former Bayview Hunters Point plan, including its provisions to require

• a written commitment to provide an opportunity for 1,000 permanent jobs for recipients of general assistance who undergo a job training program,

• a written commitment for a good faith effort that 50 percent of the construction jobs go to residents of the Bayview Hunters Point South Bayshore community as well as 25 percent of the

permanent jobs,

• a written commitment that there be adequate labor union representation,

• a written commitment to adhere to the city’s administrative code including nondiscrimination based on domestic partner status,

• a written commitment to pay any shortfall in property taxes needed to pay tax allocation bonds as a result of reassessed property values (the new proposal also relies on tax allocation bonds but without this guarantee)

• height limits to protect the waterfront from being walled off from the city by inappropriate highrise developments

• and a city determination that the city will provide no more than twenty percent of the project construction.

Those provisions were written in the 1997 measure because of due diligence by the Board of Supervisors who demanded specific promises in writing. While it applied to a different proposal for this site, those standards ought to be upheld in this measure.

One thing alone explains how such empty promises were put on the ballot. It came from a closed door arrangement without any competitive bids from other developers, was written by the hand-picked developer, and has had none of the public hearings or consideration by the Board of Supervisors that are expected of any major City deal.

“We didn’t want to start over because we are on a remarkably quick timeline, so they were the right one,” Michael Cohen of the mayor’s staff explained to the Chronicle. The rationale was spelled out: the timeline was linked to ink a deal that could persuade the 49ners that San Francisco would provide the site for a world-class football stadium.

“We have a plan that we can finance — no surprises,” Newsom said in an interview. “I want to put pressure on the 49ers. I want to make it very difficult for them to leave our city,” Newsom said.

That may account for the fact that this measure has more devoted to a potential stadium than it does to such basic community needs as schools, health clinics and libraries in a new community with tens of thousands of residents – none of which are even mentioned in this proposed measure.

Contrast that with the City’s other major land deals – Mission Bay and Treasure Island – which were put out to competitive bid.

Mission Bay commits in writing to having 28 percent of the housing be affordable to moderate-low income residents.

Treasure Island commits in writing to having 30 percent of the housing be affordable to moderate-low income residents.

Under Prop G, Lennar makes no promises in writing. Instead, it only commits to “encourage” a 25 percent affordability standard. Anything more would be a “poison pill.”

The City rushed into this deal with Lennar without being fully appraised of the corporation’s fragile finances or of its record of broken promises.

Rushed is a mild description. The City announced its no-bid selection of Lennar on one day, and the next day Lennar announced that its earnings had dropped 73 percent in the first quarter of 2007.

In all, last year Lennar reported it lost $1.9 billion, its stock falling by two-thirds and plunging it into junk bond realm. It had to lay off 8,000 of its 14,000 employees, cancel 90 land-swap deals it signed with other communities, and recently had to deny financial media reports that it might be bought out by a United Arab Emirates investor group.

In this San Francisco ballot measure, there are no timetables for completing any housing, no default payments to the city if Lennar can’t deliver, and – worst of all – no provision to keep Lennar from selling San Francisco’s last remaining land for housing and jobs to another company that would have a guarantee in writing from the voters that it could ignore every single statement told to the voters in this campaign.

Lennar’s Troubled History:

Lennar’s record is that it repeatedly has been unable to uphold its end of the bargain. Lennar committed when it won the development rights for the first Bayview parcel that the result would be 700 units of affordable housing.

Before the first housing was even built, Lennar announced it couldn’t afford to keep its end of the deal. It cancelled all 400 affordable rental units it committed to build, insisting it needed the higher profits from selling homes. The only affordable units being built, 300 of them, are being paid for by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

Last month, Lennar was part of a Las Vegas consortium that got default notices in the mail for $765 million for a parcel there.

Three years ago, Orange County signed with Lennar for the former El Toro air base, in exchange for thousands of housing units and a major new public park. Now the housing hasn’t been built, the funds don’t exist for the park, and the community is trying to renegotiate its deal with Lennar.

One official there noted in the Los Angeles Times, “Some of us felt we needed a Plan B all along.” As the Times notes, “Now Lennar has started to rethink some of its promises.”

Recently Palm Springs called in an $8 million bond in its Lennar deal after the company halted progress on its commitments. As one city manager there told the local newspaper, “if Lennar does not perform, they either pay us the money or they perform the work.”

Vallejo’s Mare Island also is finding Lennar backtracking on its commitments, even asking city officials to use their offices to persuade state regulators to give Lennar an easy time in meeting state requirements.

