Category Archives: San Francisco

San Francisco

Who will be the next Mayor?

3 Comments

Dear Friend,

A few minutes ago, I walked into City Hall and opened an exploratory committee for Mayor.

I’m proud to be a San Franciscan and excited to start a conversation about how we can move our city forward in these difficult economic times.

I hope you will take a minute and join the conversation at LelandYee.com or on our Facebook page.

Everything I am today, I owe to San Francisco.

I came here as an immigrant at the age of 3. I grew up in the City. I went to local public schools and was fortunate enough to get a chance to go to college. I raised my family here – sending my four children to public schools – and served the people of San Francisco as a School Board member, a Supervisor, a State Assemblyman and now as State Senator.

When I walked into City Hall today, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of pride at the opportunity to give back to the City and people who have done so much for me.

I hope you will join the conversation about how we move San Francisco forward.

It’s a conversation we desperately need to have – and have in a more respectful and civil manner than we have had recently.

We all understand the big challenges we face – making it easier to raise a family in San Francisco and investing in education, balancing the city budget and creating good jobs in a tough economy.

Unfortunately, polarization and political backbiting have often prevented us from working together to solve these important and difficult problems.

I hope you will participate in this conversation about our home, our city and our shared future.

We’d love to have you join our email list and come to house parties and events we will hold across the city as part of this dialogue.

Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Sincerely,

Leland Yee

PS – You can join the conversation with thousands of other San Franciscans on LelandYee.com, Facebook or Twitter.  

San Francisco

Jane Kim’s “Fifty-Nine Precinct Strategy”

3 Comments

Much has been written about how Jane Kim beat San Francisco’s “progressive machine” last week to win the District 6 Supervisor race.  But a precinct analysis of the election results tells a far bigger story, and explains how she pulled it off.  Just like Howard Dean’s Fifty State Strategy helped Democrats win nationwide, Jane Kim was everywhere – and conceded no part of District 6.  Debra Walker carried the North Mission and a few progressive pockets, but racking up margins in some core precincts is not enough when your opponent actively contests every neighborhood.  Kim beat Walker in the Tenderloin (where she had a better operation), and easily won the Chinese precincts – but also carried places like Treasure Island and the Western Addition.  And as Jane’s field coordinator for condos in Eastern SOMA, I’m very proud she won those precincts by a landslide – as we were the only campaign to show up.  These were the Rob Black voters of 2006, but Kim proved that even a progressive can win those neighborhoods – if you bother to talk to them.

The changing demographics of District 6 has been talked about for years.  Chris Daly first won the seat with 81% of the vote, but that was before places like Rincon Hill and Mission Bay got thousands of new condos.  By 2006, Daly was in trouble.  Progressives suddenly had to turn out Tenderloin SRO residents in droves, just to save his re-election.  

I was part of that effort four years ago, and it was both physically and emotionally exhausting.  We managed to get SRO turnout to match the citywide average in that election (which is incredible), and Daly won.  But the map could not have been more polarizing – with Rob Black sweeping the newer SOMA precincts, and Daly winning progressive strongholds.

Back then, a lot of us knew that 2006 was the “final hurrah” for the Chris Daly coalition.  If progressives were serious about keeping District 6, they must learn how to round up “more than the usual suspects” – regardless of who the candidate would be.  Winning in progressive places like the Tenderloin and North Mission would no longer be enough.

One of the keys to Jane Kim’s success was that the campaign never conceded a single neighborhood — forming a Fifty-Nine Precinct Strategy that met voters in every corner of District 6.  Arguably, because she lacked the big progressive institutional endorsements, it was the only way she could win to outmaneuver Debra Walker.

Like Chris Daly, Jane Kim won the Tenderloin – because she had a base of SRO tenants and immigrant families.  It takes months of campaigning for a candidate to build trust in that neighborhood, and Kim’s relationship with local community organizers made that possible.  Walker campaigned in the Tenderloin, but Kim beat her there by 140 votes.

Of course, Kim’s campaign had a formidable “Chinese team” – whose outreach to the District’s Chinese voters allowed her to rack up huge margins in two SOMA precincts, as well as pad her Tenderloin numbers.  But she also had a Pilipino team that organized that community in SOMA, and Russian phone-bankers reached out to its senior population.

As the favorite of progressive institutions like the Bay Guardian, the Labor Council and the SF Democratic Party, Debra Walker had a huge advantage in the North Mission and Western SOMA – where many voters follow the slate-cards.  But Kim had a strong field presence there, which kept her losses under control.  She won two Mission precincts and tied in a third, while holding Walker’s lead in four Western SOMA precincts down to six votes.

District 6 has the Tenderloin, SOMA and North Mission – but some voters live in pockets that don’t fall into those neighborhoods.  Kim campaigned in those areas, such as the Freedom West Homes in the Western Addition.  Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose District 5 borders the housing project, took Jane canvassing there one day – and we learned many voters in that precinct mistakenly thought Mirkarimi was their Supervisor.  Kim won that precinct, as well as hard-to-reach parts of District 6 like Treasure Island – and house-boats in Mission Bay.

When I agreed to lead the Jane Kim campaign’s volunteer “condo team” for SOMA, I assumed it was to make sure we did not get slaughtered there.  After all, these were the Rob Black voters who almost threw out Chris Daly four years ago.  With Theresa Sparks getting Downtown money and the Mayor’s endorsement, they would be her natural supporters.

That turned out not to be the case.  On the one hand, we were lucky that Sparks did not campaign much.  But frankly, Debra Walker’s campaign was invisible in South Beach.  And as we knocked on doors in high-rises near the Ballpark and Cal-Train station, we found a surprising level of support.  On Election Day, voters at 4th & King told us we were the only campaign they knew about.

