Sponsored link
Friday, September 17, 2021

Sponsored link

UncategorizedPeskin wins in a terrible night for Ed Lee

Peskin wins in a terrible night for Ed Lee

Mayor’s candidate beaten in D3; mayor wins with a stunningly small majority against a group of unknown opponents

Aaron Peskin thanks supporters when it became clear he was going to win

By Tim Redmond

NOVEMBER 3, 2015 – Aaron Peskin was in thank-you mode long before all the ballots were counted. At a little before 10pm, he was thanking his campaign team, his volunteers, his supporters, his wife, his parents … and reminding a crowd at Club Fugazi so packed that the line ran well out the door that “this isn’t about putting me back in City Hall, it’s about putting you back in City Hall.”

Already, with just the absentees and a few election-day votes counted, it was clear: Mayor Ed Lee’s appointee was losing, badly.

An hour later, with all the precincts counted, Peskin had 53 percent of the vote, with Christensen at 43 percent. Wilma Pang had about 4 percent.

That means the city’s Ranked Choice Voting program won’t matter: Peskin has more than the majority he needs to win the election.

It was a stunning defeat for Mayor Ed Lee and his allies, who spent immense amounts of time and money trying to keep Christensen in office.

And it wasn’t the only shocker for the mayor: Lee, as expected, won the election – but with only 56 percent of the vote. Lee’s opponents had essentially no money; none had ever run for political office before, and they were unknown to most of the voters. But together, they got 44 percent of the vote.

That’s incredible. When Tom Ammiano – a School Board member and president of the Board of Supervisors – took on Willie Brown in a serious campaign that forced the incumbent to work hard, Brown did better than Lee did tonight.

The fact that a group of candidates who frankly came out of nowhere kept Lee below that number – and close to the level where RCV would have come in to play – shows the deep discontent this city has with its leader.

The anybody-but-Lee vote was enough to indicate that if a major contender had challenged the mayor, he or she might have won. So even though the Chron had already announced – before the votes were counted – that Lee had a mandate, the voters told a very different story.

“If a sitting mayor with no serious opposition can’t get above 60 percent, it’s a sign of very serious weakness,” one longtime political observer at the Peskin event told me.

The D3 result is also a sign that the city is sick of having tech lords like Ron Conway call the shots.

The mayor, it’s now clear, made a big mistake by appointing Christensen to the board seat instead of Cindy Wu, a planning commissioner and community activist who would have easily won re-election. There are lots of theories about why the mayor went back on what many say had been a promise and refused to appoint Wu, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that Conway didn’t want her. Wu voted on the Planning Commission to more tightly regulate Airbnb, one of Conway’s companies.

That led to a major rift in the mayor’s political alliance, with Rose Pak, who had long been Lee’s biggest cheerleader, siding with Peskin.

In fact, Chinatown – where Lee is said to be immensely popular – was a major factor in Peskin’s win. “We could not have done this without Chinatown,” he said.

The mayor will take credit, as he should, for the victory of Prop. A, the affordable housing bond. It’s hard to get 66 percent for any bond measure, and this one won easily.

But he will now face a Board of Supervisors five members of which supported Peskin, who will be the sixth vote to change the majority on the board.

That’s critical, because the other progressive measures, particularly Props. F and I, went down in a tsunami of Airbnb and developer money.

That’s not a surprise – when Airbnb threw more than $8 million into the No on F campaign, everyone figured it would be hard to beat. And the real-estate industry spent a vast amount to try to stop a temporary moratorium on market-rate housing in the Mission.

But now everything is different.

The neighborhood and tenant groups who want to better regulate Airbnb will now be able to bring the essence of their measure – enforcement – to the supervisors and get six votes. Land use in the Mission will no longer be a hopeless cause at City Hall.

So the mayor lost big tonight. And if he wants to have any success in his next term, he has to recognize that a sizable percentage of the city, probably a majority, is deeply unhappy with what he has done to San Francisco..

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.
Sponsored link


  1. ah update! now we learn there are 50k votes still left to count!! so i’ll update these %’s when that’s done.

  2. My understanding was that the homeless went into SROs that were leased from Patels and Shaw&Co – and at a pretty decent price! Did they really jump the line on Sec 8?

    I have heard of people being moved into senior housing that were not seniors – mostly mental health challenged folks; and that this was disruptive and dangerous. Recall that happening before CnC.

    Also, the RUs started arriving with Mayor Feinstein.

    Understand its all but impossible to get anyone into NZ. That the kids came here from the socialist paradise sez something, though I’m not sure what.

    I am caught by the numbers bandied about lately. 10 years ago (CnC days), it was said we spent $200M on the homeless. Now we spend $160M. With inflation, thats clearly a drop. However, with 1/3 of homeless still coming here from somewhere else homeless, maybe it IS too much money that we sweeten the pot with.

  3. So let me get this straight. Ed Lee won (and the Tim Redmond set lost) on Prop F (Air BnB) and on Prop I (Mission moratorium). And the Ed Lee backed Prop A (Housing Bond) also won. Lee also won on the Mission Rock proposition. The only Ed Lee backed race that Lee “lost” was one involving an appointee who continually displayed foot-in-mouth disease to the point where even Lee supporters were left saying with a SMH “Really Julie? Did you have to say THAT? Just stop talking Julie. Just stop.”

    And let’s not forget the actual Mayor’s race – where the progressives couldn’t even get their act together to run a decent challenger and instead we had 3 nobodies running, including a candidate named “Broke-Ass”.

    Given the Guardian’s inability to keep its doors open unless it was sueing somebody, I’m not surprised Tim can’t do math.

  4. I think family has a lot to do with why folks don’t just move back, and why they left in the first place. The kids are probably doing better, and the kids are here. Family means a lot to some folks. I’ve seriously tried to move us to Australia or New Zealand, where there’s less war and economic uncertainty. But I’m not alone in this decision, and family means a lot to my other half. And it’s extremely difficult to move elderly relatives to Australia and New Zealand.

    I don’t think many folks jumped the queue for housing. I’ve heard of isolated cases of bribery, but for the most part they’re needy and got into the queue with everyone else. In fact, many of them were moved back in the queue as a result of the shell game that was Care Not Cash. Newsom took money away from the homeless, promised housing in return, but not a single unit of housing was built to accommodate anyone. What they did instead was put them in the front of the line in the Section 8 program, displacing seniors, both immigrants and US citizens.

    Ironically some of them blamed Chris Daly for the fact that they were moving in disruptive homeless people into senior housing. I did my best to make sure they understood that Chris Daly had nothing to do with that, and in fact fought against the reason why this was happening. But they’re right that it’s not the right place to put the homeless. But that’s what the city chose to do. Anything to take a little bit of money out of the pockets of poor people, but developers get lavished with cash. And it wasn’t even to save money. We’re talking about a $5 billion budget -it’s a drop in the bucket what we spent on public assistance for the homeless. They just wanted to make the homeless disappear, either by leaving, or just starving to death. Didn’t matter to the Newsom and his developer buddies. That’s America for you.

  5. This is getter further away from Peskin, but … interesting.

    The Russian couple on the plane, why didn’t they just go back to their Dacha and 4 wk vacation? The grandkids?! Well, why did’t the kids want to go back there. And who moved here in the first place. Is there upward mobility there? (Is there upward mobility here?)

    And the RU folks surplanted to subsidized housing in the US (jumping the queue on Americans apparently): I can understand why they might vote that way. They were more likely subsidized back home (though discriminated against), and now they’re subsidized here; why not vote for the one who pays the bills; beats working for a living.

    I’ve known many Filipinos who were professionals at home who moved here and took ‘working class’ jobs. Kinda what you do when you’re the new one on the block. Many of them move up. Apparently there’s not much opportunity back home.

  6. They say “seek a better life,” but when you dig deeper, what they mean is get rich. And many of them have unrealistic expectations based on western propaganda. In Cuba, they think the streets in Miami are paved with gold because that’s what Radio Marti tells them. When they get there, they’re disappointed.
    Some of them even come back.