And in the last week of April, a Lennar partnership to develop 15,000 acres of the former Newhall Ranch close to Los Angeles defaulted and appears ready to declare bankruptcy.

Morningstar, the eminent investment company, advised “with debt of about $2.3 billion spread among joint ventures employing recourse debt, Lennar could be on the hook for $917 million in the event of a total meltdown. On top of this, we’d expect significant legal wrangling if and when its other two large nonrecourse ventures sour.

Both Heritage Fields, its massive venture involving the El Toro military base, and Kyle Canyon, its large Las Vegas venture, employ nonrecourse debt. That said, it’s not unreasonable to assume the banks involved in the deals are doing all they can to make sure it’s as difficult as possible for Lennar to exit the ventures cleanly if it chooses to do so.”

The business sections of newspapers from Florida to Texas tell the same story: Lennar enters into an agreement for a land-swap that locks up valuable acreage in exchange for a promise to deliver affordable housing and public benefits, but then delays come, and to often, Lennar has walked away.

Bayview Hunters Point constitutes our City’s most marginalized community, yet sits aside some of the most valuable real estate remaining for development. Promises have been made, and promises have been broken.

Someone, somewhere, always had an idea. A homeport for a battleship would revive the industry, but the battleship went into the mothball fleet instead. A grand suburban-style shopping mall and new stadium would create jobs in an area with high unemployment, but the football team’s owners bickered with each other and the project stalled and died. Now one of the nation’s largest homebuilders sees an opportunity to bank hundreds of acres of prime real estate for free, with promises it has no obligation to keep.

There is no mystery about what ought to be done.

Bayview-Hunters Point needs more housing suitable for families with children, more affordable housing of all types, grocery stores and dry cleaners, schools and pre-schools, more open space and parks, health clinics and recreation and community centers. Community plans should also encourage small businesses, and particularly retain and enhance the artist community.

In short, it needs to become a new and valued San Francisco neighborhood that provides real opportunity in housing, jobs and a quality of life.

That kind of outcome requires hard work, community participation, solid financial planning, and enough guarantees to ensure that someone else’s dream doesn’t become San Francisco’s nightmare – worming its way into San Francisco’s future by stealth.

Uncategorized

California’s Early Primary Was a Bad Move

1 Comment

Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today’s L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California’s early primary.

Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February – so that we’d have a “bigger impact”? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states – and so had almost no effect on the nomination.  Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn’t have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere.  Now California has a state primary on June 3rd – where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass.  If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination – and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames.  But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits – in a gambit that failed.

The case for moving up California’s primary had its valid points – such as why does Iowa get to hog so much attention from presidential candidates every four years, who then are forced to take a position on ethanol?  As the largest and most diverse state in the nation, California deserves its place in the spotlight.  Candidates must be held accountable on issues that matter greatly to us like immigration, suburban sprawl, education funding, affordable housing, public transportation and levee repairs.  But despite moving up our primary, these issues did not play a prominent role in the campaign.

That’s because California didn’t act within a vacuum.  The Democratic National Committee said that states could move up their primaries to February 5th without losing delegates, so a lot of states had the same idea.  We ended up sharing Super Duper Tuesday with Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Idaho and Alaska.  Presidential candidates didn’t spend much time in California – because they were too busy elsewhere.

California got some attention on Super Tuesday, but we were competing with 21 states just ten days after the candidates had duked it out in South Carolina.  With the cost of running a statewide campaign here, Clinton and Obama spared their resources – and devoted more attention to states on the East Coast, Midwest and in the South where a little money could go a long way.  Obama lost California, but his campaign also figured out the math on winning delegates – focus on the small states and rack up huge victories.

Could Obama have won California if he had spent more time here?  Maybe.  Clinton still won by a nine-point margin, but she was ahead by over 20 points a few weeks earlier.  Obama needed time to get acquainted with California voters – especially Latinos – and a more systematic effort in the Golden State could have been successful.  Bear in mind that he practically tied Clinton among voters who went to the polls on Election Day.  But with California’s early absentee balloting, Clinton blunted his momentum.

What would have happened to the nomination fight if California had not moved up its primary to February 5th?  Obama would have emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear winner – but Clinton still won enough states (New York, New Jersey, Arizona) to keep the race going.  Obama would have racked up a wider lead in the delegate count earlier, but Clinton would have refused to back out – insisting that the race must be decided in California.  By June, California would have been viewed as her “make-or-break” state.