Granted, we did get the occasional condo voter who asked questions like “where does Jane stand on sit/lie?” or “how is she going to pay for this?” – and I have no idea if those people ended up voting for her.  If asked, we did not pander – we told them the truth, even if it lost us some votes.  But we focused on pitching her biography as a Stanford and Berkeley graduate, who is a civil rights attorney.  And Jane Kim was the kind of young professional these voters could relate to.

The election results were staggering.  In the thirteen precincts that make up South Beach, Mission Bay & Eastern SOMA, Kim won handily with 1,113 votes – followed by 823 votes for Sparks, and 564 for Walker.  In the Ranked Choice Voting tabulation, Sparks supporters preferred Kim – and Kim even beat Sparks among the Matt Drake voters.

An important lesson for progressives is not to fear those District 6 condo voters – but to instead set aside your pre-conceived notions, and come to their neighborhood.  A lot of them voted for Jane Kim, even if they knew she’s a progressive – because she was there.

Yesterday, the blog Live-SoMa – which covers local neighborhood and political issues – offered its analysis:  “While [Jane’s] opposition thinks she won because she’s young, pretty, articulate, and so on (all great qualities to have as a politician), I still think it had more to do with her overall presence throughout the Community.  It’s as if she made it her personal mission to hang a flier on every door in District 6, and she certainly tried to shake every hand – moreso than any other Candidate.  I even saw her walking down the hall in my building one Sunday Afternoon, and we’re all renters … renters don’t vote!”

On Friday night, after the Ranked Choice Voting tabulation confirmed her the winner, Jane Kim had a party for her supporters – which I attended.  “Anyone could have done what we did,” she said, “but it takes a lot of work.”

Campaigning in all 59 precincts is a lot of work.  Executing a Fifty-Nine Precinct Strategy is a lot of work.  Conceding no neighborhood is a lot of work.  But anyone can do it …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, where this piece was first published.  He lives and works in San Francisco’s District 6, and considered running himself for the seat this year – before backing out and supporting Jane Kim.

San Francisco

Why Smarter on Crime Makes Fiscal Sense

There is a healthy amount of attention being paid to California’s systemic fiscal challenges this election cycle – with a new state budget apparently out of balance even before it was signed.    

But as we debate how to restore fiscal sanity, we need to understand how the skyrocketing cost of our state’s criminal justice system is contributing to the downward spiral – and what we can do to reverse the fiscally unsustainable trend.    

During last year’s budget, California spent 11% of its general fund on the state prison system and only 7.5% on higher education.    

This level of spending on prisons requires raising taxes and fees while cutting other programs – and, ironically, the first targets are too often programs that help reduce crime. For example, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is slashing $250 million – almost 45% – of the $560 million it had allocated to rehabilitation this year alone.    

We know that sending more kids to summer school lowers the drop-out rate, which is one of the single biggest predictors of future criminal activity. And, we also know that our state prison recidivism rate of nearly 70% could go even higher as proven prison rehabilitation programs continue to fall to the budget axe. And this recidivism rate has an immediate fiscal impact – with the cost of housing a single prisoner in California now reaching nearly $50,000 per year.    

Fixing this difficult and systemic problem will take bold new ideas and leadership. And nowhere is this issue more important than in the Attorney General’s race, where San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris has the chance to bring her reform-minded, and cost effective, policies to Sacramento.    

As NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said recently, Kamala Harris has been “a transformative force on all levels, really increasing the level of intelligence in the criminal justice conversation.”    

During Harris’ tenure, San Francisco has dramatically lowered crime rates by keeping more kids in school, teaching more young people job skills, creating living wage jobs and focusing police and prosecutorial resources on programs that make the most sense, not just programs that make for easy headlines.    

The numbers prove the success of these policies. With a very small investment San Francisco has seen a significant 33% drop in elementary school truancy in just the past two years. Since keeping kids in school keeps young adults out of prison, this improvement will not only help protect San Francisco families, it will help protect California taxpayers.    

One of the best examples of the effectiveness of the Smart on Crime approach is the Back on Track program Harris launched in San Francisco. The program directs non-violent, first-time drug offenders into job training and rehabilitation services. Since the program was launched, Back on Track graduates have just a 10% recidivism rate – a stark contrast to the typical 50% rate for similar offenders. This success, if it could be replicated statewide, would save hundreds of millions of tax dollars over the long term.    

Prison sentences – long prison sentences – are a powerful tool and should be used whenever required to protect our communities. And in San Francisco, conviction rates are up as prosecutors focus on violent and serious crimes.    

But the data show that by promoting a range of prevention and intervention programs, Harris has established a track record that can protect communities without bankrupting them.      

We tend to think of the Attorney General’s race as focused on issues that are separate from other political contests in California. But with budgets so tight this year, we must embrace an Attorney General who understands how to keep us safe from crime while helping to restore fiscal sanity in Sacramento.    

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, Host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast and a Former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.  

San Francisco

Activists as Experts

Yet another reason to be proud of our city is that San Francisco was “crowd sourcing” government long before the Internet era.

On any given day, hundreds of neighbors, activists and well-meaning agitators crowd into hearing rooms to help shape our local government. And over the years – they have shaped it, almost always, for the better.

But in my experience there are two key barriers to making sure elected officials and appointed Commissioners hear the Wisdom of the Crowds – whether those crowds show up in person or online. First, there is always a certain suspicion that the people who come and testify do not necessarily represent the community as a whole. (That’s a challenge we are trying to address with our User Generated Government site www.ResetSanFrancisco.org, and hope to write separately on that issue in the coming weeks).

Second, and I think most importantly, there is frequently an impulse on the part of the government to bias “expert” testimony over the first-person appeals of constituents – even though these constituents almost always have the greatest expertise on how government decisions will impact their own neighborhoods and families.

It is this perception gap between crowd testimony and “expert opinion” that we are trying to help close with www.ResetSanFrancisco.org – with a set of features that our community members can use to gain technical expertise on issues.