    On one flight back from Mexico, I happened to be sitting next to a 60-something Russian couple. I asked them how they liked living in America. Somewhat to my surprise, not at all. They came because their kids were there, but they had it better in the USSR. There, they were engineers (both of them -an opportunity rarely afforded women in the west). They had a dacha, a 30 day vacation every year, pensions waiting for them at age 60 (55in the wife’s case). Here, they had to resort to cleaning toilets to scrape by. The trip to Mexico was their first trip abroad.

    Those who do get rich, tend to like it and vote conservative. Those who don’t, have other views of the American dream. And incidentally, the ones in public housing tend to vote progressive. D6 Russian senior housing was very good turf for Chris Daly. Chinatown voted for Aaron Peskin. But Chinese and Russian homeowners in the avenues are a different story.

  7. I don’t see people easily motivated to overcome inertia and utterly uproot themselves from family, friends, and concerns to seek a ‘possibility’ in the West, simply to get rich (are all those RUs transplanted by DiFi into public housing in SF getting rich?). (ps: CN, not CH)

    No, I see those actions as motivated by a deep sense of grievance, loss, and abhoration of current circumstances.

    That there might also be an opportunity to improve one’s lot, instead of merely relieving stress, is … just an encouragement.

  8. We shall see. I expect I have been involved in San Francisco politics a good deal longer than yourself.

  9. Hyperbole yes, Ridiculous, no. Why is it ridiculous to suggest that telling me how I can rent out my own personal home is not over controlling and seizing my property? If I can’t get an occasional room mate, or can’t go away on weekend and share the house, or if I can do it 75 days and not 90, or i have to be present during the guest’s stay—you don’t see that as a kind of seizure? Oh no, it’s not taking my house away from me and putting me in a camp because of Japanese ancestry, but it is taking away my privacy and property rights. I think that rang a bell with lots of voters.

  10. True, true. And luck had everything to do with it. All of us were lucky to move here in the 80s, but even then everybody was up in arms about how expensive everything was. I am not conservative, btw. But maybe I sound like one when I suggest that rent control has major holes in it that exacerbate the housing situation.

  11. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am sorry if I was condescending to you about your knowledge of the issues. My experience is, few people understand the machinery of this housing problem and how we got to this point.

    About the last part…

    My wife responds to the communist comments: “The nazis made the trains run on time and the streets were clean, but that’s no reason to brag. My mother fled from the nazis and the communists, and says nothing good can ever come from people with blood on their hands.”

    And I have to admit, I was kind of a marxist in college, but once I met my wife and got to know her mother, who cries every time she hears the national anthem at the Giants games, I don’t joke about the Soviets.

  12. Which is why you sound crazy. The idea that Peskin has any power and would use it to call for a company’s execs to resign. Good one.

  13. Well there you go again… you’re comparing a very modest regulation of tourist hotels with Communist seizure of property. Whatever you think of seizure of property, and I can think of cases where it’s warranted, this is not it. Not even close. To compare the two is ridiculous hyperbole.

  14. The sponsors of ballot initiatives need to spend time crafting the language to ensure success, which means talking to all numbers of stakeholders, including those you wish to regulate.

  15. By the way, about the sitting on the goldmine comment. My home is not for sale. It is not a bank, it is not an atm, it is my home. It’s where I raise my kids, and where I will die one day. It’s probably the only chance my kids will have of staying in San Francisco. The idea of selling it is not an option, and when people say things like that, they miss the point of what a home is.

    I can complain about renters if I want, because i have a few long term ones whose low rents cost me a fortune because I have to subsidize them as long as they stay here ($900 for two bedrooms, $750 for a one bedroom). I would never sell the house and evict them, because they are great folks and like family, and also, they couldn’t afford to go anywhere else. But yeah, I pray every day thy move so I can repair my roof and paint the house.

    I don’t care how much my house is worth. I ain’t leaving the city.

    Playing goldmine and casino games with your homes is why the Mission has lost a lot of its energy–so much of the loss of Latin culture is due to the older Latin neighbors and working families cashing out and selling their homes, and the bland palefaces moving in.

  16. How many people are getting paid to work these campaigns? Didn’t Calvin Welch tell everyone, 2 or 3 days before the election, that Prop F would lose? What campaign worker says that publicly, except one that wants to get paid to work on the 2016 campaign, maybe?

  17. “It’s hard to get 66 percent for any bond measure, and this one won easily.”

    Huh? Nearly all bonds are passed in this city, and all need 2/3rds vote.

  18. I in fact did not. I said that over-regulation of homeowner’s homes is a mistake, and seizure of property is a ill-advised tactic of totalitarian governments. My wife and neighbors, who voted No, have that experience and feel strongly about it. All of which is correct.

    I am also not a he, I am a lesbian she, a progressive proud San Franciscan Mission District she, who sends her kids to public schools and fights for progressive causes and increased funding for housing and tenants rights. You fellas sound like a bunch of fools. It’s not a tourist hotel. It’s my home. And that’s why you lost–you cannot lie to people when so many of them are home owners, travelers, and airbnb users. Yeah, they suck as a company and are tone deaf, but they are successful because people have positive experiences with their platform. You guys obviously have never actually used Airbnb or owned your homes, or apparently left your mother’s basement with her free wifi.

  19. You are such a fool. To answer your questions: I bought a house 20 years ago so clearly so I clearly can afford it. I just want extra money and I enjoy entertaining guests. I also enjoy traveling, which this pays for, and I enjoy staying in homes with kitchens when I travel with my kids. And it is not illegal to rent out rooms, pay taxes on it, and enjoy your home.

    You are just a raving lunatic an fool. Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you read the posts, or do you just go on auto-pilot to post links and responses? Have you ever owned a home or traveled, or rented out space in your home so you could do other projects? Like spend more time with your kids? Do you have a life?

  20. The Examiner’s figures are wrong if they’re claiming that’s the total. Here are the totals from your own link at Ethics:
    Julie Christensen for Supe campaign 294K
    PLUS third party IEs in support 356K
    PLUS third party IEs opposing Peskin 275K
    EQUALS … 925K

    Aaron Peskin campaign for Supe: 375K
    PLUS third party IEs in support: 285K
    PLUS third party IEs opposing Christensen: 65K
    EQUALS… 725K

    I’m glad Peskin had the money to compete though. Progressives don’t need to match dollar for dollar. If they’re even close in money, progressives win because the message is better.

    It should also be noted that Peskin’s IEs are mainly labor, which is a coalition of many different groups representing thousands of workers. Christensen’s IEs are mainly from Conway and a few buddies, with a bit of an assist from the cops.

  21. When someone uses the word ‘please’ the request that follows is rarely a demand.

    How does it advance any discussion to introduce racism and bigotry out of nowhere?

  22. In all fairness, I actually don’t think he’s a troll, at least not in the sense of Sam, who just comes here to start fights, spout the same memes, silence debate, and generally wreak havoc. I think he’s just a little bit delusional.

    Speaking of, we should enjoy a few hours of Sam-free internet time. He rarely if ever posts in the evening, but he’ll be back around 4 AM or 5 AM, possibly because he’s doing his work from another time zone.

  23. Fair enough. I took you for a conservative. Perhaps I was hasty, but your other posts sure made you sound like one. You’re right, in a sense, that this is small potatoes compared to Ellis Act evictions, vulture capitalists, lack of vacancy control, and all the rest. But one doesn’t preclude the other.

    I do object to the fact that you keep accusing people who disagree with you of knowing nothing about how this really works. You’re wrong. I avoid discussing my personal situation because I prefer to let my arguments stand on their merits, and because there are unfortunately several trolls on this site. At their best, they’ll use any information you provide against you; at their worst, their behavior gets into the realm of cyberstalking.

    Here’s how the former works:
    Let’s say that I were to tell you that I’m poor and depend on rent control to survive and keep my home. The retort: well pretty much what you’re saying -I don’t know what I’m talking about, I don’t know what it means to work hard and succeed, and maybe add to that I just don’t belong in this city, and that my home isn’t really my home.
    Now let’s say that I were to tell you that I’m financially successful, worked very hard to get where I am, own my own business, my own home and a number of rental properties, perhaps even an apartment building or two, and am quite familiar with how it all works. What’s the retort? Easy, then the trolls come out and call me a hypocrite, a NIMBY, say that I support these policies because I want my property values to stay high, and maybe publish my home address and the value of my property like they’ve done to others.
    So you see how that works? So for that reason, I don’t get into it. Let’s just say you’re wrong when you say that I don’t know what I’m talking about, and leave it at that.

