Thursday, April 22, 2021
News + Politics SF Democrats roll over for Lee and the cops

SF Democrats roll over for Lee and the cops

-

Democratic County Central Committee endorses the mayor before we even know who else is running — and shoots down a modest police-reform measure

Mayor Ed Lee waits to clear security on his way to make a pitch to the DCCC at the state building
Mayor Ed Lee waits to clear security on his way to make a pitch to the DCCC at the state building

By Tim Redmond

APRIL 23, 2014 – The San Francisco Democratic Party yesterday rolled over for the allies of Mayor Ed Lee and the San Francisco police union.

It was a bit of an embarrassing spectacle, demonstrating how far to the right the party has moved in the past few years.

The Democratic County Central Committee had a resolution seeking early endorsement for Mayor Ed Lee – despite the fact that the filing deadline is still some time away and we don’t know at this point if anyone else is going to run.

As member Rafael Mandelman noted, there hasn’t been an early DCCC endorsement for any office in at least ten years – and the last one may have been for Willie Brown.

Sup. Julie Christensen talks to reporters after the meeting
Sup. Julie Christensen talks to reporters after the meeting

Sup. David Campos, who sits on the panel, argued that – whatever the merits of Lee’s record – the democratic process is best served if endorsing agencies wait until the filing is closed.

It’s possible that another strong contender could enter the race at the last minute; Matt Gonzalez, who nearly beat Gavin Newsom for mayor in 2003, entered the race just before the filing deadline.

In 1999, Tom Ammiano ran as a write-in candidate, after the filing deadline, and forced Willie Brown into a runoff.

And of course, there are other candidates on the November ballot, including City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who face no likely opposition, have done a good job in office, and are at least as deserving as the mayor of an early endorsement.

But Herrera wasn’t even on the agenda. It was all about Ed Lee.

Tom Hseih made the motion. Lee showed up to talk about his success in creating jobs (but didn’t talk so much about the thousands of evictions that have resulted from the tech boom). Petra DeJesus, who is a DCCC member and a Mission District resident, noted that the mayor now talks about affordability – but was nowhere when thousands of people were displaced.

And the whole thing was wired from the start: All of the elected-official members of the panel except Mark Leno voted to endorse Lee. Only Campos, DeJesus, Kelly Dwyer, and Eric Mar voted no. It was a landslide.

Before the mayor had his coronation, Dwyer had a proposal – a rather mild proposal – that the DCCC endorse the Racial Justice Committee’s call for police reform. The resolution discussed better training, independent review of police shootings, and new regulations for detaining youth and people with disabilities.

This was hardly an attack on the San Francisco Police Department – but the Police Officers Association, which opposes anything even remotely critical of the cops, didn’t even want a vote on the item.

So Hsieh argued that the proposal should be tabled because “The POA isn’t here.”

Well: The POA knew, as did the rest of us, that this item would be discussed at least 72 hours ago. But never mind – nobody wants to mess with the cops. So the notion of even voting on the measure went down, 15-8.

Sup. Julie Christensen was on the agenda for a Q and A session, which was mostly a chance for her to make a five-minute pitch for what a great job she’s doing and to field some softball questions. (Bevan Dufty actually asked her what she found the most amusing about her work so far. She said that one of her colleagues “has a mouth on her.”)

She said (echoing the mayor) that the agenda over the past few years has been “jobs, jobs, jobs” but now it’s “housing, housing, housing.” Kind of strange – didn’t anyone know that when we brought in all these tech jobs without building housing for the workers there would be a crisis?

But never mind. Mandelman asked a real question, about her position on 8 Washington, and she gave a remarkable answer, which was, in essence, that she was for 8 Washington before she was against it.

“As citizen Christensen, I initially supported it,” she said. “I thought that housing on the edge of the financial district seemed like a no-brainer. But as the project progressed, I was not supportive of the direction. I see it as a failure of design.”

I had an interesting conversation with her after the meeting, in the hall outside. I asked her whether she supported Prop. G, the anti-speculation tax, on last fall’s ballot.