It’s interesting to see how much attention Pennsylvania got in this race – because they weren’t greedy like the other states that moved up their primary.  California could have had that same privilege if we had just been patient – allowing each candidate to come here, address our issues and earn our support.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and it will be no thanks to California voters.  By trying to have a bigger impact, we ended up making ourselves practically irrelevant.

Some argue that a February primary was good – because it boasted a high turnout.  That’s good for democracy, but the unintended consequences may devastate our state’s future.  A subsequent statewide primary on June 3rd will see a very low turnout – where the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association is pushing Proposition 98 to abolish rent control.  Polls show Prop 98 trailing, but we still don’t know exactly who will vote.  If renters and Democrats don’t turn out, the right-wing agenda will prevail.

In fact, the President of the Jarvis Association has admitted that a very low (and conservative) turnout will help them on the June ballot.  They started planning over a year ago to gather signatures for Prop 98.  When it looked like they were going to qualify for the February ballot, they actually stopped gathering signatures – and then resumed after it was too late.  Make no mistake about it: they put it on the June ballot for a reason.

Of course, having more of an impact in the nomination process was not the real agenda for a February primary – it was just the “official” reason to get Californians to support it.  Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata – who were about to step down because of term limits – wanted to pass Proposition 93 to allow them to stay in power for another term.  They could have planned ahead and put it on an earlier statewide ballot, but instead wasted our money with a February initiative.  The voters ended up rejecting Prop 93 – so Perata and Nunez will have to step down anyway.

In order to prove that the February primary was not a waste of time and resources, Perata and Nunez must now make the defeat of Prop 98 a top priority.  Defeating Prop 98 won’t take back the money that the state spent on another election (which could go towards education, housing and transportation), won’t bring back California’s relevance in the presidential nomination process – but at least it will help save rent control.  And right now, it’s the only thing that Perata and Nunez can do about it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Uncategorized

SD-03: Joe Nation’s Environmental Problems

With today being Earth Day, I thought readers would enjoy reading my article about Joe Nation’s environmental record.

Ex-Marin Assemblyman and State Senate candidate Joe Nation is working to stay above the fray between Mark Leno and Carole Migden.  Despite his moderate record on other issues, he speaks earnestly about the environment and climate change.  But why hasn’t the Sierra Club endorsed him, and why is he not popular with environmentalists in Marin County?  It may be because when Nation was on the Marin Municipal Water District in the late 1990’s, he proposed bottling water from Mount Tamalpais, voted for a pipeline to siphon water from the Russian River and supported widening the US-101.  Today, Nation is a climate change consultant for ENVIRON, where he primarily advises Coca-Cola – whose environmental record has spawned protests across the globe.  Now Coca-Cola runs a corporate green-washing campaign that pushes “water stewardship” – which is code for privatization of a natural resource, while running bottled water plants in California.

As a newcomer to the very contentious Senate race (and a relative unknown to San Francisco voters), Nation has campaigned on his environmental record in the Assembly – and touts the work that he currently does on climate change.  “I would not be in this race if it wasn’t for that issue,” he said at a candidates’ forum last month.  Therefore, it is helpful to hear what local environmentalists think about him.

The Sierra Club has not endorsed in the race – which is interesting, because Joe Nation has made climate change such a top priority in his campaign.  Nobody on their Board would talk to me on the record (the Club is still deciding what to do), but it was clear from learning about Nation’s history in Marin that he is not well liked among many environmentalists.

After losing an open Congressional race in June 1992, Nation was elected later that year to the Marin Municipal Water District – a very powerful stepping stone for higher office.  Three of Marin’s last 4 Assembly members have served on that board, including Nation – who ran for an open Assembly seat in March 2000.  The Sierra Club did not endorse him in that race, and when two progressive opponents split their votes, Nation eked out a victory.

In 1999, Nation angered environmentalists by sponsoring a proposal that the Marin Water District sell bottled water from Mount Tamalpais.  Activists opposed it because draining water from Redwood Creek (which flows from Mount Tam) would endanger a salmon run.  At a time when Marin residents were being asked to conserve water, they opposed having the District sell off such natural resources.  Bottled water, they said, is also a very wasteful practice – as it consumes large amounts of plastic.

After much community opposition, the Marin Water District shot down Nation’s idea.  Shortly afterwards, they passed an ordinance prohibiting such a proposal in the future.