    Incidentally… the Communists also liberated your wife’s country from the horrors of Nazi Germany. Your wife should be grateful. The Czech people certainly were, which is why they immediately voted for them in a landslide (in free elections, btw. This was before the Soviets even started meddling in Czech politics). Not saying everything they did was good, but sometimes you take the good with the bad.

  24. No, I read them The majority were either from vague yet inflexible principles (“Because personal freedom!”) that are reasonably infringed on all the time, or complaints from those who would be directly affected. Obviously people making money want to keep making it with as little restriction as possible, which is why I was asking about reasons from parties with no horse in the race.

    @bsimpson:disqus’s reply below stands out from the sound and fury here by encapsulating some of them very well.

  25. You can’t compare the situation then to the situation now. Home prices and rents have risen much faster than incomes. You were lucky because you bought in 1989. Of course you don’t see it that way. You “worked hard,” so like all conservatives, you think luck had nothing to do with it. But no, you were lucky too. Because you ignore the fact that what was “merely” very difficult to do in 1989, is simply impossible now, no matter how hard you work.

  26. I missed that. I should recognize the stench of trolls by now. But I countered the Bolsheviks comment by posting on Hoodline that Peskin should demand all the AirBnB executives resign!

  27. I do not have an illegal in law unit.

    I have neighbors who have them, and the term “illegal” just means they were built without permits, or maybe have a kitchen in them which is not allowed. Illegal means no permit. It doesn’t mean unsafe. Anyway, I was using it as an example. You all are so obviously poorly informed on home ownership, or building codes, or what is required to rent a property to a real tenant for a long term lease in this town (spoiler alert: it’s nothing hardly, no reporting and little regulation) that it’s laughable. I didn’t compare Airbnb to communism; my parnter/wife is from the Czech Republic, and she and her family lost everything to the communists and literally walked out of the country with the clothes on their backs in the late 80s. I also have best friends who are neighbors who left China in the 90s, they they lost everything they had under a totalitarian over-regulatory form of government. You cannot over-regulate people or they rebel.

    And you can also be incredibly progressive (I am) and still embrace ownership and privacy rights.

    Breaking the law? Are you kidding me? People have been taking in room mates to make the rent or mortgage for years, and they don’t ever pay taxes on it or have to report it. Even though that’s the law. You want to go track that down and publish it publicly, too? You are so ill informed about extant law, and clearly want to have the IRS and the city know everything about you. Well, I’m a landlord too, have several long time tenants, whom I adore, and the City doesn’t make me report information or file quarterly reports about them. Why should I file it for people who are in my home fewer days? Who cares?

    By the way, I’m a big proponent of rent control, too, and wish it would be expanded to post 1979 buildings. Or didn’t you know they were exempt.

    I take it, you have never received income from a room mate, or if you did, you claimed that on your 1040 to the IRS. Keep dreaming. It doesn’t happen, and trying to over-regulate the 85 % of regular Airbnb users like myself, to get at the 15% who are truly abusing it, is ridiculous.

    As I said, I am hoping the enforcement for the existing strict regulations gets funded, and after this debacle, I think it will.

    Now lets go out and get Bernie or Hillary elected. That is important. This….. This is peanuts. You are delusional if you think affordable housing and rents are being significantly effected by Airbnb. It’s maybe 350-600 rental units off the market full time out of the 7,000 total listings, vs. the 10,000 off the market by owner occupied buildings who don’t want to have tenants anymore due to rent control, plus 25,000 due to rich people having rent control protected pied a terres they seldom use, and about 40,000 rent controlled units off the market because the rich use them. And of course, there are all the 9,000 units being Ellis converted by vulture contractors who flip them to TICs, and use the Ellis as a business model.

    Focus on THAT will you? That would make a dent. The Airbnb Prop was a slight fart that didn’t even stink.

  28. I’m 39. In the mid 90’s I was starting college, not thinking about home ownership. I got out of college and we were in dot.com 1.0. I’m not saying there were times I could have done it had it been a priority but by the time it became one it was already too late to afford it. Honestly I never wanted to own a home because I never thought all of these evictions would be happening or that I wouldn’t be able to move to another apartment. Just didn’t see it coming.

  29. Seriously! But you know, you are talking to someone who just a minute ago on another thread, compared the city trying to regulate his illegal in-law that he wants to use as a tourist hotel, to Bolsheviks coming to confiscate your property.

  30. Cry me a river. Why the hell did you buy a place you clearly can’t afford without running an illegal business? Yeah it is the renters fault. If you bought so many years ago, you are sitting on a gold mine and complaining about renters. Shame on you. Do you realize how you sound? Yeah, you’re the victim.

    FYI, your beloved AirBnB is comparing itself to the NRA because of their win:


    And during the election, your beloved AirBnB told lies about “registering how many nights you sleep in your own bed” and compared SF to the Taliban and ISIS:

    ““No one is the world requires you to actually register with the government the number of nights that you’re sleeping in your own bed,” Lehane says, which he described as draconian. Even Taliban and ISIS don’t go to such lengths in the Middle East, he said.”


    But here is an analysis that indicates that you in-law unit people will be able to do vacation rentals, assuming you comply with the law.


  31. When the city passed healthy San Francisco the anti side who brought the lawsuit was bemoaned by the left saying that elected board members passed a law in the name of the citizens.

    So using that progressive logic, the city BOS passed a law in the name of the citizens, the disgruntled tried to overturn the will of the citizens with prop F.

    There is always a way to remake reality to your advantage today.

  32. I don’t work for them. I have rented my home out for three to six weeks through VRBO ad AirBnb these past several summers, and will rent it over the Christmas and New Year. I am a great host, and I have heard no complaints from my upstairs neighbors about the guests, or from any other users in the City I have met. I have stayed at an airbnb in NYC with my kids, and the neighbors were clearly bummed and annoyed, seeing us all drag out bags to the 5th floor walk up. No I agree with you, AirBnB should be regulated. And they should turn over the serial renters who are doing it professionally. But limiting it to 90 days seems fair to me, and I am supportive of the legislation from last Summer. I think Peskin will try to fund more enforcement.

    But hiker, you gotta show me you understand at least conceptually that there is a difference between controlling a home you actually own, and being a renter somewhere in a shitty building that abuses AirBnb, but at least your rent is not going up every year and you can stay there at sub-market rates. There has to be a tradeoff with that. Many of the people who are so against AirBnb — well, they remind me of people who have so many opinions of parenthood and children when they are single and childless. They haven’t gotten a clue and have no direct knowledge of Airbnb. Have you ever used it as a host or renter Probably not. Go work hard and own your home, and try to building something for yourself, and then sit and watch the City try to outlaw your control over it. It gets old. I hope you are lucky enough to experience the security of owning a home one day. Until then, if you are a renter in this City, you get the same rent for years and years till your luck runs out and you have to leave. Focus on the positive of that, and stop playing victim.

  33. Oh, you wanted to rent your illegal in-law on AirBnB! I see. Well then the city should be on to you, because those units were legalized so that people can have homes, not for use as tourist hotels. But that’s not what the scare tactics were all about. The no on F campaign was going around telling homeowners that they wouldn’t be able to rent those units at all. Highly misleading. And you are prima facie evidence of how misleading the campaign was. Apparently it convinced you that if F passed, the Bolsheviks would come and take your in law and turn it into a collective farm. To compare this to Communism is patently absurd. The most they would do, even if you broke the law and turned your in-law into a tourist hotel, even if they caught you, the most they would do is fine you. As they should.

    That said, I really did like the provision that encouraged neighbors to be the city’s eyes and ears. The city doesn’t have enough inspectors to enforce the rules, and this would have given it some teeth.

  34. The first mention of Mirkarimi is in the comments. Not what one would call a well thought out moment in triumphalism journalism.

