Rafael Mandelman worked hard to win that seat in 2010, but it was difficult: Wiener had spent years working the district, had plenty of money, and was the frontrunner all the way. Now he’s an incumbent, which makes him all the more formidable. The smart money might say that it’s not worth the efforts of progressives to challenge him.
But that misses the dramatic political changes in this city in the past four years.
The rash of evictions – and the terror that the Ellis Act strikes in the heart of nearly ever renter in the city – has made 2014 the Year of the Tenant. Within the next couple of months, a series of major, controversial pieces of renter-friendly legislation will come before the board, and it’s very likely that tenants will put something major on the ballot in November.
When I asked Wiener if he would support the plan by Sup. David Campos to dramatically increase the statutory relocation payments for Ellis evictions, he said he hadn’t reviewed the proposal. I texted him Monday and asked if he’s had any further thoughts and he told me he supports increasing the relocation fee but “for legislation of this significance, it would be irresponsible for me to comment on it without seeing it.” Of course, it’s possible that Wiener will support every progressive tenant bill he sees in the next six months.
But that’s not likely – and a battle for D8, an overwhelmingly renter district, that focuses on tenant issues could leave room for a candidate running to Wiener’s left to mount a serious challenge.
I wrote a while ago about how strange it would be to see Bevan Dufty run for his old seat again, and get progressive support, but that’s unlikely: Turns out the new district lines cut Dufty out of D8, and he loves his place and doesn’t want to move. But there are plenty of other possible candidates – and the one I am hearing the most about these days is David Waggoner.
Waggoner, a public-interest lawyer who has represented numerous clients before the city’s Ethics Commission (and, the words of SF Weekly’s Joe Eskenazi, has “made a cottage industry of beating them like a piñata”) is a former president of the Harvey Milk LGBT Club.
He’s experienced, articulate, and would have broad support in the progressive community. He hasn’t filed for the office yet, but I’d be surprised if he doesn’t jump into the race in the next couple of weeks.
Help us save local journalism!
Every tax-deductible donation helps us grow to cover the issues that mean the most to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.
The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office is mounting a campaign against what is so far a fairly low-profile bill in Sacramento, one that would change how juries are chosen for criminal cases and could have a big impact on the rights of defendants. SB 794, by Sen. Noreen Evans, has garnered little news media attention (does any newspaper still watch the state Legislature?), and it cleared its first committee Jan. 17, 5-1.
The California Judges Association likes the bill because it would make jury selection faster – but as anyone who has ever been involved in a trial knows, choosing the right jury can make a huge difference. The public defenders aren’t the only ones opposing this – the state District Attorney’s Association doesn’t like it, either.
SB 794 would reduce the number of “peremptory” challenges the prosecution and defense get in some cases. Peremptory challenges allow lawyers to dismiss jurors without citing any reason. That, the judges argue, drags out the process – but really? For how long? And if both the prosecution and defense say it produces better juries, what’s the issue?
The San Francisco MTA is set to approve a deal today that would allow private luxury buses to use Muni stops for the absurdly low rate of $1. It’s hard to imagine how this will do anything to reduce the animosity people feel toward the “Google buses” – and Google isn’t helping its cause by sending out a talking-points memo to its employees.
As TechCrunch notes, the memo is a bit high-handed, pretty much telling Google workers to testify that they would drive private cars if it weren’t for the bus (when in fact, there’s evidence that many wouldn’t live in San Francisco and would try to find a place closer to work if the buses weren’t there).
And the League of Pissed Off Voters has a much more rational approach: If they tech companies paid a fair price, nobody would be anywhere near as upset.