Again, we got this:

“As citizen Christensen, I didn’t take a position on it.”

Now, as Supervisor Christensen, she’s seeing so many evictions in her district that “I am looking at ways to stabilize our existing housing.”

But as citizen Christensen, did she vote for Prop. G? No: “I voted against it. There were aspects that troubled me. There was some burden on the smaller property owners.”

That, of course, is nonsense, as we reported in some detail at the time.

I’m all for people growing and learning; after all, it took President Obama a while to “evolve” his stand on same-sex marriage. And Christensen told me that she is now “deeply concerned” about speculation.

But she had a chance – as a citizen, and a neighborhood activist (after all, she told the DCCC that her years of community work qualified her for the job of supervisor) to take a stand when it mattered. And she was with the landlords.

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

66 COMMENTS

  1. It is those “strong laws” in SF that have caused high housing costs

    Zoning, NIMBYism and rent control all cause shortages and so hgher prices

  2. Ridiculous reductio ad absurdum. Strong laws bring down housing costs, not building or the absence of building.

  3. This is why so many of these “activists” get paid by the same electeds as are purchased by those capable of buying elections, to be seen as appearing to go through the motions of pretending to organize.

  4. Feel free to read the other things I wrote here. I’m not who you think I am and neither are other people. Thanks for reading what I wrote and I hope you have a great day.

  5. Activists scream as well and try and intimidate people through threats and disruption

    I prefer civilized debate and oppose those who try and censor that

  6. There are rules for how loud you can be in urban areas and that restricts speech. We need similar nuisance regulations so that the rich can only speak through their own mouths instead of speaking through a massive sound system that annoys everyone and drowns most everyone else out.

    Free speech, not free scream.

  7. Corruption is spending to promote propaganda to take power to rig the rules to further enrich–rent seeking. Even Adam Smith got that.

  8. Aaron, nobody gives a crap where you from, nor what wild theories or privileges you think derive from that.

    The city is changing and, evidently, you can’t keep up. Ask us why we should care?

    If you were born here, your parents probably own a nicely appreciated, nicely prop-13’ed, mortgage-paid-off home that you will inherit. You are sitting fat and happy, so quit whining

  9. I’m sorry, I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m not simply wishing for anything. I’m a leader in my community. I’m an entrepreneur that’s helped build several hundred job-years of work over the last decade *in this city*. You think I’m a dreamer, but to be quite frank I think your cynicism is making it hard for you to see that my view is pragmatic, rational and actually not at all whatever it is you think it is. Or maybe myopia is making it so that you don’t even understand what it is I support? Or are you so used to arguing with people on the internet that you can intuit what my beliefs are? Any way you cut it, I’m not wishing for a better San Francisco, I’m building it. I’m generally not interested in local politics because of how unethical and insane it is, but meeting Amy Weiss and hearing her vision really got me excited. It’s a lot like what I want to build.

    Anyway, I am not a doll for you to stuff all of your prejudices into. I’m just a person who doesn’t think that money is the most important thing and that making decisions — in literally ANY CONTEXT — on the basis of capital alone is pretty dumb.

    I understand that you don’t like that some of the people here before you feel threatened by the surge of wealth and imported culture but the fact is that can feel pretty awful. I totally understand feeling threatened. I’ve seen my whole family feel threatened, be threatened and then leave the city. It’s sad. It can feel pretty awful to be evicted, asked to leave, and so on. It can feel pretty awful to have your landlord spying on you, looking for reasons to break the lease. All of these things are things that happen to people who live here. But it’s also, really, a part of life — there are a million reasons why people are displaced and if you’re not alert and defensive and you don’t have a ton of resources, you may be taken advantage of. There are parasites and predators out there that are not capable (either because of contractual agreements or neurological problems) of understanding individual people’s problems and having compassion.

    Obviously, if you’re wealthy, it’s not a big deal and it doesn’t seem like a problem. I have plenty of friends who think like you do: “That’s just capitalism! People shouldn’t expect to live somewhere forever for cheap!” Which is a totally normal thing to think if you’re not exposed to or know people who are actually going through these things. That being said, when I share the story of my family they get confused and a look that says “Wait, aren’t you one of us? How could this happen to *your* family?”