  35. Not true, Robotsrule. I was an artist and I still am. So are all my friends. I bought a house in 1989. I have lived in the Mission since 1985, when nobody wanted to live here, much less visit. Be I loved it. Much like Vallejo and Hayward or some place, today, the Mission was a backwater. I made an offer on the house I was renting, with a downpayment I took off my credit card. ($7,000, which was a fraction of the $180,000 value. I got five room mates to afford the mortgage of $1,890. I still own the house. What I’m saying is, every artist and graphic designer and musician and chef I knew from the 80s and 90s did this. They all bought houses, and they were all artists, and they were all broke. Many of my neighbors were Latin and non-English speaking and they bought their houses too. Many neighbors were new arrivals from Hong Kong, and they all worked three jobs to buy their houses. Here we all remain. It’s not about white privilege, is what I’m saying. Actually, I’m kinda broke, these days, except for the house. But I am still an artist, and my house is not for sale because my kids and I would have to leave the City we love.

    Where were you in the mid and late 90s when there were live/work vacancies at Theatre Artaud for months at a time, and no takers? Where were you in 2005, where anybody who showed up could overpay (then) for a house in the Mission and pay less for a mortgage that you can rent one now? Those awful mortgages were available to anybody with a social security number and absolutely no money anywhere, which is why they outlawed them.

    Being an artist is no excuse. What I am frankly excited by is what all these tech geniuses will do once the bubble bursts, and they remain here, and have no jobs, and have to go create something else. That’s what we did after the AIDS crisis, and it’s what everybody has always done. It’s not like there are no artists and musicians left. That’s just not true.

  36. The in-law units that were just made legal was 100% motivated to ease the housing crisis. It is a gift from the city to you and others and the intention is for residents, not tourists. That said, allowing 75 days a year seems like a reasonable compromise if we must.

    Sorry, but you aren’t going to like what come next: “. . .Peskin told us he already talked with Airbnb representatives today in the wake of the Proposition F defeat.

    “The ballot measure went away, but the issue hasn’t gone away,” he said. Airbnb knows another measure might pop up in 2016, and in an election year with more voter interest, things might not go its way.

    Peskin has asked them to come to the table for negotiation. “I am hopeful that perhaps we’ll be able to curb the most egregious instances of abuses that result in permanently affordable rental housing stock being removed from the market, exacerbating the eviction crisis,” he said.”


    Those of us who bought or rent in residential buildings do not want to live in hotels. The best tourists still scuff the walls, doors etc. with luggage, ring the wrong bell, bug us to ask questions, all so you can make a buck. If you are 100%
    responsible (and liable) for what your customers do, you are a rare host. Most do not give a damn.

    And if you can’t see that AirBnB has been the lousiest of corporate citizen in SF (and everywhere else), I’m guessing that you work for them or you are a lousy host. They are being punished because they deserve it.

  37. Without any evidence, the article here implies that money won the day for F and I. There is another obvious analysis: the voters of SF preferred not to support these propositions. They considered the measures and decided not to vote for them.

    This is another pieces of very poor journalism.

  38. It’s a long story but this city used to be full or artists and musicians that helped make it the cool place people wanted to live. But we never made enough money to be homeowners. Clearly if I had a normal career I would have bought a long time ago.

  39. If you are over 40 and were born in this City and didn’t snatch up a place to live back in the early 90s, when they were practically giving away homes in the Mission and Hunters Point and Bayview for a signature, I have to wonder… It’s like, every other human being in this country is taught at an early age that you do anything you can to purchase your own home as soon as you can. Why didn’t all these people who’ve been renting for 30_ years get that message?

  40. I believe the results would have been nearly the same, had AirBnb not spend the $8 million. AT ALL. In fact, if they’d only spent the $8 million on homeless outreach, or building a few affordable housing units, they make have won by a bigger margin.

  41. No. in fact, I think most of the anti- vote came from the thousands of San Franciscans who used the service as hosts, and feared their tiny occasional income being scapegoated as the source of all housing trouble and high rents in this city. Which is not at all the case. It’s maybe less than 2 per cent of the problem. Why is it so hard for you guys to see that? I mean, I certainly see why you’d want it regulated. I would hope you could see it from my point of view, as well. Which is basically, hey, it’s already regulated enough and we just need to fund some enforcement and we will be fine. You may disagree, but the overall housing shortage and high rents issues are not the fault of Airbnb. Airbnb is small potatoes. And easy target because they are tone deaf techies with bad taste in marketing campaigns.

  42. Proposition F certainly would have banned the use of in-law units for short-term rentals. It was explicit. Didn’t you bother reading it? Of course, many in-law units are not permitted and are illegal to rent anyway, but Prop F sure did single them out. Why this scared me, is that if Airbnb were to discover an in law unit was used for a rental, they could have then forwarded that information to the building department who could further fine and red tag the in law unit. Whereas, when a regular tenant is renting it, they tend to be hands off, so as not to take away a unit from a renter. This is well established in SF. If you don’t find that scary, it makes me wonder if you’ve ever owned property and had it confiscated by the government. I came here in the late 70s from a communist country, and it wasn’t fun when the gov’t did that.

  43. We can’t say “Chinese” without offending someone? Sorry but they have more political power in this town than my friends and I.

  44. What is it that the people of Telegraph Hill oppose that you want to see happen in that neighborhood? Telegraph Hill, North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, are pretty great the way they are. They are iconic San Francisco. Why wouldn’t people want to keep it they way it is?

  45. None of these people understood what the legislation would actually do. They saw a bunch of propaganda from airb&b that echoed the Communism they lived under and they went screaming in the other direction.

  46. And that’s fair. But in the US we have the opposite. We have oligarchy. Perhaps a little bit of protectionism that helps out the middle and working class is in order without descending into total Stalinism.

  47. Progressives are not in power. And it’s not true that Peskin’s campaign had more money than Christensen’s campaign, which consisted mainly of Conway’s IE’s.

  48. If you believed that you wouldn’t be able to rent your in-law, then by definition you’re not very politically literate.

  49. If Ed Lee had lost you could say the tables have turned. He won all he supported except one. And, he doesn’t need to worry about reelection. He’s free to do as he pleases.

  50. I think you’re actually closest to the truth, folderpete. I wouldn’t say that they were among the “classes” “targeted” by “Communism”. But they are definitely a self-selected group. By definition, they found something about the system/country they lived under to be unpalatable enough that it was worth leaving. Definitely not representative of the whole group of Chinese or Russians, most of whom never left. For most, it wasn’t really that they were discriminated against, so much as they saw the West as a place they could get rich. People who are motivated in that way, tend to not like systems that promote equality and social programs, and thus side with conservatives.

    And btw, Sam, you still have no idea where I grew up.

  51. i am so looking forward to the upcoming SFBOS meetings, debates, discussions, and of course Q+A time with the mayor… Aaron Peskin is sure to make things lively at city hall again!!!!

  52. But that was a big part of the law. I mean, I’m not Chinese, but I am very literate politically, and that scared me off.

  53. Yeah, perhaps a better bill will pass the Supervisors, which is where the laws should be written and passed. One that doesn’t outlaw the in laws that were just made legal, for heaven’s sake.

    It was the death knell to forbid in-law units to be AirBnB’d, by the way. I’m a way progressive voter, but Airbnb is the only way I can afford to ever go on a vacation with my kids, and know that my house won’t be claimed as a permanent residence by any temporary tenants who stay there. Believe it or not, most of us bought our houses way long ago, before doing so became insane and impossible. And we are middle class, we are not made of money. And we really do benefit from the occasional vacation rental. Proposition F scapegoated Airbnb and painted it as the number one cause of high rents, loss of affordable housing, and the destructive of our funky city. And oh brother, anybody who has lived here more than ten years knows Airbnb wasn’t the cause of all that. And besides, over-regulating the 85% of normal people who use the platform, just so you can get at and punish the 15% of users who abuse the platform (multiple listings, evictions, etc.) was so unfair on its face. It was really a Proposition to vent rage at the gods who cursed us with tech.

    Just remember that the people who defeated Prop F are the same people who voted in the largest affordable housing bond in the City’s history, lots of new development, and probably Aaron Peskin too. We are a very liberal city, we want affordable housing, and arguing over who is more liberal or anti-tech, is a waste of time.

  54. I will give you that. It was a really poorly written measure that has serious questions, that the proponents never answered. Thankfully, we are back to the original law passed in July, which is really a very strong regulatory thing. Let’s just get it funding for enforcement, and it can work.

