But other progressive causes not looking good
By Tim Redmond
NOVEMBER 3, 2015 – The early results are in and they are very good news for Aaron Peskin, and not good news for the rest of the progressive issues on the ballot
Peskin, based only on the early absentees (which tend to skew conservative) is leading Sup. Julie Christensen by about three points. Wilma Pang, the third candidate, has such a small number of votes that it seems unlikely right now that she will be a factor in any ranked-choice voting scenario.
We won’t know how Election Day votes are shaping up for another half hour or so, but at this point Peskin looks good.
On the other hand, Props. I and F are going down handily. And to nobody’s surprise, Ed Lee is cruising to re-election.
Well I guess you consider yourself Richy Rich because you have a mortgage, but it’s not my fault you can’t fathom that many of your neighbors can’t relate. You’re the one that brought up the Midwest… not a first choice for any real San Franciscan.
What percentage of District 3 voted against F? I wasn’t able to easily find this info through SFDOE.
I _live_ in one of the neighborhoods you mentioned, thank you. I am a homeowner. I labor under no delusions that I am in the same financial situation as homeowning friends in the Midwest, even though my lifestyle might be superficially similar. I don’t think I’m the one with the mental block here. But enjoy your more-San-Franciscan-than-thou game.
You probably never heard of half the neighborhoods I mentioned.
Home owners tend to understand home ownership. Even in Ohio. Something you’re struggling with, here and in Ohio. You have just expressed a mental block for how a good chunk of this city life. You can’t tell the difference between Cow Hollow, and Visitation Valley.
When you vote for something that a significant majority of your district opposed on the ballot not too long ago, you are taking a significant political risk. No politician who values their job is dumb enough to ignore that.
Tell a middle-class homeowner in Cleveland that an SF homeowner is just like them, and _they’d_ laugh at you.
Put it this way, I don’t think anyone making 160k should be in “affordable housing”…. I think that’s a good salary…. so you’re jumping to some knee jerk conclusions.
But I’m going to say it again – A large portion of the city is middle class, or lower middle class, and being a home owner IN San Francisco (as opposed to someone who just moved away) isn’t automatic richness.
Areas I suggest you look into…Sunset, Excelsior, Crocker Amazon, Little Hollywood, Ocean View, even parts of Ingleside, parts of Portola, the Bayview, parts of Sunnyside and Westwood Park, Mission Terrace, Silver Terrace, Outer Mission, Visitation Valley, Hunters Point…. Ever seen these areas firsthand, or met the average home owners? Probably not. Tell those people they’re rich, and they’d laugh at you.
This argument of yours is quite reminiscent of when people earning $160k a year complain about how hard it is for them to get by in this city, and promptly get booed off the stage. It’s … quite a brave ploy for sympathy you’ve got there, that’s all I can say.
You seem to miss the core issue here is having to leave SF to enjoy this supposed wealth you’ve assigned homeowners. You have to cash in.
Apply your mindset equally to renters, and it’s essentially just saying leave if you want to feel a sense of wealth. The difference is, most homeowners would trade down, whereas the average renters quality of life would improve if they could afford a mortgage somewhere modest, or rent something palatial compared to what they get in SF. Of course, that still means leaving SF, and if you care about real San Franciscans who have been here, say 35+ years, then the goal should be keeping these people here….all of them…including property owners paying taxes and renting properties. A fair amount of property owners in this city are working class.
Nobody gives a shit how they voted. It’s FINANCIAL support that Conway cared about. If any of those employees gave money to Prop F, I think they will be out of a job. But what really worried Boss Conway was not the small contributions, but larger donations from wealthier tech industry executives and the like. Conway is notoriously vindictive; everyone knows that if you work in the tech industry and you cross him, he’ll stop at nothing to destroy your career, your company, and your investments.
Oh, please. Where doesn’t one go? Not Beverly Hills, perhaps, but even the post-tax value of an SF residence is enough to buy another home, sans mortgage, in plenty of economically and culturally healthy urban areas all over the nation. No, they may not all be SF, but that’s far, far more of a safety net than renters – or a majority of Americans, for that matter – will ever experience.
Because everyone owns property along Dolores Park? Where does one go even with 1.5m (ever hear of taxes, btw?) to replace a San Francisco life?
The point is that all that rhetoric about the pain and suffering of displacement is considerably less convincing if the “displaced” in question have a $1.5 million windfall to console themselves with.
Okay, let me be more specific. I work for a company in which Conway invests (don’t get excited; it’s not Airbnb). Our CEO is linked with him publicly and is clearly friendly with him. We received no mandate or “threat,” not even a polite suggestion to vote at all, much less on either side of the fence from anyone on the executive team or Conway himself. Did the employees of Airbnb get a plea to vote no on prop F? Of course they did. I have friends who work there and saw the email with my own eyes. It wasn’t a threat. It was a request accompanied by an explanation from their upper management. Their entire business and public image depended on the outcome. However, it wasn’t a threat and no one was told that their jobs depended on the outcome. I know some Airbnb employees who said outright (verbally) that they were voting “no” on F, as it went against their personal beliefs and they believed that Airbnb could survive worldwide without a “yes” vote. As of today, they are not maimed or dead and, are in fact, still employed.