The personal experiences we bring to government are powerful and important – and they should be highlighted, not diminished. But the crowds engaging government will be even more impactful if they have a sound mastery of the facts, the history and sometimes even the very technical details of government mechanics. The truth is, the more we know, the better we will be at making an impact.

The most important tool is tried and true – the library. Our site is working to highlight those articles, books, and blogs “Worth a Read” so San Francisco activists can gain useful knowledge. If you have good ideas – let us know.

And we are working to give our community members a chance to engage directly with experts – through our online “Ask an Expert” webcasts. Our next webcast is this Thursday at 4pm with Michael Cohen, the former director of the San Francisco Office of Workforce and Economic Development.

Michael is one of those rare people who has both an expert’s grasp of the big picture and a technician’s mastery of the details of government. It was a big loss when he left city government after more than a decade of outstanding service. But we hope his expertise will be a big benefit to our Reset community.

There are some in our community that didn’t always agree with Michael’s vision of economic development. But now all of us can get a chance to draw on his expertise. I hope you can tune in Thursday at 4 or anytime on our site after the event to ask Michael a question about how to make our economy stronger and more equitable.

Phil Ting

[email protected]

San Francisco

A Progressive Perspective on SF Races

For those who don’t live in San Francisco, our city probably seems like a one-party bastion of liberalism. Compared to the rest of the right-shifted country, it probably is. But scratching beneath the surface a bit, you find some pretty deep divisions. While most of us call ourselves Democrats, this is hardly a one-party town. For state and national offices, Democratic candidates get 80% of the vote. But it’s the local races where the divisions really come out, and that’s what I want to focus on in this diary.

First a quick primer for the uninitiated: San Francisco’s political divisions don’t break down so much on Democratic-Republican lines. You have some Democrats who align with Republicans on virtually all local issues, and others who align more with Greens and progressive independents more than they do with national Democrats. The words “liberal” and “conservative” are almost meaningless, because everybody and their mother calls themselves a liberal here, and no one dares call themself a conservative, even if they are. At least not if they hope to be elected. The operative words are “progressive” and “moderate.”

Progressives tend to take the well… progressive position on social issues such as marijuana legalization, the death penalty, war and militarism, civil liberties, open government, public power, same sex marriage, police accountability, police crackdowns vs. addressing root causes of crime, immigrant rights, etc. And they’re willing to push the envelope locally if national leaders don’t act. Moderates either take the opposite position, or at least shy away from addressing social issues and national issues on a local level. But the real divisions happen on economic issues. Progressives tend to be strongly pro-renter, pro-labor, and in favor of progressive taxation. They tend to want to increase services like expanding health care and worker protections like local ordinances for sick leave and citywide mimimum wage, and look for ways to find more revenue during tougher times. Moderates tend to oppose local level service increases and worker protections in good times, and cut first in tough times. They tend to oppose tax increases and align with business and landlord interests.

Of course I’m using the term “moderate” loosely… that’s the term they’d prefer to call themselves, while to me their positions generally sound conservative. Personally, I’m solidly on the progressive side, and that’s the philosophy that guides the following analysis. With that in mind, on to the races…

Supervisor

Aside from Mayor, control of the Board of Supes is the Holy Grail of San Francisco politics. Progressives have had a majority for 10 years now, while unable to capture the mayor’s office. For all local races, we get a ranked choice vote, eliminating the need for runoffs. This year the even-numbered districts are up.

D2: In this, the most conservative district in San Francisco, there’s really only one even halfway decent choice – Golden Gate Bridge Authority Board member Janet Reilly. Fortunately, you don’t have to worry about ranked choice here, because she’s the front-runner. Endorsed by the progressive-dominated local Democratic Party, but also by some moderates like Mayor Newsom and Dianne Feinstein, Reilly is not exactly a dyed-in-the-wool progressive, but she’d be much more independent than the outgoing supervisor for that district. In D2, that’s probably the best you can ask for.

D4: Incumbent Supervisor Carmen Chu is running unopposed. It’s a conservative district (by San Francisco standards), and she’s a conservative supervisor. Her politics are awful, but unfortunately there’s no way for her to lose.

D6: This is where it starts to get wild. My choice for first place, head and shoulders above anyone else, is Debra Walker, who got the sole endorsement of the Democratic Party. She’s an artist, a land-use activist, and a progressive member of the Planning Commission who understands landlord-tenant issues and has deep roots in the community as a 25-year D6 resident. It’s generally a progressive district, but there are a number of progressive candidates and only one strong moderate, so progressives would do well to use all three rankings, or they risk splitting the vote and handing the election to Theresa Sparks, the candidate backed by the Chamber of Commerce.

For #2, I’d probably pick James Keys, a young aide to outgoing 3-term supervisor Chris Daly. Few people gave him much chance of winning, but Daly made waves by endorsing him, and is working hard behind the scenes on his campaign. Daly has been the board’s strongest progressive, and downtown hates him with a passion for his abrasive but effective advocacy. More importantly, Daly’s a capable organizer, and when he says that Keys has a chance, folks should know by now to ignore him at their peril.

I’d go with Jane Kim in for #3. I have my issues with her candidacy. She only recently moved to the district. She’s taken some rather disturbing positions on a few local issues. But she’s been a solid progressive vote on the school board, and 90% of the time I think she’d be a good vote on the Board of Supes. She has a strong campaign, so I’d rank her third as an insurance policy against a moderate takeover of the seat.

D8: There are 4 candidates here. 3 of them are absolutely lousy, and one of them is awesome. That would be Rafael Mandleman. As for the rest, I don’t know if I’d even bother with ranked choice, because there’s really not much air between them. This district encompasses Harvey Milk’s old base in the Castro, and as such should be progressive. On the issues, it trends that way, but it’s also very wealthy. A lot of the graying LGBT residents are now more concerned with their property values than with social justice, and moderate candidates for supervisor have been able to pull it out lately. If Rafael wins, it would be a progressive pick up, but it’s not going to be a slam dunk by any means. Scott Weiner, one of the local DCCC’s most conservative members, has been running for 2 years now, and he could win. When the Democratic Party endorsed Mandleman as their first choice, Weiner took his name out of consideration for any of the other slots, saying that he’d win anyway without the party’s backing. Hopefully he’ll be proven wrong.