In 2000, the Marin Water District (with Nation’s support) agreed to move ahead with plans for a new multimillion-dollar pipeline to siphon water from the Russian River.  Again, environmentalists opposed the idea – as it involved extracting natural resources when they urged the need for more conservation.  As he ran for the Assembly that same year, Nation supported widening the US-101 to relax gridlock – a reason why the Sierra Club did not endorse him (as their chosen candidate opposed it.)

Nation did get support from the League of Conservation Voters in his initial Assembly bid – prompting environmental legend David Brower to write an angry press release.  “Industry and pro-development politicians grow increasingly skilled at adopting green camouflage,” said Brower, as he accused Nation of being “the candidate favored by developers.”  At the time, Nation replied that he was a “realist” – not a “purist.”

In the Assembly, Nation’s voting record was solidly pro-environment (the Sierra Club endorsed him when he faced token opposition) – but some complained that he was more of a follower than a leader.  His signature bill was AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed – which capped carbon emissions, but most environmentalists agree is not enough.

Since leaving the Assembly in 2006 (after a second bid for Congress against Lynn Woolsey), Nation now works as a Climate Change Consultant for ENVIRON — which has a global staff of over 1,000 and helps corporations become more environmentally sound.  Most of Nation’s consulting work at ENVIRON, he says, is on behalf of Coca-Cola.

“We do a range of work for Coke,” he said, “and have lots of very smart people who count carbon molecules and do carbon footprints.  We’ll go in their facility and measure their energy use (CO2), and look at ways on how they can reduce it.  We give them recommendations on alternative technologies that they can use.  My expertise is in the area of off-sets and carbon emissions trading.”

Coca-Cola does not have the best environmental record.   The company manages bottling plants throughout the world – and its water-pumping in India has drained the wells of the country’s most impoverished villages.  Students on over 20 college campuses in the U.S. and Great Britain have succeeded in getting their schools to divest from Coke due to its repeated violations of environmental law.

Of course, Nation can argue that he’s helping Coke fix its environmental problems.  But even the company’s “green” improvements are under scrutiny.  “Coca-Cola has done a lot to greenwash their corporate image,” said Nick Guroff of Corporate Accountability, a non-profit organization that monitors corporate violations.  On its website, Coca-Cola features an environmental report that touts its “water stewardship” plan – which critics say is really just an effort to privatize a natural resource that people need in order to survive.

Coca-Cola says it’s doing what it can to reduce waste – as it makes less wasteful plastic bottles and plans to build a plant that will recycle 100 million pounds of plastic every year.  But activists – including Rev. Renee Rico from San Anselmo in Marin County – aren’t buying it.  “Don’t make the [water] bottles in the first place, and you won’t have to waste even more energy to recycle them,” she said.

An online campaign by Corporate Accountability is currently underway – urging consumers to drink tap water rather than buy bottled water from Coca-Cola and other companies.  The group recently convinced S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom to ban plastic water bottles in all City government buildings.

Nation’s work for Coca-Cola is consistent with his advocacy for bottled water nine years ago on the Marin Municipal Water District.  Today, bottled water is a growing industry – and Coke runs a plant near Mount Shasta despite opposition from the environmental community.  It would help Coke to have someone like Joe Nation in the California State Senate – especially a Democrat who touts his green credentials.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As a private citizen, Paul Hogarth has endorsed Mark Leno for State Senate. He plays no role for the Leno campaign, nor did anyone on that campaign assist in  this story.

Uncategorized

SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Yesterday’s Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left – out of touch with mainstream American values.  Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats.  Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn’t help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the “land of fruits and nuts.”  Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article – except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics.  Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.

Without even waiting to hear what working-class voters in Pennsylvania thought about Obama’s infamous statement, the media pronounced that it changed the dynamic of the presidential race – with some comparing it to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  Because Clinton and John McCain both attacked Obama for being “elitist” and “condescending,” the press allowed the story to run far longer than it should.  And because Obama said it at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Clinton made sure to remind voters about that fact.

So what does the San Francisco Chronicle – our hometown newspaper of record – do when the City gets smeared by politicians of both parties?  Write a puff analysis which reinforces the notion that we make Democrats look bad – a place where national politicians come to campaign at their peril.  Marinucci could have mentioned that the fundraiser was in Presidio Heights – one of our most exclusive (and conservative) neighborhoods – rather than tar the whole City with an “elitist” smear.  Instead, she quotes Pat Buchanan as proof that Obama really screwed up with that statement.