This idea that Conway is some kind of Al Capone for the internet age is ridiculous and only makes those who spout such rhetoric look incredibly ignorant.
No, I know that. I was just speaking for myself. I know there were some who probably wanted that, yeah.
umm 300K/800K is 3.75% not .04%. the question is can YOU count?
Right. 27% is not 44%.
Can you count? $8,000,000 vs $300,000. You’re as naive as a new born babe.
Newsom won with 11k votes against Hipster Christ Superstar with 47.19% “voting against”. In 2007 he ran unopposed, and by your logic 27% voted against him.
Newsom got something like 73% when he ran against unknowns. Hell, Art Agnos did better, and he ran against a machine candidate! The question is, can you think of another mayoral campaign in SF history in which a candidate did so poorly when there was no organized opposition?
Don’t be dense. The poster didn’t make it clear, but by now even you should be aware that Conway was going around threatening retribution against companies and investors who *supported* Peskin. Nobody cares how they vote in private, he just wanted to cut off the money spigot because money talks.
“Conway threatened retribution”
– Link? Source?
“Conway threatened retribution…”
How exactly? Votes are private, numbnuts.
Right, but the subtext of the F debate involved the tone set by people that believed Airbnb should be run out of SF.
Yeah, you said that already.
Yea right. When you win the voters are smart. When you lose the voters are stupid and bought off.
When progressives win they always tout the wisdom of the voters. When they lose they always say the voters were stupid, bought off, etc.They are anything but consistent.
Nope. It’s a newly formed legislative body. Is Peskin just supposed to sit out every vote that tries to change something that happened before he got there or something? I don’t understand what your point is at all, tbh.
So you would have no problem if the majority of an elected body tried to reverse something you voted for and had passed?
Yes on F spent 0.04% as much as Airbnb, not including the orange billboards of entitlement. The election was bought, and you along with it.
Airbnb just paid a whole lot for your vote, and you gave them what they want. You’re a hooker, it’s that simple.
It’s not hypocrisy to be consistent in your desired outcome. Your ideas about ‘how progressives are’ is clouding your logic around this issue.
Its not paranoia to point hypocrisy.
There is no such thing as ‘respecting the outcome of an election’ and agreeing not to pursue legislation. That is not a thing. Something is either politically viable or not. Until all means are exhausted, the thing’s not done, however badly you try to portray those working on future measures.
So not respecting the outcome of an election is “problematic?”” I’m sure you will feel the same the next time an initiative passes that you approve of and the majority of an elected body tries to reverse it.
Think your paranoia might have gotten the best of you, man.
Yea, right. When your side wins it shows the wisdom of the people when the other side wins the voters were bought off. Interesting how the voters are smart only when they vote your way.
It’s legitimate to pass legislation through the board via whatever majority is needed. You are overcomplicating it – it doesn’t matter what happened beforehand. Your whole thing about ‘respecting the outcome of election’ is problematic as hell and on very weak ground, I might add. Landfill, actually.
No in F (Airbnb) spent $8mil, Yes spent $300k. Conway told his company’s CEO’s to tell employees to vote against F. At Techcrunch Conway threatened retribution if companies were found out to have voted in favor of F or I.
If F and I had passed it most definitely would’ve been the triumph of the people DESPITE massively lopsided odds.
No it would not be legit. It would expose a majority of the Board as two faced hypocrites who only respect the outcome of an election when it suits them. Fortunately I don’t think even with Peskin on the Board there is a veto proof majority to that.
I get that there’s this naive perception that if every SF home is a million dollars, it makes every homeowner a millionaire, but that’s only if you want to cash out of the city, leave your home, and own it free and clear without debt. We’re supposed to be angling to keep San Franciscans in San Francisco though.
Yeah, I’m not sure either. But it’s not something I want to find out. I assume there would be some limit to the amount of conversions after a while – there isn’t a demand for 350K hotels in the city, but specific neighborhoods would be dramatically affected, I would expect. I think if you can buy a house for 1.5M and rent it out consistently (not part time like a lot of ABNB rentals), you’d have to say the price is right.
I’m not sure the numbers work right now to do it.
I know that in NY, when the market was on a downturn, and they couldn’t sell luxury condos, they turned them rental, and there was enough bulk inventory that you could go into prime areas, and get a master lease for half a building that would then go up on Airbnb. The formula worked for people, to the extent that the State Attorney General there had to address it.
The upside is it makes hotel rates more competitive. I think we both agree on the downsides of AirBnb’s bulk rented like hotels.
The southern neighborhoods (Hunters Point, Excelsior) etc. have traditionally had very low turnout.
To satisfy your wonkishness, the dept. of elections has results and turnout maps going back a while.