D10: With 21 candidates, no one has a clue how this is going to turn out. My picks:

#1: Chris Jackson. He’s a solidly progressive member of the Community College Board, who fought for accountability and played a role in bringing down the corrupt administration of Chancellor Day. As a city-wide elected, he’s the only progressive with proven vote-getting ability. And he’s African American. Personally, I hate identity politics. But if an African American doesn’t win this district, the board won’t have a single aa member, and that’s going to be used as a wedge issue by those who couldn’t care less about aa representation, but want would gladly make it an issue in order to get rid of district elections.

#2: Tony Kelly, a longtime D10 activist and opponent of the shady Lennar development project.

#3: DeWitt Lacy. Honestly, I’m not too sure about Lacy. I think he tends to tell people what they want to hear. But he’s a civil rights attorney with experience fighting police brutality cases, and an opponent of gang injunctions and the draconian sit/lie proposal on the ballot. He also scored the first place endorsement of the Democratic Party, and second place from the influential San Francisco Bay Guardian. With that lineup, again, I’d put him in my rankings as insurance.

The two candidates who shouldn’t be anywhere near anyone’s list are Lynette Sweet and Steve Moss. Sweet is a BART board member who told the moderate group Plan C the other day, “I thought I was a liberal, till this race. Then I realized I’m as conservative as they come.” Fantastic, just what we need. Steve Moss is a real estate speculator who may or may not even live in the district. At the same forum, he told the group “People think I’m anti-tenant because I bought a 4-Unit Building and condo-ized it. I think that’s a good thing.” No, Steve, it’s not a good thing to evict renters so you can make a buck. If you don’t understand that, you have no business in politics in this town.

School Board

There are 11 candidates for 3 slots, and the only one who I find inspiring is incumbent commissioner Kim-Shree Maufus. She’s been a leader on restorative justice, closing the achievement gap, and opposing military recruitment in the schools. Besides that, she really helped change the culture of the school board from that of a rancorous debate society where members fought to score political points with each other, to one where the board members can at least talk to each other and work together constructively.

Three members will be elected, and there’s been a tendency for progressive organizations to fill up 3 slots. The Guardian and DCCC did this, trying to pick the “best of the worst” to fill up their endorsement slates. I don’t think that’s a terrific strategy. In a multi-seat constituency where there are fewer decent candidates than seats, sometimes it’s better to just vote for the good ones and leave it at that. This is NOT ranked choice, and your votes for other candidates can indeed hurt the chances of your preferred candidate of winning a seat.

The only other major contested races are BART Board and the judicial races.

For BART Board, my pick, and the DCCC’s, is Bert Hill. The current incumbent, James Fang, is a Republican who has coasted without a serious opponent for way too long. Part of the problem is that he’s run with the backing of luminaries like Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and Dianne Feinstein (see what I mean when I talk about Democrats who act like Republicans on the local level!). Fortunately, this time the party itself finally gathered the courage to buck the politicians and stepped in on behalf of Fang’s opponent, Democrat Bert Hill. Enough is enough.

San Francisco Superior Court

Believe it or not, this one has turned into a real barnburner. It started when Michael Nava, an author and respected attorney who worked at the Supreme Court for Justice Carlos Moreno, gathered the gumption to… get ready for this… run against an incumbent (gasp)! Well, everybody knows that’s just not done. Incumbent judges are supposed to get a free ride, like the one-candidate elections they hold in places like Burma and North Korea. See, the way it works is that judges retire in the middle of their terms, so that their replacement is chosen by the governor instead of an election (and just by coincidence, that would be a Republican governor for 23 of the last 28 years). Then they have to run, by law, in these pesky little elections, where the hoi polloi ostensibly get to vote on them. But that’s no problem, because the legal community and the political establishment just circles the wagons and vilifies any other candidate who dares to run in these elections. That’s so that the judiciary can remain apolitical, because everyone knows that judges don’t get involved in politics!

And that’s how we get a bunch of rich old conservative white guys dominating the courts, even in progressive San Francisco. Well, Michael Nava decided to cut through the BS and run against Richard Ulmer, a Republican-turned “DTS” appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. I put “DTS” in quotes because up until a few months ago he was a Republican, who in fact contributed money to Republican candidates, including… Arnold Schwarzenegger (oh what a coinkydink!). As a friend of mine said, “he declines to state he’s a Republican.” Of course both parties play this game of circle the wagons. No sooner did the local Democratic Party endorse Nava, then none other than John Burton goes around twisting arms to overturn the endorsement! Maybe they all figure that they need to do this so that Republicans don’t challenge their judges when it’s their turn. There are just two problems with that… 1) Democrats haven’t gotten their “turn” very often in the past 28 years, and 2) Being nice to Republicans doesn’t mean they’ll be nice to you, as President Obama has found out.

Fortunately, the local Democratic Party understands this. They stuck to their guns with Nava. Slowly but surely, the people of San Francisco will make their court system representative of the people of this city. Nava for judge.

The rest of the Judicial races

It’s much the same deal with the rest of the judicial races. More one-candidate politburo-style elections where you don’t have the option of voting for anyone but the incumbent. In my humble opinion, it makes a mockery of the democratic process. But… you do have the option to vote NO. And if the incumbent doesn’t get 50%+1 yes votes, the governor will appoint a replacement. Well, I’m going to commit blasphemy here and recommend waiting a bit to see how far ahead Jerry Brown is in the polls at the end, and then if things look good for him, vote NO on every single one of them, with the exception of Justice Carlos Moreno.