    Blaming “the market” and telling people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps can be jarring to hear. When people say stuff like that, the perceived threat-level can increase dramatically: Suddenly it’s not that people moving to SF are a benign population of people hoping to discover the place we love — not only are these new people unrepentant about the changes that are happening, they’re saying that it’s *my fault for feeling bad* about being displaced or evicted or spied on.

    But new forces have always been colonial and have always displaced people, right? Didn’t my grandparents displace someone when they moved to the upper Haight? What about when they moved to Noe Valley? I actually doubt they displaced anyone — they were pretty impoverished artists for pretty much the entire time they lived here. Regardless, you make a great point — my Grandparents weren’t here first. There were the Ohlone people first, then the Spanish, then the gringos — would it make it easier for you if you discovered I was Ohlone? Or if I was mestizo? Or latino?

    If you found I was actually here before the Ohlone people, do you think that it would help you to listen to me and have compassion for my view? Regardless, I shouldn’t have to be from anywhere to speak about San Francisco, I merely mentioned newcomers’ and some long-time transplant’s perplexity at meeting people who were born here as a way of showing that there is a disconnect between the native populations and people who are moving here. I even literally said this in my first post. Not just new people either — the most recent time this happened was at a friend’s house where the person had been living here 17 years! It’s not frustrating to me — it’s just confusing: There are hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here that are still here. That reaction: “Wow! You’re native?!” tells me that person hasn’t really broken out of their colonial bubble yet and that attitude makes me think: If they are this surprised it means that they really have not met many San Franciscans. Which means they’re not … what… going out to places San Franciscans hang out? I’m not sure. In fact I have no idea how it’s possible to meet so many people who “have never met a San Franciscan”. I think it’s largely because of the field I work in (internet) which has a higher than average transplant rate and a much higher rate of recent transplants.

    There is nothing special about being from here. But I do exist. As inconvenient as that must be for you, I not only exist but I have opinions, ideas and whole life’s worth experience just like you! Man, this whole society business might get really messy…

    You say you want solutions but not “long-winded diatribes”. Unfortunately, my views aren’t 1 dimensional and I can’t condense what I think into a snarky comment. Even if I could, I wouldn’t. I’m not a teenager anymore and neither are you. If you don’t wish to talk to me, you’re not required to. If you’d like to have meaningful conversation, I am here. Anyway, I’m not sure what the solutions are. I’m trying a lot of things and this is not the medium or the platform for you to learn about them — not that I think you’d be particularly interested in what they are anyway.

  10. I think you’ve got some great ideas – I’m all for a San Francisco that includes everyone regardless of economic standing; bu that’s just not possible when demand for housing is this high and supply is this short. The government is no help; in they fact they often do more harm than good. None of them want to touch the political third rail that is rent control, but that’s the underlying problem behind most of these evictions. RC helps those who have been here longest, not those who need it the most.

    BTW, I didn’t think “NIMBY’s and Natives can’t compete” – I’ve never said anything like that.

    What awe need are solutions – not long-winded diatribes about the way we “wish” San Francisco could be.

    Oh, and comparing me to the soldiers pictured above is pretty fucking insulting. If you have any evidence I’ve done anything remotely like that, let’s hear it.

  11. Totally flattered that you placed me with along with the Native Americans and yourself alongside Custer’s Army! I think you finally seem to get it. There is often a big difference between economic violence and physical violence, and I don’t want you to get the wrong idea: I think both of them are wrong.

    Honestly, it’s pretty clear that you didn’t read anything I wrote because I’m not advocating for nativism or exclusivity. I just put your words in their correct context, which is the colonial context. There is literally no other place for the words, “Stop with the BS nativism. Just stop.”

    I just took a minute to look through your comment history and I see that this is a common theme for you, however: It’s NIMBY’s and native people’s faults that they can’t compete. I think that’s a fairly small-minded way of seeing the world but after reading through your comments I think I understand why you think that.