  55. I could write a long essay about why it was a bad law. If you haven’t read the sane arguments against Prop F–and there were really very very very many–than you wouldn’t be worth arguing to anyway. Keep living in your bubble.

  56. Wow, what planet does Tim Redmond live on? More importantly, how long has he lived in the City? Spoiler alert: Not this one, and not long.

  57. I’m not an Air BnB shareholder, employee, or profiteer, nor have I ever used it. I voted against F because I don’t believe it’s the City’s right to determine what a property owner does with his or her property as long as they are not breaking the law or hurting anyone (I feel the same way about people’s bodies, btw). What they do with what they own is none of my business, The problem is not AirBnB, it’s years of anti-development agendas coming home to roost. People trying to make a buck on their investment shouldn’t have to pay the price for decades of NIMBYism.

  58. Lee got only 54% of all votes cast with no significant opponent whatsoever, which votes in turn were a record low turnout of just 30%. so only 16% of all registered SF voters bothered to vote for Ed yesterday.

    that ain’t no mandate. that’s a very lame duck. Quack!

    and Julie’s loss proves Ed has no “coattails” whatsoever either, despite his alleged tremendous popularity in Chinatown. now just watch all the political wannabees quickly distance themselves. Quack Quack!

    but the biggest loser might really be Mark Leno who must have been kicking himself for the last 24 hours for letting Ed bluff him out of a race he could have won easily.

  59. Only 48 Hills could take an election where all the “progressive” ideals lost and call it a bad night for the Mayor who went 5 and 1 in what he supported. Prop. A,D,F,I, Ross and Julie. That’s a bad night?

  60. The plan started in 2000, morphed several times in scope, focus and proposals, got going in earnest in 2004, and was approved in 2008 by the NIMBYs and progressives.

  61. “now with a progressive [6-5] majority on the Board on the horizon we are now free to tweak the current law into an enforcement frenzy.” And the mayor is free to veto them.

  62. His parents were probably the commissars who got all the caviar and champagne while the peasants got lentils.

  63. “growing up under Communism seems to often translate into an embrace of right wing or pro business policies.” Marxism does have that effect on people.

  64. What gives you the right to demand that someone delete a comment? I don’t see “Moderator” after your name.

  65. That is the exact opposite of a rational argument. You might as well say “Because America!! WOOO!!!”

  66. Getting in bed with Rose Pak is considered a ‘bright spot’?

    And I mean, even the Apt Assoc endorsed ‘the Midnight Crawler”.

    Probably ought to wait for clearer analysis.

  67. SF immigrants had more-than-average aversion to RU/CH communism. Most likely, they were from the classes targets by Comms. For CH, it was prop owners; for RU it was mainly Jewish.

    These immigrants are not your average citizen.

  68. I’ve know Aaron for years, and we supported him completely. The tables have turned and all I can say is, ” Good ole San Francisco came through”. Now watch out, folks.

  69. Yeah, lets include the Bounty Hunter portion.

    And lets extend it to … everything — driving-while-texting, blocking intersections, sleeping on the sidewalk … .

    At least with these citations, one doesn’t have to report to City Hall where they slept last nite (even if they slept outside).

  70. Well, considering the turnout was so low that there are more Airbnb users in SF than there were voters last night, mobilization wasn’t that hard.

  71. Peskin has never worked under the scrutiny of this many local blogs around to air him out. Should be interesting how he handles it. Going to be more difficult to bury dissent this time around.

  72. I’m with you in supporting the concept of AirBnb, but not their practices. It’s annoying that if you don’t fully support a tech company’s practices it’s assumed you want to dress up like a clown and play hackysack in front of a google bus. The problem with the tech companies isn’t there concepts, it’s that they rather exploit loopholes and use aggressive lobbying, than nurture and grow their ideas on solid foundations. Uber and AirBnB could be building systems that account for liability when apartments are damaged or passengers are sexually assaulted, but they’d rather just expand as rapidly as possible and throw money at all their obstacles.

    It’d be nice to know I can rent out my apartment during a vacation to compensate for income lost during time off, without being evicted only to have my apartment turned into a permanent AirBnb room by my landlord. I’d even be willing to put in an extra deposit to be eligible for using AirBnB.

  73. Consider that by November 2016 it will have been over 18 months since Campos put a moratorium on the table.

  74. Hyperbolic is saying “no one said”…. when you can see in this thread, there have been admissions from people saying it. You’re hanging on to the difference in the semantics between “blamed for” and “blamed for contributing”, because you’re in denial how your own rhetoric turned voters off.

    I think a catch statement that includes “and other accusations” pretty much does account for an entire group of voters, btw.

  75. Unaware the Real Estate and Adult sections were both scrutinized and overhauled, with people wanting to shut them down for their lack of liability, and a whole slew of accusations?

  76. Neither Scoot nor any carsharing service blocks any public right of way; public access is not the issue. Scoot and ridesharing services are getting parking preference along public curbs, just as residents do in a lettered parking area.

    Curbside parking is limited. Giving shared transit preference over individually owned vehicles would seem a way to support more efficient options. What’s the downside?

  77. Yes, the bastion of balanced governing. Scoot is taking up taxpayer funded public common space. You, me, everyone pays for the streets and we have rights to public access. Private businesses don’t. It’s pay to play. But, then you have the car-sharing companies like Getaround who get to pay for a private parking space and remove it from your use all in the name of the mayor. Frankly, i don’t like losing three parking spaces in one square block so some celebrity who doesn’t live here can make millions off of my taxes. Sorry, i don’t buy your arguement nor share it.

  78. Lol. So supporters of the “anyone but ed” crusade are finding a way to feel good about ed cruising to victory. And they’re using “a political observer” from a Peskin event-who hates ed-as proof that this victory for ed was actually not what he was looking for. Tell that to everyone from ed lee’s camp whose sleeping off hangovers today. 56% when there’s 6 candidates is good.

  79. You didn’t really judge the issue based on how much money was spent defending it, did you? The campaign funds is a different issue.

    Anyway, I don’t see how F would have prevented the BOS actions, especially with Peskin who was notorious for getting away with treating the Board rulings as if they supersede voter legislation.

  80. I’m well aware of the discussion, thank you very much. You know: the one where you attribute a few hyperbolic statements to an entire group of voters.

  81. Uh, No! Thry are “regulated” ny CA Public Utilities Commission so TNCs are kinda untouchable by SF unless we can have our elected state leaders push legislation in Sacto.

  82. No, the argument is still factual and correct but, yes, maybe some difference in language could’ve helped. Yet, $8million war chest? Well, largest ever for a local SF ballot item scaled against state Prop 16 in 2010 by PG&E who spent $50million, the largest in CA history. Difference PG&E is a substantial utility business. Prop F would’ve not really broken the AirBNB product but, look, now with a progressive majority on the Board on the horizon we are now free to tweak the current law into an enforcement frenzy. Those that voted, No, will get their wish for it to remain legislatively governed. They better have some shareholder money left for lobbyists and pet projects to maintain their sway. It’s just really sad state of affairs when a non-essential service feels it needs to have this much control in order to stay alive. It speaks of how fragile and precarious their business model really is.

  83. Yeah, the lack of good outreach seems to be a big institutional weakness. The city could build a lot of goodwill if it spent a little money communicating better with residents about all sorts of things, from scooter parking to sewer work.

  84. More like, in order for Aaron to have a chance, he’ll have to create sound alternative policies instead of just grandstanding, posturing over contradictory positions, and trolling enemies. He’ll have to be accountable himself rather than just hold others accountable.

    Peskin liberalism is closer to today’s board moderates on many issues. I expect he’ll pivot to appear more progressives and then expect the greens/progressives to follow him wherever he lands. My memory is both SF Weekly and the Guardian were celebrating Peskin being termed out, specifically because he represented almost a decade of unsound/unrealized progressivism policies.

  85. Okay, but wouldn’t the wort list, also correlate with the most successful list?

    Where does it stop? There were people who wanted to run Craigslist out of town too.

    Personally, I think this new tech model of throwing up a website as a dispatch, without any services, or liability, is going to be short lived. Even something like Caviar (which I’m a customer of) can’t be bothered with assuring you’ll get hot food, or even plastic utensils and napkins. Rel world incidents will dictate the market, and how Airbnb does business. A bunch of concerned citizens with pitchforks screaming about the hotel industry, is not where change will originate from.