Judges matter. They matter for the environment, corporate accountability, LGBT and other minority rights, police abuse, you name it. We need to stop pretending that judges don’t wade into politics. Judges are as political as they come, and the other side knows this. That’s why they had no qualms about torpedoing 3 great California Supreme Court Justices in 1986, permanently altering the court. Progressives need to start fighting back. Almost every one of the judges sitting on all levels of the court on the San Francisco ballot are conservative judges appointed by Republican governors, and their ideology affects their decisions. They may be “qualified” in a strict legalistic sense of the word, but I’m sure Governor Jerry Brown is perfectly capable of appointing qualified replacements.

A word on the Lt Governor and AG races

I’m not going to spend any time on state races already covered in other places, or local races where one candidate is the overwhelming favorite. But there are a couple of San Franciscans running for statewide office, and as a San Francisco progressive, I do want to say a word about them.

I may well get pilloried for this… but I cannot in good conscience vote for Gavin Newsom. Some progressives want Newsom to win, just so the Board of Supervisors can appoint a better mayor. Others want his career to end. NOW. I’m with the latter camp. This is a guy who opposes all revenue measures, brags about all-cuts budgets, wants to turn over immigrant children for deportation, uses the cops to crack down on poor and homeless people, and has consistently opposed all progressive measures to make life better for people in the city. He is bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce. If Maldo eeks out a win, Maldo can be defeated later. If Newsom wins, then it’s on to Senator, Governor, and whatever else. It’s going to be extremely hard to stop a good-looking young Democrat in a Democratic state, even if he’s truly awful on just about every issue. I don’t want to see him move up.

Kamala Harris… I’ve never been a fan of Harris. We had a good DA once. Kamala Harris came in and eviscerated some very effective pretrial diversion programs put in place by her predecessor. Her approach has been ineffective, and crime is up. She gets credit for sticking to her guns on opposition to the death penalty, but don’t expect that on a statewide level. She’s already said that she’s going to be a tough enforcer of the death penalty statewide. OTOH, Cooley is far worse. But for San Francisco residents, there’s an additional factor to consider – who the mayor appoints as a replacement DA. And yes, it’s selfish, but I am truly scared about what kind of an individual Newsom would appoint to replace her. Having Harris instead of Cooley as AG would be no victory for me, if that means a draconian DA in San Francisco who cracks down on victimless crimes and believes in Guliani-style “broken windows” nonsense. Harris isn’t the best, but it could (and will) be much worse if Newsom appoints. So I’m going to go by the following flow chart to decide on DA:

If Newsom is losing badly for Lt Guv: vote Green Party for AG

If Newsom is winning or close, but looks like he may still be able to appoint on his way out: vote Green Party

If Newsom is winning, AND the City Attorney issues an opinion that the new mayor will appoint: hold nose and vote Harris.

On to the local Props

As usual, there are a bunch this year

AA: YES Citywide vehicle license fee to pay for stuff like public transit. I’ve long been an advocate of this as a source of revenue

A: YES Earthquake safety bond for retrofitting thousands of seismically unsafe apartment buildings. Nice to know that after passing a bond for a shiny new police command center, they finally get around to making sure us renters don’t die in earthquakes.

B: NO Massive increase in health care premiums for city workers and their families. We’re talking thousands here.

C: YES Mandates the mayor appear in person at one meeting of the Board of Supervisors every month. Common sense measure that would allow for more transparency in government and better communication between the mayor and board

D: Non-citizen voting in school board elections. I’m really torn on this, and not for the reasons most people would be. I have no problem with non-citizen voting. Lots of countries and some US states allow it for some offices, and the sky doesn’t fall. We all live here, and we all have a stake in who governs us. The problem with this particular measure is that it only allows parents of kids in SFUSD to vote, and ONLY in school board elections. The unspoken assumptions underlying this measure are that 1. Only parents have a stake in who gets elected to the school board, which is an insult to all the other stakeholders in elections. 2. Young people don’t matter (again). See, if an immigrant student is 18 years old by the time of the election, this measure doesn’t give him or her the right to vote. But their parents? Sure! Young people are invisible to politicians, and I’m sick and tired of that attitude. On the other hand, what a great message to send to the teabaggers and the minutemen that San Francisco supports immigrant rights!

E: YES Election day voter registration. It increases turnout, particularly for young voters. It works. Let’s do it.

F: NO There’s something really fishy about this one. Moderate supervisor Sean Elsbernd really pushed for this change to the way people are elected to the Health Service Board, all to save the city some $30,000. If he really wanted to save $30,000, he could have scraped it up from the spare change in his own office budget. What is this really all about? Elsbernd says it’s just a tiny little good guvmint measure But it seems like a lot of effort just to save a little bit of money which could have been saved in a million other ways than fiddling with the elections to an obscure board. Teachers unions are suspicious, because Elsbernd has never been a friend to labor, and so am I.

G: NO Another bright idea from Sup. Sean Elsbernd, but this one’s pretty transparent. He wants to capitalize on people’s anger at MUNI and hope that the electorate will stick it to the drivers. The problem is with management, not rank-and-file drivers who have a tough job (driving massive vehicles through narrow, hilly streets without so much as a bathroom break) and live in the most expensive city in America. An attack on labor that deserves a resounding NO.

H: NO Newsom didn’t like who San Francisco Democrats elected to represent them on the DCCC, so he decided to put an initiative on the ballot asking Republicans and independents as well as Democrats to forbid Democrats from voting for certain public officials for DCCC (but not others – he gets to keep his seat). It’s undemocratic, cynical, heavy-handed, spiteful, hypocritical, and almost certainly unconstitutional.

I: NO Opening precinct polling places on Saturday is a good idea. Paying for elections with private funds is most emphatically NOT! I’m all for Saturday voting, but not at the cost of privatizing elections.