It’s not the first time that the right has attacked “San Francisco Values” as a means of marginalizing Democrats.  But San Francisco values are mainstream American values.  We were one of the first cities to pass a domestic partnership law – “civil unions” that even George Bush and Dick Cheney now find acceptable.  In 2006, we were the first place that required employers to provide paid sick leave – and now other cities have since followed our lead.  We’re a city of creative entrepreneurs who have started cutting-edge businesses that are household names.  We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

But Marinucci didn’t bother to interview any San Franciscans for her piece – let alone ask working-class folks in Pennsylvania if they were offended by Obama’s remarks – except for one local politico: Peter Ragone, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s former press secretary, who (according to an earlier Chronicle story) helped the Clinton campaign’s media team in Texas.  Marinucci did not disclose Ragone’s conflict-of-interest when she quoted his take on the situation.

Obama’s statement, said Ragone in the Chronicle, “sounded like someone running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not President.  The Democratic Party should have learned you have to respect people’s cultural experiences in order to get their votes.  If Democrats want to win in California, they have to win in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and the I-80 corridor. If you truly feel that way about people in those places, you’re just not going to get their votes.”

It’s precisely such divisive talk that prevents Democrats from truly standing up for what we believe in – and depresses San Franciscans into believing that our values are not the values of mainstream America.  It is why liberals then allow Democrats to get away with taking offensive policy positions – all in the name of being electable to the average swing voter.  The Left has been so haunted by the ghost of George McGovern for the past 35 years that we’ve lost all will to believe that real change can happen at the ballot box.

Was Obama’s statement culturally insensitive?  Let’s take a closer look at his exact words, and see why it was not disrespectful to the swing-state working-class voter:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

To suggest that working-class Pennsylvanians who’ve had their jobs shipped overseas are “bitter” is not condescending – it’s simply stating the truth.  As Randy Shaw wrote this week, if Clinton believes that they are not bitter, she is almost as delusional as George W. Bush.  And when Fox News actually interviewed such voters, they pretty much confirmed that it’s true.

The tricky part, of course, was for Obama to suggest that they “cling to guns or religion.”  But he never suggested that guns or religion are therefore bad.  What he meant to say is that during hard times, people stick with what they are familiar with and where they take comfort.  Conversely, they also mistrust the unfamiliar – people who don’t look like them, people who come from other countries, and coastal elitists.  It’s the politics of fear – and when voters are anxious, they become vulnerable to such appeals.

Could such an honest assessment hurt Obama?  Maybe a little, but anyone who believes that it rises to the level of the Jeremiah Wright controversy – where Obama’s pastor was caught on YouTube saying “God damn America” – is completely delusional.  And Obama did a stellar job handling that situation, with the most eloquent speech he has given in his entire career – where he effectively said that we must have an honest dialogue about race in this country.  But after the “bitter” comment, the media said Obama was in trouble.

Five days later, we now have fresh polls out of Pennsylvania that show that the brouhaha had practically no effect.  A friend of mine who’s there said that it’s a bigger deal nationally than locally (even though it has been widely disseminated.)  The issue will boil over, although we can expect that Republicans will try to make hay out of it in the general election.  By then, people won’t care – and the voters who will care would not vote Democratic anyway.

It’s bad enough that San Francisco – and everyone who lives here – got dragged into the mud with this story, just because the media won’t admit that the Clintons are history.  But for the Chronicle to pile on when it’s our hometown newspaper was embarrassing.  If the New York Times reported that voters in the Big Apple were out of touch with mainstream America, there would have been an outcry.  As residents of San Francisco, we deserve better from our local newspaper of record.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco.  He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

San Francisco

CD-08: Support the Unity Slate for Obama!!

2 Comments

(Another longtime Calitician announces. Hogarth is competing against Calitics publisher Brian Leubitz in Pelosi’s CD (they’re friends). A Blogger v Blogger election…clutch your pearls now while I flip a coin – promoted by Bob Brigham)

With 71 people running for 3 Obama delegate slots in San Francisco, I have teamed up with two other candidates to form the Unity Slate.  We are 3 Democratic individuals who represent the diversity of CD-08, the diversity of Barack Obama’s appeal, and are excited to bring San Francisco values to the Democratic National Convention.  We are Paul Hogarth, Clem Clarke and Myrna Melgar!

Clemetine Clarke was born in Mississippi, and has been a committed Democratic party activist for 29 years. She has been active in mentoring youth in the community and is especially passionate about getting young African Americans active in politics. Clem runs her own company, has a four year old son and lives in the Western Addition.