  86. I agree that it is better than car ownership. OTOH, flooding a neighborhood or block without any outreach is just going to piss-off neighbors. Given that we’ve had a few Ellised buildings in the past few years, OMI’s and evictions by rent hike, some residents are feeling like sitting ducks and disenfranchised.

  87. The city supports alternatives to car ownership. Scoot’s little scooters are a much better use of public curb space than Zipcar, which itself is a much better use than private autos.

    Neighbors definitely get pissed, though. Auto owners often feel entitled to free, public, curbside parking.

    And we’re embracing alternate forms of transportation through the new “Sharing Economy,” with carsharing provided by companies like City Carshare, Zipcar, Getaround and Relay Rides and electric scooter-sharing from SCOOT.

    Ed Lee, January 28, 2013

  88. Progressives started to lose their way when they became more about shadows on a park and the facade of a $2M Victorian remodel than issues of social and environmental justice. But they really went off the rails when instead of trying to advocate for new housing, they decided that demonizing a whole new class of young people who are mostly people of color, was a wise political choice to make. I don’t think young people identify with Progressives at all, they are much more sympathetic to Tech Workers and until the old guard wakes up, their political power will wither. But there looks to be one last chance with the BoS for at least a couple of years. Make good use of it and maybe people will think you electable again.

  89. You offered an opinion that Peskin will “make it harder to build more housing, just like he did in his first 8 year in office.” The facts state that Peskin (and others) actually made it easier to build housing in a significant portion of the City. Because you don’t like the Plan, does not mean the Plan did not happen.

  90. The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan was a disaster and proved more than anything that Progressives are unfit to govern. It held up development in huge section of The City for 10 years and when it was done it down zoned all the area around BART and 3rd Street Light Rail corridors and preserved hundreds of acres of auto shops and other Light Industrial uses instead of much needed housing.

  91. You know Peskin was BOS President when the Eastern Neighborhoods plan (which rezoned 2200 acres for thousands of housing units) was passed, right?

  92. ADA? But the bigger issue is with the sharing industry in general, being unaware of or unwilling to obey laws, and being tone-deaf to how people feel about them.

    Yesterday on my block I discovered a new (to me) sharing business: Scoot. I discovered them because they had 3 scooters taking spaces that are used for deliveries, etc. They were all eventually moved, so I’m assuming it was for advertising. But instead of engaging neighbors, plop, they just put the scooters there. And residents were pissed. Apparently it is legal for electric scooters to take up small spaces without having to obey other laws, so they weren’t breaking the law. But had they been there for any length of time, they would have had problems. I would support them having to have parking stickers for more than 2 hours during business hours.

  93. You, Tim, could have made a big difference in this election, if you had taken Lee’s opposition seriously and reported on their campaigns instead of dissing them. Looks like 44% of voters were way ahead of you on this one.

  94. An analogue to Tim’s reporting, via George Orwell:

    “The chocolate ration is being increased from 30 grams to 20 grams.”

  95. I said they should be run out of town and I stand by that. They are among the worst corporate citizens in San Francisco.

    I actually support the concept of AirBnB, but not the selfish, egotistical jerks who run AirBnB.

  96. I guess that you don’t know the Sierra Club and League of Pissed Off Voters, just off the top of my head. But way to miss the larger point

  97. Wouldn’t the first order of business be changing city policy, and not worrying about Willie Brown and Calvin Welch?

    Neither has any power if city government doesn’t enable them.

  98. Because Richmond has no nonprofit industrial complex that out-organizes residents in the richmondprogressivealliance.net.

  99. Just like nobody said thy should be run out of town? I guess you were standing on a street corner with a sign and missed the blame game.

    Plenty of people were talking about methods to stop their current business model brick by brick.

  100. Calvin Welch leverages public resource to fund astroturf commuter organizers, mercenaries that run circles around San Franciscans.

    Willie Brown is the mastermind behind the corporate booster regime that coopts Welch’s nonprofits.

    Welch runs interference for Brown under an economic stability pact where progressives stand down from electoral competitiveness so long as they get their city funded crumbs.

  101. For the first time since 1996, I did not vote against a housing bond. Due to the underlying corruption I did not vote for it either.

  102. The offending comment, in response to a bland note about high income households in North Beach, describes ‘middle-income whites’ as ‘the whiniest’. Please delete it.

  103. You may be right. Interestingly enough, the few conservatives I know supported F. I want to see the vote by district or census tract when it becomes available.

  104. I only employ sufficient resources to win a debate. Often times it doesn’t take much here.

    Still waiting for where I introduced “Chinese” into this debate. What have you got?

  105. People talk variously about the Chinese bloc and the Asian bloc even though the two terms are technically distinct. Ditto Mexicans and Hispanics.

    My point was that I do not believe that ethnicity was a big factor in F losing

  106. Again, who was the first poster on this thread to introduce race, ethnicity, culture or nationality?

    Hint: It wasn’t me.

  107. Targeting Chinese voters with flyers written in Chinese is not ‘code’ for anything racist, except maybe in your bigoted head.

  108. I know, but we all got the code, in the same way that people use “Mexican” and “Hispanic” interchangeably

  109. Lots of things are illegal, like jaywalking. What matters more is how much or little enforcement the voters want to see.

  110. Why introduce race, then? Surely anyone of even average intelligence can classify people without introducing race.

  111. Sure. In what universe is ‘[income, race] are usually the whiniest’ demographic analysis? When did ‘whiny’ become objective?

  112. D3 is what we are talking about here, so I talk about that.

    I can analyse something without caring about the outcome. can’t you?

  113. You ranted about how you don’t care about the district 3 race and now you’ve posted many times about it. Which is it?

    Everyone knows where Julie ‘stood’ in the issues. Except maybe you.

  114. I’d appreciate it if you stop acting like some retired school teacher in faded tweeds trying to lecture others sanctimoniously

    How do you like dem apples?

    Demographic analysis is valid.

  115. Great. Next time someone makes a factual comment about the concentration of high income households in buildings subject to rent control, do not answer with bigotry and hate speech.

    In fact, I’d appreciate it if you deleted the comment that starts, ‘Middle-income whites are usually the..’

  116. F failed for a few reasons, but comparing funding levels of $1.2 to $1 and $25 to $1 lands you the 2nd place award in the “Idiotic post of the day” competition. Congratulations for winning both 1st and 2nd place.

    Will you be seeking the bronze too?

  117. For the record, I think Chiu’s law should be given a chance to work. What the F vote tells me is that the voters want a soft approach to home sharing rather than strict enforcement or over-regulation

  118. F wasn’t a cure all. But it would have sent a message about people’s unhappiness with the current situation. How we fix that is a more complicated issue. I guess we’ll see if more building helps since the voters seemed to have supported it.

  119. Since we disagree that home shares are hotels, the argument is moot. All we know for sure is that the voters rejected enforcement, so home sharing is kinda like jaywalking.

  120. Sure there are correlations. But I still don’t think that race, nationality, culture or ethnicity were big factors on the airbnb issue, especially since F would have stopped tenants from sharing as well

  121. Hey man, there are always outliers and exceptions. I’m just talking about averages here, not individuals.

  122. Many hate Pesking too. But Julie wasn’t a strong candidate and it was hard to figure where she really stood.

  123. Peskin raised and spent incrementally more than Christensen not counting the IEs. Peskin also had a field operation.

    AirBnB raised and spent many times that of the Prop F supporters, had no ground campaign, and used that advantage to saturation bomb.

    Calvin Welch’s Finger of Political Death also touched Prop F.

  124. Hosts who charge guests are running a business. These businesses and almost universally fail to follow existing regulations, which Prop F’s failure leaves unchanged.

    Regulatory arbitrage is often profitable. This arbitrage happens to be illegal.

  125. Peskin has broad popular support in his district. Money certainly helps but people in North Beach really love him.

  126. That’s accurate, but there’s also just the reality that growing up under Communism seems to often translate into an embrace of right wing or pro business policies. Anecdotally I’ve just talked to plenty of Russian and Chinese immigrants who are reflexively Republican because of Reagan and his tough stand against Communism. These are the people that didn’t want to stay under that system and they really embrace the idea of free markets, which is fine with me. But it’s just a little cultural phenomenon that has an impact on voting here.