J: YES Increasing hotel taxes by 2% is exactly the kind of creative revenue solution the city should be looking for to fund vital services.

K: NO It’s a poison pill to kill prop J, put on the ballot by Gavin Newsom, who has bragged about his all-cuts budget and opposition to any new taxes. It’s a knee jerk measure that Assembly Republicans and Howard Jarvis would be proud of.

L: NO Lets cops fine and arrest people for sitting on the sidewalk. This is the most unbelievably draconian thing I’ve ever heard of. Supporters say they need it because they don’t like some of the kids hanging around their businesses. But not to worry, they say. Cops won’t use this law to rough up protesters, artists, or just “ordinary” people sitting and talking to each other. They’ll just have the discretion to go after whichever people they don’t like. That makes it even worse! It means if you’re sitting on the sidewalk wearing armani and gucci, the cops will probably be cool with you. But if you’re sitting on the sidewalk wearing baggy jeans and sporting spiked hair and tatooes, off to jail you go. Last time they did this in the 70s, they said they needed it to get rid of the hippies. Instead the cops used it to harass gays in the Castro (not that harassing hippies is any better!). Harvey Milk fought to repeal it. How quickly we forget. This is wrong on so many levels.

M: YES I’m not wild about Prop M, the “community policing” measure that would mandate foot patrols. Foot patrols aren’t always the right way to go, and in some cases just serve to provide another avenue for police harassment. But I’m voting for this one, because it’s presented as an alternative to the infinitely more draconian Prop L. It’s written in such a way that if it passes, Prop L doesn’t get implemented. The sky won’t fall if we have more cops walking the beat, and it represents the best chance to kill the sit/lie measure.

N: YES Increases the real estate transfer tax on real estate valued over $5 million, mostly big commercial properties. Billed as a way of getting downtown to pay their fair share, in fact they’ll still pay nowhere near their fair share, considering the increase is tiny. 0.5% increase for properties valued $5 million to $10 million, 1% increase for properties over $10 million. The “moderates” and real estate lobby oppose it of course, but their arguments are specious.

Full disclosure: The author has absolutely no financial relationship to any of the candidates/ballot measures mentioned above, but they’re putting their money/time where their mouth is, and have contributed to the campaigns of Debra Walker, Rafael Mandleman, Chris Jackson, Michael Nava, and No on Prop L.

Election 2010, Health Care, San Francisco

The Model for True Change

I’m proud to support Mayor Newsom for many reasons, however, as a pre-medical student, I find his advocacy of accessible healthcare especially noteworthy. When speaking to students on my campus about Mayor Newsom’s accomplishments, I exclaim that San Francisco is the birthplace of American universal healthcare, and continue on about the success of “Healthy San Francisco.” Launched in 2007 with former SF Supervisor and current Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Healthy SF has made groundbreaking efforts to provide health care access for San Francisco’s 73,000 uninsured.

Over the past 3 years, more than 50,000 SF residents have benefitted from this plan. Leaving no one behind, Mayor Newsom expanded his focus from young adults to all city residents who need affordable and accessible healthcare. While improving the quality of living in SF, Healthy SF has consistently been applauded as a model for universal health care. As such, Mayor Newsom was appointed as the chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Health Care Reform Task Force, working towards a plan for federal health care reform. Real-life experience, at both a local and national level, is why Mayor Newsom stands as the leading candidate for Lt. Governor.

What this program shows about Mayor Newsom’s character is that he is truly compassionate about the issues affecting his constituents. One of Mayor Newsom’s top priorities is ensuring that the needs of working and middle class families come first. Since the beginning of his mayorship, he has promoted societal inclusiveness through innovative programs similar to Healthy SF including SF Promise, JobsNow, and Sunday Streets. Whichever plan you look at, there is one common denominator: a consistent understanding of what people truly need.

Mayor Newsom looks towards providing Californians with the same ear, intent on listening to their problems and fighting for solutions. Under the leadership of our future Lieutenant Governor, Californians will be provided with accessible and affordable programs under the principles that guided the formation of Healthy SF.

Manisha Goud is the Los Angeles Regional Director of Students for Gavin Newsom. Join Students for Gavin Newsom on Facebook at www.facebook.com/studentsfornewsom.

San Francisco

Helping residents in San Bruno

1 Comment

First, I want to extend my sincere condolences to all of the San Bruno and Bay Area families that have suffered unbelievable heartbreak from the recent tragedy.

I also want to express my tremendous appreciation for all of the firefighters, medical personnel, rescue workers and emergency teams that have been working non-stop to help our neighbors in this horrific situation. Their actions here on Thursday night saved countless lives.  I also want to thank the thousands of Californians who have step up and helped our community in this time of great need.  The response has been overwhelming and shows the true character of the Bay Area and our state.

I have been in San Bruno every day since the explosion and have been working with local, state and federal agencies to make sure our district residents get the help they need.

Many of you have been contacting my office asking how you can help. Here are three things you can do:

1. Donate: You can make a donation to the Red Cross Bay Area at redcrossbayarea.org or the Salvation Army at salvationarmyusa.org. You can also donate materials – visit RedCross.org and type in your zip code to get the location nearest you.

2. Give blood: Blood centers need the universal Type O negative blood in the days ahead.  For more information, visit Blood Centers of the Pacific at bloodcenters.org or call 1-800-393-GIVE.

3. Volunteer: While we have plenty of volunteers for this tragedy, trained volunteers are needed for inevitable events in the future.  You can get trained for future disasters by visiting redcrossbayarea.org and click on “Get Trained.”

Yesterday, to help a community in need, Governor Schwarzenegger agreed to my request that he ask President Obama to declare the San Bruno tragedy a federal disaster – triggering federal money and support for the community.

In the days ahead, I will introduce legislation in Sacramento to provide disaster relief for the affected families of the San Bruno fires and to assist the County of San Mateo and our local schools. The legislation will be introduced during a special session this fall.