Indeed….and I can’t wait to look at the voting data when Tim Redmond and his ilk will be forced to smear the rich wealthy homeowners in the far western neighborhoods who weren’t interested in regulating a service that benefits them and their neghbors….
Or the supes can pass something stricter – totally legit. Btw, you don’t know anything about me. I would never use the term ‘the people.’ I’m not a progressive or a socialist, or even a liberal – or whatever you are making me into. Izsak out.
Oh, please! If Prop F had passed by a “slim majority” you would be hailing it as a triumph of the people. If they try to overturn this at the Board next year it will be a disgrace and show them as hypocrites. Let the existing regulations try to work for a while. If they prove inadequate you can come back with a rewritten ballot measure.
But 10% in some neighborhoods? It’s hard for me to imagine the other 90% who aren’t voting. Normal, as you say, but still surprising.
Usually the big turnouts are for real mayoral elections, or for presidential elections, and people try to get ballot propositions for those elections if they think high turnouts will help them. 30% is on the low side, but not extraordinary.
Rather slim majority, though. Some regulation is in order. Not sure I follow you about your ‘how progressives are’ bent. Best to leave it at that. Yeah rules are the rules, I guess, is what I mean. If it wasn’t progressives that held the majority, the other side would do the same. Not sure I would call it a ‘slap in the face’ – it’s just the political process.
With Prop F having lost, actually many have the luxury and privilege of being able to do so – every homeowner in SF, actually!
It would a slap in the face of the majority of voters who voted down Prop F to try and pass this at the Board next year. Why is it that so called “progressives” only respect the results of the ballot box when they win? Given that fact I doubt that even with Peskin on the Board there would be a veto proof majority to try to pass a version of Prop F so soon after the voters just said no.
How do you explain such low turnout? Quite shocking. Don’t understand it.
Yeah because investors *will* begin buying housing en masse with this purpose in mind, if the voters and supes are all basically on board. I guess some argue they (investors) already have, but imagine 10 years from now. It’s a business model that makes sense, if the price is right.
Well no (not that I’d want or expect that), but even F wouldn’t have done that.
Nope!
Yeah, but if people could get behind the hodgepodge of candidates opposing Lee, they surely could have gotten behind Peskin.
I think it’s a very, very valid concern that could (and will) be addressed in a better way.
Regulations for sure. Has to be some.
But don’t expect this whole regulate them out of business, pipe dream.
Was I the only person who voted for F because I didn’t want my entire neighborhood rezoned as hotels? I really didn’t care much about the arguments the campaigns were being run on (‘I need this to get by’ or alternately ‘It’s pushing rental prices up’) at all – I just don’t like the idea of hotels all around me, and certainly wouldn’t if I was in an apartment.
Perhaps he would have. He would be fighting harder, too, but he would have had to defend his record in public.
Can you point to any mayoral campaign in history in SF that didn’t have a sizable percentage of those voting in opposition?
I think I have a pretty good idea. You seem to be under the delusion that people voted No because they all want to make money renting their apartments on AirBnB an don’t care about renters. That’s not why I voted No. I voted against it because it’s a bad law and I’ts pretty clear now that other ordinary, like me, feel the same way.
Amazing also that opposition to Lee was almost 50%! If they could have united behind a candidate (perhaps Leno or even Peskin), it looks like he fairly easily could have lost.
So with F having lost, and Peskin in, I guess the big question now is: With Peskin on the board, is there a pretty good chance of something as restrictive or nearly as restrictive as F passing? Can anyone with some knowledge weigh in on this? I was really hoping F would pass.
About 6% of the ballots voted blank for Mayor. I don’t know how it compares to other years. But even if all of them had voted against Lee he’d still have a majority.
The largest residential areas in the city are middle class, even lower middle class.
If this helps them pay a mortgage so they can stay in a city they love, and they pay taxes, then it’s a good resource.
Peskin won! F is close enough that next year it will return minus a few of the objectionable things.
Sure, but a minority.
Renters too, even if it means doing so at great risk.
But hey, homeowners make up everyday San Franciscans too. Have you been outside of the Mission and Pacific Heights?
Everyday San Franciscan homeowners, you mean?
The fairness argument is the weakest one I’ve heard yet.
AirBnb has a lot of value to everyday San Franciscans.
They have the turnout percentages for mail-ins posted. Telegraph Hill (‘North Embarcadero’) is highest, at 22.3%, Chinatown next at 20.5%. Note to wheeler-dealers: don’t get a carpetbagger to try to run against a local.
Mission, Inner Sunset, Haight—all liberal—have the lowest turnouts , 11-12%. Maybe they’ll go up with election day voting.
You have no idea what I’m referring to, right?
Very few people actually have the privilege and luxury of being able
rent their residence for extra money. This supposed argument for the
helpfulness of AirBnB is simply their own regurgitated propaganda.
Thank you for calling in with your opinion. Next caller.
As I suspected and said on the radio Sunday–a lot of ordinary people see the AirBnB model as a way to make money in hard times–even if the model is really being used to screw a lot of renters.