  127. I don’t think money had anything to do with Peskin’s win. Christensen had the worst campaign I’ve seen since Frank Jordan.

  128. How does ‘[economic and ethnic group] are usually [negative characterization]’ criticize bigotry?

    It is bigotry and hate speech. Please stop.

  129. The gall of the revisionists is bottomless, they prey on the historically ignorant.

    Peskin moved the Market Octavia and Eastern Neighborhoods plans through the Board of Supervisors during his last term in office.

  130. Enough of the trolling already. You’ve been kicking around here long enough not to be so naive. Conway’s IE was Christensen’s campaign.

  131. The purpose of F was to change the current situation where the alleged controls are not enforced. The voters rejected it. Why do you know better than the voters?

  132. You can argue that the more successful cultures (usually white and Asian) should be more moderate, versus say blacks and Hispanics.

    But then nationally the Dem’s do better in areas with affluent whites and Asians

    It’s just not that simple.

  133. I’ve always suspected the majority of North Beach (Telegraph Hill, especially) residents to be a lot of aging Baby Boomers still clinging to rent control.

  134. I’m poor and white and I love rent control. It’s the only reason I can still live in the city I was born in.

  135. The voters evidently are comfortable with the level of enforcement being modest. Why are you right and they are wrong?

  136. Who’s talking about race? I’m talking about culture. Not the same thing. And your assessment is correct about the Avenues being more conservative.

  137. The West side is more conservative always. That is well known. There is no need to infer racial aspects to that. ChinaTown is in D3 and they voted big for Pskin, evidently

  138. Which initiative struck down the various provisions of the law which the vast bulk of short term rentals in San Francisco violate?

  139. Middle-income whites are usually the whiniest supporters of rent control, in my experience. The poor and the non-whites, much less so.

  140. Nonetheless it’s quite evident thats why F failed. Out in the avenues they just bombarded the houses with fliers specifically targeting Chinese homeowners. Maybe you don’t want to talk about it because you’re easily offended, but the oppositions knew exactly what they were doing and how to win.

  141. North Beach, it is not surprising to learn, has by far the highest concentration in San Francisco of high income households in buildings subject to the Rent Ordinance.

  142. What is well understood is that ethnic stereotypes are not helpful. For instance, three of the progressive bloc on the BofS are Asians – Kim, Mar and Yee.

  143. I don’t see what race has to do with it. The Chinese are often quite conservative, particularly the ones who lived under Communism. Just as Russian immigrants are also very conservative. This is well understood by anyone who has lived here their whole life.

  144. Yes, it’s all the fault of the Chinese.

    Progressives’ long-standing racism against Asians exposes itself yet again. That damn model minority. Why can’t they just be victims and let white liberals save them?

  145. The rationale was they spent millions scaring Chinese homeowners who aren’t terribly politically literate that they would lose the right to rent out their in-law apartments.

  146. Peskin raised more money than Christensen, so maybe money cannot be beaten. Aaron is just thrall to a different group of Millionaires, the oh so precious NIMBYs of Telegraph Hill. Peskin will immediately try and make it harder to build more housing, just like he did in his first 8 years of office. And Progressives will scratch their heads and wonder why it keeps getting more expensive.

  147. My analysis is different. There are two words in “sharing economy” and you are ignoring one of them.

    More importantly, the voters have just rejected your theory.

  148. There seem to be at least 500, maybe 2,000.

    There are always guests in a city. Hosts who do not charge and have an existing connection to guests are sharing. The rest are running a business and almost universally breaking the law.

  149. Yes, I think tenants should build more housing. Volunteering for Habitat for Humanity would be a more productive strategy than endlessly whining, or trying to micro-manage others.

    I am not aware of any illegal hostels in SF. There are some homes that are shared, if that is what you mean.

  150. Google bought Merriam Webster? Who knew.

    Right. The solution for tenants is to build enough housing. The solution for hotel guests is hotels. Illegal hostels are a blight.

  151. While you keep googling definitions and presenting it as knowledge, some of us with real-world experience can provide more insight.

    There is a place for both long-term and short-term housing solutions.

  152. You’re in too deep, Steve. It is going to take a lot more than insular clubbiness with your loser friends to go up against power.

  153. As a society, we’re far too litigious and giving people a platform to sue one and other was the reason I voted “no” on F.

  154. There were lots of them:

    – Ballot initiatives can only be amended by other initiatives, so regulating something with them is usually a bad idea.

    – The neighbor spying thing was creepy. Nobody wants to report to the city how many nights they stayed at home or had people over. That it emboldened neighbors to sue you even if you were formally found to have done nothing wrong is broken.

    – The complete ban on renting in-law units was unnecessary.

    – Most of the things pro-F people wanted have already been adopted in the July modification to the existing ordinance.

    SPUR had a pretty even-keeled analysis of the ballot this year, and they recommended voting no on F:


  155. The first definition of hostel is inn, ‘an establishment for the lodging and entertaining of travelers.’ A dorm-style hostel is almost universally described as a ‘youth hostel’.

  156. When even Greg and Marcos state that Tim is deluded about last night being a victory for the anti-Lee forces, then we know for sure that Tim has lost his marbles.

  157. It is Tim’s utter disconnect from reality that cuts to the heart of the progressive disconnect from the voters which led to the electoral collapse last evening.

    Aaron did not run a “progressive” campaign by any measure. He did not raise the spectres of disaster and posit himself as the savior to protect the helpless populace.

    Nope, Aaron put together an ideologically diverse coalition that was united by the affirmative proposition of bringing the interests of San Franciscans, broadly writ, to bear against the fly-by-night get-rich-quick schemes of the boosters.

    Today’s San Francisco electorate does not care what the housing activists who largely commute into San Francisco having lost their own places in SF have to say about how we should move forward.

    Tim considers this a victory because Calvin Welch is poised to get another fix of heroin from Prop A. But if the St. James Infirmary is any indication, Lee is playing a game of musical chairs with the nonprofits, slowly cutting off any who are associated with politics that don’t play ball with Lee.

    There are no guarantees that CCHO will get any of that money. Remember how the nonprofits whined when the City rebuilt the Plaza Hotel at 6th and Howard instead of hiring a CCHO cartel member? I’ll bet we’ll see more of that.

    If there is to be any hope for San Francisco, we’ll need for the loser professionals to get out of the way to clear a space for one of these for San Francisco. Richmond was able to build a coalition to beat Chevron. We have no excuse.


    In order for Aaron to have a chance, there has to be a mobilized organized alliance of San Franciscans brought to bear to limit the Mayor’s options.

  158. Also how many times have affordable housing propositions failed in the last 15 years at the ballot. Many times. Prop A was Lee’s baby, and it one handily.

  159. I have never done 1-night rentals but, if I had, I imagine they would feel more like running a B&B, which I’d regard as rather different from a full-service hotel.

    It’s really its own category. It’s not like a hotel but it’s also not like a LTR where you give the tenant an empty room or flat, and let him take care of everything.

    In any event, Chiu’s regulations were enough for me to change my model away from Airbnb, so F would not have affected me even if it had passed.

  160. What distinguishes renting a room or apartment to a traveler for a day or seven from what an innkeeper usually does in his hostel?

  161. Well, I wouldn’t know because I don’t run a hotel.

    But passthru’s are only for rent-controlled units anyway, as you should know

  162. Yes, they spent thousands of dollars on Christensen in the district 3 race because they weren’t sure Lee would win.

    “Idiotic post of the day” award goes to you, Sam.

  163. A terrible night for Lee? How so? Every single referendum on the mayor via proposition failed miserably. So Napoleon got back on the board – its a token gesture; He’s also now acutely aware of just how many people dislike him. The minute he pulls any of his usual antics, the press (the real press) will be all over it. Smear campaign or not, the “word on the street” eventually got to Mirkarimi. By all non personal home blogger standards, Lee had an extraordinary night.

  164. Welcome back, Aaron. If any of you remember his early political career in the 90’s/00’s, he used to give Mayor Willie Brown hell. Hopefully he still has that fighting spirit and will give Mayor Lee even more hell and blow the roof off City Hall. I believe in him.