    Anyway, for you to pretend to know my views on development (I’m pro-development) or who deserves to live here is also flattering. It really shows that you’re trying to exercise that compassion muscle. Keep pumping those feelings, Fishchum. Though I will contest that the experiences of my life don’t lend weight to my words — I’m qualified through experience to speak on many issues, the least of which is my childhood and life experiences and concern for a place I helped build.

    Regardless, I’m fairly successful and unless there is a massive restructuring of the economy, can afford to stay here for as long as I wish. I’ve been afforded many great opportunities in life and have had the privilege of being educated here and being exposed to entrepreneurship at a young age. It’s not me I’m concerned about — it’s the community of people who have been here, who are arriving and who will yet come to raise their children. I want for them to succeed.

    Obviously you don’t like my ideas, but it’s really pretty great that you keep replying to them. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share what I think.

  12. Oh, I didn’t realize you were being run out of town while your family was being slaughtered.

    By this same token, if you want to take this all the way back to the native americans, then none of us should be living here.

  13. Sorry, the paragraphs I wrote above are common things I’ve heard and thought for the last 30 years of my life. I’m not against anyone coming to this city — I love it and totally get why other people love it. I’m not even against people moving out of the city. Please reread what I wrote. I don’t think I’m special for being born here, but I do think that I should be allowed to say what I think is important. I’ve invested deeply in this city. My father was a minister here for 30 years. I’ve started several companies here. I’m actually involved with and am a leader in my community.

    None of that stuff is what makes me special. It just makes me a person who lives here. If you’d like to discuss with me the myriad ways in which I am special, I’m happy to do that. I’m also definitely on a lifelong path of getting over myself, so I’m one step ahead of you with regards to that.

    I don’t actually care much and my primary motivation isn’t about SF’s “history” — I care about the people who are alive here today who have come at any point during their lives to this city, whether by birth or choice, and how stressful the lives of so many who are dear to me are because of the bullshit prevarications of those in our city government.

    I made Fischum a nice little image so I figure I may as well give you one, too, for your kind words!

  14. Sorry, it’s not bullshit or “nativism” — it’s just that I happen to have been born here and all of my life experiences have to do with this place. Like you, I had no choice in where I was born or to whom. I just grew up here. It doesn’t give me special rights or privileges, except that I’ve definitely invested a lot of my life into the community and am respected here, and so I guess that does mean that I have a life full of love and friendship and that’s a great privilege. Anyway, I’m not trying to exclude you or anyone from this place. It’s really special to me — my whole life, with the exception of less than a year on the east coast, has happened here. I’m not sure where you’re from, but if you love the places where you’ve spent time I think this is a pretty easy thing to understand. I’m not accusing anyone of loving this place less than I do or questioning anyone’s reasons for being here.

    I don’t want for anyone to be excluded, and while I do understand there may be some families that have been here forever that will vociferously disagree with my dream of a world where everyone can work together, I just don’t see them and haven’t really met them. If you’re one of them, I’m happy to talk with you about why I think this vision is possible and preferable relative to other ideas about how to do things.

    My vision is pretty simple: There’s no reason to make the city an exclusive place. In fact, I think doing that will rob the city of a lot of the value that brings so many people here to begin with. Making the city an inclusive place will not be onerous or too expensive and there’s enough resources and wealth here so that nobody has to suffer in order to include as many types of people as possible. I don’t think this is a very radical view, and it’s actually surprising that you and the other person are so offended.

    The following image, however, should really tickle you.

  15. Just stop with the BS nativism. Just stop. And please bear in mind there are generations of families in San Francisco who DON’T subscribe to your “vision”.

  16. He is termed out and routinely out-voted on the board. And of course Chiu trashed him for Sac.

    He will be out of work soon enough, joining the great unwashed flock of leftie losers like Peskin, Gonzalez, Agnos and Daly. And soon Mirk, of course.

  17. Do you have any evidence that D3 voters want the exact same small businesses to persist forever with zero change ever?