Many of you know me, Paul Hogarth, as the managing editor of Beyond Chron.  But I’m also a 30 year old tenant rights activist who grew up in Chicago — three doors down from Obama. I’ve been involved in SF politics for 10 years, and worked for LGBT causes, such as marriage equality and tenants rights. I currently work as an attorney at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and live in the Tenderloin.

Myrna Melgar is a Latina mother of two girls. She immigrated to the Mission District from El Salvador as a teenager, and has been a community and union organizer through most of her career, working on issues of affordable housing, workers’ rights and social and environmental justice. She currently works for the City administering programs for low income first time homebuyers. Myrna lives at the edge of the Castro/Mission.

Please come out on Sunday, April 13th at SEIU Local 1021 (350 Rhode Island) to support the Unity Slate.  Doors open at 2:00 p.m., and we hope you can be there to help us bring San Francisco values to the Convention!!

Uncategorized

Migden Reduced to Spoiler Role in State Senate Race

Even more reasons that the CDP must not endorse Carole Migden.

Randy Shaw wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

In late February, a David Binder poll found State Senator Carole Migden badly trailing Mark Leno and Joe Nation in the race for Senate District 3. Since that time, Migden agreed to pay $350,000 in fines for state campaign law violations, filed a federal lawsuit against the FPPC challenging campaign finance limits as unconstitutional, and was sued by the FPPC for $9 million in an action that charged, among other violations, that Migden “failed to report a number of large transactions entirely, while reporting other large transactions which simply never occurred.” In political trouble before the FPPC’s actions, Migden now has no chance to win re-election. She appears to be remaining in the race solely to defeat Leno, a strategy that would put a moderate Democrat from Marin in a seat that would otherwise be held by a San Francisco progressive.

In my view, Carole Migden lost her chance for re-election when tapes were released of 911 calls from terrified fellow drivers commenting on her reckless driving down Interstate 80.  Migden blamed health problems for her conduct and agreed to stop driving, but voters were unlikely to forgive her for the peril she caused those sharing the highway with her that day.

Migden and her backers insisted she could overcome the reckless driving charge, and a few months later was back behind the wheel. The State Senator also remained defiant after agreeing to pay $350,000 in campaign finance violations, insisting that voters “don’t care” about such violations.

Migden is likely correct that voters do not care about technical violations in campaign reporting, but her record as the politician who has been most fined for FPPC violations in California history is a different matter. Migden now faces a massive $9 million lawsuit for violations so egregious as to create the impression that the longtime politician has flouted campaign finance laws with impunity.

Republicans, not progressive Democrats, are those typically complaining about campaign finance restrictions. Yet it is Migden who will ask a federal court on April 1 to strike down as unconstitutional longstanding campaign finance regulations, all so that she can spend money she raised for her Assembly campaigns on the State Senate race.

This has been a bad week for the incumbent. On Monday night, Migden failed to win the sole endorsement of the San Francisco Labor Council, as it jointly endorsed both her and Leno.

The Council’s failure to solely endorse an incumbent Democrat shows her weakness as a candidate, and that this is becoming a Leno-Nation race. Leno has the stronger progressive record, and would be the clear favorite were he not losing some progressive votes to Migden.

If Migden cared about ensuring the Senate seat is occupied by a San Francisco progressive from the queer community, she would withdraw from the race. But word from those who know Migden is that she will keep campaigning in order to prevent Leno’s victory; she not only feels personally betrayed by Leno running against her, but believes that if he had not run, she would have coasted to re-election despite her reckless driving and campaign finance violations.

There is ample precedent of weakened incumbents dropping out of races to help ensure the election of a candidate of a similar ideological bent. Republican Congressmember John Doolittle of nearby Sacramento faced controversy over campaign law violations, and it looked for some time as if Democrat Charlie Brown would easily take the seat in November 2008.

But Doolittle put his ideology ahead of personal ambition and dropped out of the race. Conservative Tom McClintock has since declared his candidacy, and Republicans are now favored to keep the seat.

New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli faced a situation similar to Migden, in that only a few months before the November 2002 election polls showed him losing to his Republican opponent. Torricelli dropped out of the race, and his Democratic replacement won the November election and continues to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Of course, Migden’s rivalry with Leno has a personal component lacking in the above two examples. Migden sees Leno as a Judas for running against her, while his backers would argue that she betrayed her former fundraiser when she backed Harry Britt against Leno in the 2002 Assembly race.

Migden’s personal animus toward Leno explains her willingness to play the spoiler role.