Finally, our senate district website has additional resources – for victims, if you are looking for a loved one or need help in dealing with insurance companies. You can also call my local district office at (415) 557-7857.

Sincerely,

Senator Leland Yee

California, Election 2010, Environment, San Francisco

Gavin Newsom: Making the Environment His Personal and Political Mission

                 “We’re not waiting for permission or for someone to save the day-we have to take action now.”

                                                                                                                                                       -Gavin Newsom

San Francisco Mayor and California Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom is a man who stands up for what he believes in. His willingness to take bold political risks and his unwavering personal integrity have led him to constantly be ahead of the curve on many important social and economic issues, from marriage equality and universal health care to homelessness and education. But the environment is truly the sole issue where Mayor Newsom’s unrelenting desire to create revolutionary reform by staying true to his personal convictions is most apparent.

Mayor Newsom’s political record proves that he is a fierce and passionate advocate for the environment. In 2006, while most of this country’s leaders were engaged in a contentious debate over whether or not climate change is real, Mayor Newsom had already authored the Urban Environmental Accords, closed a fossil-fuel burning power plant, created the country’s largest alternative fuel fleet of buses and cars and passed numerous laws to help San Francisco’s residents and businesses be more environmentally conscious. From solar panels and mandatory composting and recycling to authoring the strongest municipal green building standards in the United States for new construction and major renovations, Mayor Newsom has turned San Francisco into one of the greenest cities in the world and has established himself as one of the greenest mayors in the country.

When it comes to the environment, Mayor Newsom makes an effort to practice at home what he preaches in public. He owned a Saturn EV1 electric car in the 1990’s, recently purchased a Tesla Roadster and his official mayoral SUV is a hybrid. His winery, CADE, located in Napa, recently received Gold LEED certification, making it the first winery in the state to achieve this status. Though Mayor Newsom openly admits that “it’s not enough that [he has] an electric car”, it is clear that he, like many Californians, is dedicated to living a greener and more sustainable life.

As California’s Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, Mayor Newsom wants to raise California’s environmental consciousness. He wants to get our floundering economy back on track by growing California’s clean energy economy. He wants to end California’s addiction to fossil fuels by transitioning to clean energy sources. He plans to combat climate change and pollution by supporting AB 32 and prioritizing research and education toward green energy and environmental innovation. And he plans to conserve California’s vast natural resources by opposing the expansion of offshore drilling, promoting sustainability and protecting California’s land, coast and waterways. Mayor Newsom recognizes the symbiotic relationship between California’s economy, educational system and the environment and as lieutenant governor, he will work hard to restore the strength and ensure the longevity of each of these areas.    

Mayor Newsom’s personal and political commitment to the environment has not only earned him the respect of his colleagues and constituents in San Francisco. As a candidate for lieutenant governor, he has been endorsed by some of the most revered environmental leaders and organizations in the country. California State Senator and co-author of AB 32 Fran Pavley, has said that Mayor Newsom is a “bold, innovative leader who has proven that job creation and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive” and that Mayor Newsom is “exactly what Sacramento needs for California to continue to be a beacon of environmental leadership around the world.” Mayor Newsom has also been enthusiastically endorsed by two of this country’s leading environmental organizations, The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.

Robert F. Kennedy once said that, “the future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of bold projects and new ideas. Rather, it will belong to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the great enterprises and ideals of American society.” Mayor Gavin Newsom’s penchant to take bold, seemingly impossible dreams and turn them into reality has garnered him international attention and solidified his reputation as one of this country’s great environmental leaders. He has proven time and time again that he possesses a deep personal passion for environmental issues, the reason and ingenuity that is necessary to get things accomplished in a volatile political arena and above all, the immense courage required to take on the environmental challenges facing the state of California today.

San Francisco

Healthy San Francisco Legal Challenges End

2 Comments

San Francisco is a crazy political town on any number of levels, but we can get some really good progressive changes started right here. One of the best pieces of legislation we’ve crafted here is “Healthy San Francisco”, something of a universal health care plan.

It’s not what you typically think of as universal health care.  It isn’t insurance per se, rather it is just a funding mechanism that works on a sliding scale. It only works within the county, and it’s far from perfect. But, the brain child of current Asm. Tom Ammiano has been a great way to experiment with health care funding in the real world.  Mayor Newsom worked with Ammiano to get it passed, and as a result, a lot more of the community has come on board.

But, of course, all are not happy.  The restaurants of SF are the most aggrieved, apparently.  Basically the rule calls for employers to either provide insurance or pay 4% of wages to the city to pay for Healthy SF.  The Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA) sued to block the measure.  

Not only that, but they also tried one of the cheesiest bits of PR that I’ve ever seen. Many eateries across the city started passing the cost directly on to the customer.  Now, that’s fine and all, I’m accustomed to paying for their expenses, but this was both dishonest and a moneymaking scheme. First, they charged a flat 4% of the bill, which really exceeded the cost of the new fee by quite a bit. But the larger issue was that they were trying to pit customers against employees by embittering customers with the 4% fee.  Do they charge 10% extra for rent? or 1% for silverware? These are the costs of doing business. And hey, guess what, you have to pay for health care for workers in SF. Suck it up and charge me an extra 50 cents for my garden burger, but don’t try to get me pissed off at my server.

And now…the end is here.  The Supreme Court today rejected GGRA’s appeal:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review San Francisco’s Health Access Law that forces most employers to contribute to a health care plan for their workers. The decision ends a four-year battle to uphold the law’s legality.

When Healthy San Francisco was enacted it was considered groundbreaking; the city offered local health plans to the uninsured with funding through employer contributions.

Now the US Supreme Court has refused to consider a lawsuit filed by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association when the law went in effect. Deputy City Attorney Vince Chabria says this is great news for 53,000 beneficiaries of the program. (KCBS)

In the end, I wholeheartedly agree with Asm. Ammiano:

Today’s Supreme Court decision is an affirmation of San Francisco’s landmark efforts to provide affordable health care to the uninsured. With over 50,000 people receiving health care services and prescription drugs, Healthy San Francisco is a national model for what can be accomplished when the public and private sector work in partnership towards a common goal.