  18. No matter how many elections his side loses, no matter how he drove the SFBG into the ground by focusing its attentions solely on cheerleading for his ineffective sinecure friends, he still gets lavished with money and praise from the sinecures. This is One Big Game where the goal is to vacuum out public resources and redistribute them to the elites with a few crumbs going to fund the sinecures. Nothing, of course, is left over for the unrich San Franciscans who finance this corrupt cavalcade.

    Embarrassed? How can the shameless ever be shamed?

  19. If you build nothing then by definition you are building no affordable housing either.

    If you really believe that building nothing will drive down housing costs, then logically you should believe that we should start destroying housing, as that will presumably make homes even cheaper.

    And if we destroy all the housing SG, homes will be Free!

    NIMBYism means more expensive housing. Take your pick but you can only have one..

  20. Yes, such a contradiction to want both affordable housing AND neighborhood preservation and decent quality of life!

  21. Everything here that closes is considered a “significant loss” – I went there a few times. It was a dirty dive bar, in a town that has no lack of dirty dive bars.

  22. yeahhhhh. Thousands of people move to San Francisco a year, and its totally fine to paint the entire breadth of those people with one brush.
    Get over yourself, Native. Once your over how special you are, you might notice that there are people who come here and care about SFs history. Some of them might be wealthy and some of them might be middle class.

  23. Tim will come around, Amy. I think your visions for the city are totally compatible.

    Tim! I was thinking yesterday about how funny it is when people not from here meet me. “Oh wow, a San Franciscan! I’ve never met a native.” or “You guys are rare!”

    Of course, we’re not. It’s just that people coming to this city aren’t really interested in meeting the people that are from here and their paths typically do not cross with the people who built all of this — because they’re typically not rich, connected people fueling the latest economic boom: They’re spread across classes, races and cultures just like any general population. I think there’s a huge disconnect between the people who move here “Wow, I had no idea anyone was even from here! It’s such a transient city!”[1] and the people who helped to make the way for the latest arrivals.

    What does it mean when the northeast quadrant of the city has no idea the rest of it even exists?

    As a lifelong, third-generation San Franciscan whose family has all been driven out due to the changing economy and increase in housing prices, I feel pretty invested in building the best possible San Francisco — a place where everyone is welcome regardless of their class or what school they went to. My grandparents moved here as poor kids in the early 50’s. They raised their family all across the city (and even in Berkeley for a while). Their vision is similar to mine: San Francisco can be a place where the young and the poor and the old and the rich can live together in harmony. San Francisco can be what it has been but also something different and better: A beacon for utopia… A place where our values drive our decisions, not just capital.

    I think YIMBY/WEISS is way closer than Lee to what I think we can achieve. I found out about her campaign recently and am totally excited. I think you will be too. ^_^

  24. Good points here, but I’d give them a harder edge: the DCCC has been taken over by the same dynamic that allows big money special interests to take over state legislatures, Congress, and presidential campaigns. (Now they’re working on judicial races, regulatory agencies (through revolving doors), and local races.)

    In the case of the DCCC the spoils are much smaller but the results are just as insidious.

    Superficially, this validates the right-wing claim of government programs becoming captured by (allegedly) liberal interests. Except that right-wingers don’t complain when the dynamic benefits their favorite programs, such as a bloated military. Also the right-wingers steadfastly oppose an obvious solution to the problem: tighter controls on money in politics.

  25. Yes…the restaurant owners were asked by their landlord to pay for ADA improvements to make their restaurant legal. They didn’t want to and are retiring to Oahu instead.

    So a restaurant closed…unprecedented…Christensen should just resign now…she can’t recover from this.

  26. Actually, it was never among my favorites. But to many in North Beach, it’s closure represents a significant loss.

  27. Beloved Restaurant to you and Jerry Brown, the owners were not the nicest of people to their suppliers and delivery people. Good ridance

  28. I take it you are new to the city. This was a beloved restaurant that had been in business since 1963. Jerry Brown ate there on their last night.

    Some closures don’t matter a lot to people. Others do and this one of those that do.