And if her spoiler strategy works and Nation wins,  it will be the district’s progressive constituents who will pay the price.

Uncategorized

“Yes on 98” Group Insults Tenants; Calls Elected Officials “Terrorists”

(Such lovely people – promoted by jsw)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

To learn about Proposition 98’s agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner’s Association (AOA) – the largest landlord group in California.  In a nine-page essay published in the association’s magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials “terrorists” and “suicide bombers,” compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters “choose not to provide for themselves,” and – with rhetoric that channels George Bush – tells landlords: “you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.”  We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the “Yes on 98” cause – and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks.  And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller’s fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California – if we don’t act now.

While proponents want voters to think it’s about eminent domain reform, Prop 98 is the most dangerous right-wing initiative to hit the California ballot in years.  It would abolish rent control, gut the most basic tenant protections, repeal sensible environmental laws and endanger public water projects.  Another measure, Proposition 99, would reform eminent domain – which Faller opposes because it would “only protect owner-occupied homes.”  In other words, the Prop 98 forces don’t really care about the middle-class homeowner who fears eminent domain.  They just want to repeal all regulations of private property.

In the post-9/11 world, calling someone a “terrorist” is a serious accusation – but Faller refers to pro-tenant elected officials who oppose Prop 98 as “terrorists” or “suicide bombers” at least seven times.  “The bombs and explosives they are throwing at us,” he writes, “are rent control, eminent domain, inspection laws, building codes, requiring 60-day notices so tenants can steal more time from you, eviction laws that allow tenants to live rent-free for several months, relocation fees, inclusionary zoning that drives up the price of housing so they have another excuse to justify even more laws.  These elected officials are dangerous.”

Urging his fellow landlords to fight this “war” on the “terrorists,” Faller says the solution is to hit them with the “big bomb”: Proposition 98, which would invalidate all these existing laws and then some.  “Help to permanently take away their weapons that allow unfair eminent domain and rent control,” he writes before asking for campaign contributions.  “This is certainly one war that we all believe in and can hold our heads high as we fight to win!  You are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.”

According to a Field Poll conducted in December, George Bush has a 28% approval rating in California – with 64% who disapprove.  Yet, one of the top supporters of Prop 98 is using exactly the same rhetoric as our Commander in Chief to deride his opponents.  If voters in June are educated about who’s behind this initiative, they will defeat it.

But it’s not just the “terrorist” politicians that Faller has a bone to pick with.  He demeans people who can’t afford to buy California real estate as lazy and ineffectual.  As he urges landlords to “join this war” to pass Prop 98, Faller says “you’ve worked hard providing housing for others who chose not to provide for themselves … You gave up a lot of weekends to make it possible – something others were not willing to do.”  Apparently, it’s okay to berate the state’s 14 million tenants because they “obviously” did not work hard enough to buy property themselves.  Hyperbole is one thing; personal insults are quite another.

Does the fight over Prop 98 match the battle against Nazis and fascists in World War II?  Dan Faller seems to think that it does.  Recalling his childhood memories in Los Angeles when he feared that “the enemy was going to land their troops in Long Beach and along our coast,” the AOA President puts the fight to pass Prop 98 on a similar plane.  “There were big signs and advertisements that read ‘Uncle Sam Needs You!’ during WWII,” he writes.  “There’s a big AOA sign today that says ‘Freedom Loving Americans Need You!’  We need your support to win this War to protect your property rights!”

It would be easy to laugh at these outlandish statements if Dan Faller was just your crazy uncle who makes offensive jokes that amuse only himself.  But he’s the President and Founder of the American Owners Association – a national trade association of landlords that boasts more members in California than any other group.  Faller is on the Board of Biopharma, the owner of a commercial brokerage firm, and used to be a Wall Street broker.  The AOA’s monthly newsletter – which printed his “Yes on 98” screed – is the most widely read landlord publication in the country.

Under Faller’s watch, the AOA has provided crucial seed money for Prop 98 to get on the ballot – and they’re now aggressively fundraising to get it passed.  The group has already put $325,000 towards the effort – and Faller has urged members to give even more.  “Donate at least $1,000 with an additional minimum of $50 for every unit if you own over twenty apartments,” he wrote.  “If you own less than 20 units, please donate the $1,000 minimum.  If you own more, step up and invest according to all the benefits you’ll enjoy as a result of winning this campaign.”