Election 2010, San Francisco

2010 CA primary thoughts, with a focus on SF

5 Comments

(This is cross-posted at my new personal blog if you’d like to check it out there along with anything else I’ve got up. I wrote this up primarily to send around to friends asking for advice on this election, but it may be an interesting read for folks here. A lot of this is old news to Calitics readers, but I’ve focused a little bit on San Francisco.)

It’s that time of year again, my mailbox is filled with literature and my voicemail is getting stacked up with robocalls. Must be election season in California!

There’s certainly no shortage of recommendations from groups on how to vote. There are a few really solid resources out there you should know about though.

Statewide Propositions

First, check out the Courage Campaign’s June 2010 Progressive Voter Guide. It’s a short PDF that lists their position on statewide initiatives as well as the position of several other groups. As the statewide propositions go I agree with Courage’s recommendations and would encourage everyone to follow them. You can read some more in-depth arguments for these at Calitics.

Discussions about statewide candidates, San Francisco measures, and the 12th District DCCC races below the fold.

Statewide Candidates

There are also a few contested primaries in the state, some of them  with more serious competition than others. These folks should cruise  through their primaries fine, but they are deserving of your support.

Governor – Jerry Brown

Senate – Barbara Boxer

Board of Equalization – Betty Yee

Now as for the contested primaries:

Insurance Commissioner – I’m not sure there is much difference  between the two candidates but personally I prefer Hector De La  Torre here. I got a chance to hear both candidates speak at the  convention this past April and I think De La Torre relishes the idea of  taking on insurance companies a lot more than Jones does. That’s exactly  what we’re going to need.

Lieutenant Governor – I’m pretty torn as to who to support for  this race. Can they all lose? I don’t know much about Janice Hanh other than she didn’t have the smarts to stay away from one of the state’s  worst slash and burn consultants with a terrible record, Garry South.  He’s overpriced to boot. Of course Gavin Newsom hired him for his failed gubernatorial run and one could write pages about why he should leave  politics and go back to running his wine business. The sad thing is this  office gives a leg up to its holder to run for other statewide or  federal offices, and I really don’t care to see either candidate as the  future of the CA Democratic party.

Attorney General – To me this is by far the most interesting  race in this primary cycle. I’ve been a Kamala Harris partisan  from the start, and for good reason. Kamala has an incredible record and story.  She is a transformational change type candidate and if she wants it  she’ll have great potential for higher office beyond the Attorney  General’s office. She’s the kind of person we need to elevate in  California, the kind of person that’s going to take on the status quo  and get things done. She’s also shown incredible fundraising prowess for  an Attorney General’s race, proving she’s well placed to compete in the  fall and beyond.

Now with respect and apologies to friends that are working on this campaign I have to specially call out Chris Kelly as the absolute worst candidate in the race. He’s exactly the kind of guy that we don’t  need anywhere near elected office in this state. He’s self funded his race to the tune of $8 Million to $10 Million eclipsing all the other  candidates. His announcement video literally had no compelling story as to why he was running other than people told him that it’d be swell if he ran. And to make matters worse he literally has no relevant experience for this office other than the fact he has a JD. When the race started he billed himself as the “Chief Privacy  Officer at Facebook” to trade on that name. Now that Facebook’s privacy  reputation has been seriously damaged, much of it under his direction  and tenure, he’s downplayed that experience. But seriously, check out this chart describing how privacy has eroded over the years. That’s pretty much the opposite of privacy. You should also check out this video the Harris campaign made by simply  correcting one of his ads. We do not need wealthy unqualified candidates buying an office because they feel entitled to it. So whoever you vote for here, say no to Chris Kelly.

San Francisco Measures

If you live in San Francisco then you’ve also got a number of local ballot measures to vote for as well. I don’t mind direct democracy, but I really don’t like all the minutiae SF takes to the voters. That’s why we elect supervisors and a mayor, and we should let them do their jobs and hold them accountable. Even as a pretty highly informed voter I don’t feel qualified to make some of these choices that basically come to you in a vacuum. There are a few good examples of that on this ballot.

Prop A: YES – Renew the tax. With the GOP shock doctrining the state, I’m glad we’re taking care of our own infrastructure.

Prop B: YES – The main reason the entire city was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake wasn’t the quake, it was the resulting fires and our inability to put them out. And Chris Daly is an idiot.

Prop C – YES – Some part of this is about board of supes vs. mayor politics. But more importantly it gives the commission more authority to promote filming in the city and requires the city to focus on it for future economic development.

Prop D – YES – No strong argument against this, if the bean counters say city employees need to contribute more I guess we should have them do so.

Prop E – NO – This is the board playing politics with the mayor’s office (and the police department) plain and simple. The board would inevitably use this information to club the current mayor for doing his or her job. Don’t give them more ammo.

Prop F – YES – Unless there is a good argument against it I’m pretty much always in favor of tougher rent control provisions.

Prop G – YES – It’s sort of silly we even have to vote on this.

DCCC, 12th District

My main advice here is look for up and coming activists on the ballot and vote for them. Paul Hogarth has a great piece on the problems with San Francisco’s DCCC and how they are unique to our city, check it out.

In my opinion the DCCC spot is best suited for those up and coming activists that might have a future as elected officials and/or will actually get out and work for the party. It is not the place for elected officials to go to a) have a home while they are between offices b) make life miserable for political foes or c) get around fundraising and endorsement regulations.

In many counties around the state if you get on the ballot and run a reasonably serious grassroots campaign, you’re in. In San Francisco you can raise 10’s of thousands of dollars and still get shut out. And that’s hurting the bench for our next generation of leaders.