  29. Why is it “highly visible”? Why does it matter if a small business closes and another one takes it place?

    Even progressive supervisors do not run for office promising that “nothing will change”

  30. This is a highly visible closure in North Beach, and she will be held accountable by the voters. Forgetting what is right or wrong, politically speaking it was a incredibly stupid thing for her to do nothing.

  31. And yet the irony is that most affordable homes in SF get built as a by-product of those “luxury” homes, via fees and set-asides.

  32. Except as the district supervisor, she should have been first in line to work to save Capp’s.

    Minimally, she is clueless about the ‘optics’ of her absence on this and other issues.

  33. Not only that, but would we really want politicians over-riding what landlords and tenants want to do, and somehow forcing an unviable situation to continue using the force of law?

    The idea that politicians have to insert themselves into every little commercial decision is ridiculous.

  34. You’ve laid it out yourself. If the governor couldn’t save the place, there’s probably not much a new supervisor could have done either.

  35. Yes, and Tim doens’t want housing for the tech workers. That would be ‘luxury’ housing. He only wants affordable housing built, which the new workers wouldn’t qualify for.

  36. Christensen didn’t say she was against the height variance for 8 Washington – she said that the “design” was the problem.

    Capp’s Corner closed due to a landlord-tenant dispute. Both Governor Jerry Brown and Lawrence Ferlinghetti intervened but couldn’t make it work.

    My question is: Where the hell was Julie Christensen?

  37. Of all the cognitive dissonance that the SF left manages to maintain, surely the most bizarre and incredible is that they simultaneously both desire cheaper housing and that they want to build no new housing.

    A stunning contradiction.

  38. Re: “Kind of strange – didn’t anyone know that when we brought in all these tech jobs without building housing for the workers there would be a crisis?”

    Much, much stranger is that Tim Redmond is always among the first to line up AGAINST any effort to build such housing for these (market rate) workers.

  39. “Kind of strange – didn’t anyone know that when we brought in all these tech jobs without building housing for the workers there would be a crisis?”

    So you opposed (and continue to oppose) San Franciscos success via employment, and you continue to oppose the creation of additional housing.
    How …interesting…

  40. It’s a ruse. Redmond is as much as part of an establishment as much as the moderate establishment he criticizes. Since you are not part of the establishment that he likes, you are irrelevant to him. He’s only concerned about the early endorsement because it means the progressive establishment got out gamed yet again, not because it’s some how an affront to the democratic process, which is impossible since all members of the DCCC achieved their seats through the democratic process in the first place.

  41. You are really something, Tim Redmond. No mention of my public comment tonight before the Committee to stand up for participatory democracy as a current candidate (who filed my paperwork in December 2014: http://sfist.com/2015/03/27/ed_lee_has_a_mayoral_opponent_amy_f.php)

    I thought you might have been moved by my focus on co-creating solutions via the Mayor’s race, but once again, you ignored my campaign, my passion, and my dedication as a visionary and collaborative leader rooted in social equity.

    What does it mean to be a “real” candidate, or a “credible” candidate in your eyes? I have nearly nearly 15 years of experience developing and coordinating educational/training programs and providing direct service in support of personal and collective well-being in the nonprofit, public, and private sector over a diverse array of fields, such as transitional housing, public health, leadership and development, mental health, civic engagement, and sustainability. I have a Masters’ degree in Organizational Development and Training from SF State and after graduating I took it upon myself to initiate, develop, and co-implement a program to support the strategic planning and evaluation of community-based organizations through SF State’s Non-Profit Management Program in the MPA Department. If I take note of a deficiency or challenge, I work towards resolving it through research, innovative ideas, and collaborating with stakeholder groups and my city/region-wide network. In 2011 founded Neighbors Developing Divisadero in support of inclusive, enriching, and sustainable development, and two years later I incorporated it as a nonprofit at the state level by providing two years of detailed accounting that I did myself while accomplishing a lot on a small budget as the unpaid Director. Now it is a fiscally sponsored project of Intersection for the Arts.