With such a fundraising appeal, the “Yes on 98” campaign should have plenty of funds to hoodwink voters into thinking that their extreme ballot measure is about eminent domain.  Opponents of Prop 98 must be vigilant, fundraise and get out the message to expose it as the Hidden Agendas Scheme that it really is.  Only by doing so can we truly save such essential programs in California that 14 million renters rely on to live here.  And with the June ballot garnering such low attention, there’s a serious chance that we could lose.

Was Faller joking when he called pro-tenant elected officials “suicide bombers,” accused tenants of being lazy, and compared the fight to pass Prop 98 with fighting the Axis powers in World War II?  Apparently not.  “Please take every word of this article more seriously,” he wrote in the preface, “than any other article you have ever read in this publication.”  That should give us all pause about how dangerous Prop 98 really is …

Uncategorized

New Binder Poll: Nation and Leno in Tight Race

7 Comments

(I’ve written lots about SD-03, but Randy Shaw is quite knowledgeable about the race and has some interesting news about this poll. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

My boss, Randy Shaw, wrote the following for today’s BeyondChron.

A poll taken last week by David Binder found State Senate District 3 a two-way contest between challengers Joe Nation and Mark Leno, with incumbent Carole Migden trailing badly. Binder, who is San Francisco’s leading pollster and has been busy surveying for Barack Obama, found that Nation led Leno 27-24% on the initial ask, with Migden trailing at 17%. When pro and con statements about the candidates were read, the Leno-Nation numbers reversed, with Migden remaining at 17%. Joe Alioto Veronese was at 7 and 10%, and nearly a quarter of the electorate remains undecided. The poll spells deep trouble for Migden, who is having fundraising problems and still faces possible legal action by the Fair Political Practices Commission for alleged campaign financing violations. The poll raises the question whether Migden should pull out of the race in order for the seat to remain in the hands of a San Francisco progressive from the queer community – an analysis recently advanced by one of the incumbent’s most prominent supporters.

Although David Binder performed the poll for the Leno campaign, his company has a long track record of being San Francisco’s most accurate pollster. His results are quite similar to those that Joe Nation used to justify his recent entry into the race, an action that confirmed Migden’s vulnerability.

The poll numbers are great news for Mark Leno.

First, he will have a significant fundraising edge over Nation, so has a greater capacity to win undecided votes.

Second, he is the least known candidate among the leading three, giving him a greater opportunity to broaden his base.

Third, the numbers have to increase pressure on Migden to leave the race to avoid playing the role of spoiler. As it now stands, Migden could potentially divert enough votes from Leno to hand a San Francisco Senate seat held by a member of the city’s queer community to a more conservative straight white man from Marin.

Ironically, Migden supporter Rafael Mandelman lent credence to the need for Migden to leave the race in his letter in the current Bay Area Reporter titled “Leno jeopardizes queer seat.” Relying on Joe Nation’s poll that found Migden leading Leno by 5%, Mandelman, who signed the letter as President of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, accused Leno of putting “a queer seat in jeopardy.”

Mandelman concluded his letter by calling Leno’s action a “serious sin,” and urging him to “give the attacks a rest.”

While Mandelman does not expressly urge Leno to leave the race, the implication is clear. And it is a conclusion that many members of the LGBT community as well as San Francisco voters will draw about this race – only the analysis instead applies to the badly trailing Migden.

Here we have the incumbent in the race unable to secure either money or political support, and this is before all the district’s voters learn the details of her May 2007 reckless driving incident (you can link to the audio of the 911 calls made by fellow drivers here down Interstate 80, and before the FPPC files charges against her for collecting funds for one purpose and spending them for another.

The campaign violation occurred when Migden transferred $100,000 from “Friends of Carole Migden” (the campaign account for her first Senate bid) to her “Re-Elect Senator Carole Migden” account.  The funds in that account were illegally placed there by Migden from her previous Assembly campaign account.  Acknowledging the violation, Migden sought to remedy the situation by moving $120,000 back to the “Friends” account on November 5, 2007.  However, the act of transferring funds from an illegal source is a violation of the law – even if you later return the funds.

Anyone familiar with political trends knows that at this stage of the race, an incumbent with Migden’s poll numbers is in dire political straits. Incumbents do not pick up undecided voters with two other strong candidates in the field, and it seems that, like Rudy Giuliani in Florida, the more voters get to know Migden the less they support her.

Obviously, Migden is not going to leave this race in March. But if she remains far behind in April, those who care about San Francisco and the queer community keeping this Senate seat need to start speaking up. Leno is already trouncing Migden in San Francisco and, with her out of the race, he easily defeats Nation.