    The Mayor must have a sense of the city from the level of the neighbor and neighborhood all the way up to how it connects to regional, state, national, and international policy, challenges and opportunities, which I immerse myself in naturally. The Mayor must also understand budgeting and be driven by values, efficiency, and measurable outcomes. The Mayor should also be a bridge between polarities of stakeholders with a vision and process rooted in civic engagement, social justice, equity, and sustainability. I never thought of running for Mayor until November of last year, but now I realize that all my experience has prepared me to be the candidate and leader that San Francisco needs in this moment … even if you don’t see it yet.

  42. I have to admit I’m a bit conflicted about this. As a luke warm Lee supporter (I think his priorities and policies are broadly correct and that he’s an able administrator, but he lacks vision and his initiatives aren’t nearly bold enough given the scale of the housing crisis we’re in.), I would have preferred for the DCCC to have waited until all possible challengers had had a chance to register their intention to run (in the unlikely event that a significant challenger emerged.) before clearing the decks for Lee. That strikes me as the more democratic approach. However, local party councils (especially in urban areas) are usually quick to endorse incumbents in order to maintain vital working relationships with their most important fundraisers and the people most associated with the party brand. To postpone and especially to deny the endorsement is usually held in reserve as punishment against elected officials who won’t toe the line are especially weak and unpopular. It’s hard to fault the DCCC for not going against the grain on that.

  43. Let’s talk about things that are embarrassing spectacles. Here’s one: Quoting David Campos as a qualified commentator on political strategy. That is what an embarrassing spectacle looks like.

    Why our time by pretending that 48 Hills would ever ever give Christensen a fair shake? 48 Hills is in the tank for Peskin, and everyone knows it. This sham-journalistic pretense of getting Christensen to weigh in on the issues is an embarrassing spectacle.

    So Citizen Christensen opposed Prop G? Just like a clear majority of San Francisco voters? Making a point against her based on a political battle you’ve already decisively lost is an embarrassing spectacle.

  44. It makes perfect sense for us to all to get behind Ed Lee in this way. His relentless focus in his first term was on jobs, jobs and jobs. And even his critics agree he has been wildly successful at that.

    Now he wants to build more homes to house our increasingly successful workers, and again almost everyone supports that.

    Lee may be a modest unassuming man, but he sees the big picture and understands what ordinary people want. The succession of landslide wins that he has achieved, including this one, are a testament to his success and popularity.

    To the other, I’m not sure the cops should be taking lectures from any entity whose name indicates an overt racialist agenda.

Comments are closed.

More by this author

Money for ‘safe sleeping’ sites — or permanent supportive housing?

Legislation by Sup. Rafael Mandelman aims to get people off the streets -- but homeless advocates are not supporting it. That's The Agenda for April 18-25

Radical right group is trying to attack public-sector labor in SF

Anti-union mailers are going to workers home addresses -- but really, this group is looking pretty desperate.

Breed won’t promise to spend real-estate tax money on rent relief

The voters approved Prop. I last fall to support tenants and affordable housing, but the mayor says she will use the money for her own priorities.

Reese Erlich, foreign correspondent and radical reporter, is dead at 73

After a life of progressive politics, ground-breaking journalism, and social activism, a legendary writer loses battle with cancer.

There’s a lot more to the GG Park debate than cars v. bikes

This is part of a huge discussion the city needs to have about transportation -- and equity -- in a post-COVID world.

Most read

I finally paid off my student loans at 40. No one should go through this

Not even winning on 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' helped me outrun Navient and condescending bootstrapper-types

Reservoir Dogs: Coyotes find a home amid Sunset solar panels

A pair of animals settles in, offering lessons on our contemporary relationship to nature

Good Taste: Secrets to scoring crazy croissants, SF gets a Korean food court

Plus: Bitchin' Baklava, and Gay4U feeds trans POC for free

Mayor Schaaf needs to stop resisting the movement to defund the Oakland PD

A bloated police budget has not made the streets any safer; it's time for real alternatives.

You might also likeRELATED