  165. No one blamed them for the housing crisis. They were blamed fro *contributing* to it. Put away your straw man dolls.

  166. Where did I mention anything about people outside District 3 “not caring”? Your spin is almost as bizarre as Tim’s.

  167. I admit that I voted for Mirk, but only as a hail Mary attempt for a win in order to see exploding heads today.

    I really don’t like the man and I’m fine with his loss.

  168. Lee only needed 51% and since he knew he would get that, he made no effort and did not campaign. Compare his vote with the second placer and you will see it’s another landslide for him.

    You’re having orgasms over Peskin because, as I predicted yesterday, it would be the only think you would win. He won’t self-destruct like the DV perp did, but rather will get into the same issues he had last time, getting pissy all the time.

    Not my supe so I shouldn’t care, and he will provide entertainment value. But this is not the socialist victory that you so crave

  169. ..and there are perfectly valid positions against F and I from well left of center, and Mirkarimi was at best a hold-your-nose choice.

  170. Yeah, it was only district 3, so nobody outside the district should care. Except for these people and institutions who lost last night:

    SF Chamber of Commerce CEO Bob Linscheid
    Manager, Public Policy, Community, and Government Affairs at Google and one-time wannabe Supe Rebecca Prozan
    Former Zynga CEO Don Mattrick
    Ed Lee BFF and tech investor Ron Conway
    Four of Conway’s family members, who apparently also got the Christensen spirit(?)
    Yahoo CEO/’Remixer” Marissa Mayer
    Silicon Valley VC Peter Fenton
    Napster co-founder, Facebook guy, and ostentatious Redwood wedding holder Sean Parker
    Twitter, Medium, and oh ha ha remember Jelly co-founder Biz Stone

  171. The left never loses. Either they win and it’s the popular will of the people. Or they lose and it was only because of money, fraud or bad luck.

  172. The fact that everyone should obey rules says nothing about which rules are good and which are bad. And moreover there is a reasonable argument that bad laws should be opposed.

    Anyway, the voters have voted for individual freedom over micro-management, and there is little evidence that would change over time.

    We already have a whole bunch of rules. The voters want to give them a chance to work.

  173. I didn’t know that progressives were supporting “C”. Everyone I know was against it, and most of them are progressives.

  174. No, troll, we don’t agree. Peskin won’t self-destruct. He had 8 years on the BOS, and he’s probably headed for another 9. And Mirk didn’t “bitch-slap” his wife.

    Lee *did* get have his way with Olague when she went against his directive, but he lost badly in D3, and that *is* a big deal. If it wasn’t, his boss Conway wouldn’t have invested so much of his money, let alone threatened everyone else not to support Peskin.

    And getting 56% when you have no opposition *is* terrible. It shows how unpopular Ed Lee really is. But progressives need to learn how to play for keeps, and that’s a serious failing on our part.

  175. dude, Tim is trying to polish a turd (and as we all know, that doesn’t work very well). Not only did Lee win 57% of the vote without lifting a finger, I think that every proposition went the way Lee wanted it to, plus Mirk is gone. Peskin winning was the only down spot in Lee’s night, and seriously, he still has the veto power, so how much are things going to change in a 6-5 board?

    If “Progressives” were being honest with themselves, they’d see that losing Prop’s C, F, I, and Mirk and Temprano going down as the “terrible night.” But, you know, reality can be a bitch.

    Overall, I think last night’s results were a win for the City. time will tell

  176. “The D3 result is also a sign that the city is sick of having tech lords like Ron Conway call the shots.”

    – The D3 election was limited to only residents of North Beach and Chinatown, no? How is this a representation of what the entire city feels?

  177. A “terrible night for Ed Lee.” Wow. Talk about spin fueled by blinding denial. The facts are simple: a majority disagreed with you and outvoted your favored agenda. Percentages don’t even matter here; you lost.

  178. Nobody believes that if AirBnB went away we’d be “awash with available affordable homes.”

    But most of us believe that everyone needs to obey by rules and regulations. And given that prop F supporters were outspent 25 to 1, I think there is an excellent chance of something similar passing next year.

  179. Ed Lee just won 4 more years as Mayor of the 8th largest City in the U.S. How is that a bad night for him? #UnclearOnTheConcept

  180. Actually, it was the progressive bubble around 2000 that was the anomaly. Before then the BofS was fairly moderate and it has been again in the last few years

    More generally, progressivism is waning because of demographic changes and a vibrant local economy.

  181. Letting the Supes work this out makes far more sense than a proposition. The supes can negotiate and compromise, and come up with something where nobody gets all they want.

    But a prop like F passing would have meant 51% get everything they want and 49% get nothing they want. That is a worse outcome no matter which side you are on.

    The best laws leaves everyone a little unhappy

  182. Yes, I struggle to believe that anyone really thinks that if Airbnb went away, that SF would be awash with available affordable homes. In my case, if I can’t do short-term lets, then I rent to a tech or finance achiever for 6K a month. A real hardship.

    The voters agree. As for the money spent, that was simply educating the voters.

  183. Greg, for once we agree. For Tim to spin the results as a loss for Lee is bizarre.

    Lee got re-elected, Mirk is toast, F and I failed, and A won.

    D3 is the ONLY election result where Lee didn’t get his way, and that happened with Olague as well – appointees are always vulnerable first time around

    Tim is in denial.

    It wasn’t “playing it safe” that did for Mirk, but bitch slapping his wife

  184. Lee “did badly”(?!?) He enters his last possible term without having to face a runoff of any kind. Many propositions on the ballot too progressive for him to support and he still gets a term he (initially) didn’t even desire. boy, that’s horrible. And what’s really incredible is that not one of ten opponents received double-figure percentages & as a group averaged less than 5% each. Not one could put together a platform or measure in the digital age or with a weekly free major newspaper column to even build a tempting coalition candidate for the voters. The big, bad “observer” at the Peskin event thinks this is “serious” because that thought is what gets Peskin supporters, er, observers thru nights like this one. Spin. The fact is, the political winds go thru cycles that affect all pols , and Lee did okay considering all the pro-liberal & anti-Edwin press out there for the last couple months. His war chest would have dwarfed this amount if there had been any credible Mayoral competition & he would have STILL come out reelected. I could tell this article was a sell job & not serious reporting before I even finished reading the 2nd paragraph, it was so blatant. No pollster required to see that a significant block of readers didn’t vote to swallow this.

  185. you don’t win elections with good intentions and pc thoughts you win them with real work that is not glamorous or always fun, but it is work. Yes Dear Leader Lee didn’t get his 80% of the expected vote, but so what? he still got a cakewalk re-elect just like Newsom did in 2007, and again, despite a lot of Serious Things Happening in SF. Conceding this race to a pack of nobodies was a big failure, again like 2007.

  186. Isn’t Aaron part of that old guard though?

    Anyway, I think the lesson might be that being strong and effective as a progressive doesn’t equate positive results alone. The last decade
    was a conscious move away from out of control politics that more like ideological pissing contests and less about solving problems.

  187. “Forget it Jake, this is Chinatown”.
    Congrats Aaron, you’re one bright spot. Congrats to 1-2-3 for having the cojones to stand up land a wicked left in Lee’s soft, flabby underbelly. There used to be a strong effective ‘progressive’ movement in this town, it’s been withering on the vine for the last decade. The fact that “48Hills and SFBG” were essentially MIA in this election attests to that. Time for new, fresh, cool/angry blood and for the ‘old guard’ to hit their rockers and scribble their memoirs. So go for it young’uns, it’s your brave new world, keep on truckin’. Sorry for the fucking mess we left you.

  188. Yes, Tim, D3 was a very bright spot, and an important win. But to paint such a rosy picture is to ignore some serious failings in the progressive movement.

    Yes, Ed Lee was weak, yes he was vulnerable. 56% against a bunch of people no one ever heard of is pretty lousy. So why didn’t any serious progressive run? A bunch of careerists afraid to stick their necks out, that’s why.

    This was Ross’s biggest mistake. He could have run against Mayor scumbag in 2007. Even if he’d lost, he’d be the front-runner in 2011. We’d never have Ed Lee in the first place. We’d never have the vile Gascon. It would be a different city today. Instead, he played it safe, and look where it got him.

    Peskin did win, and strongly as I predicted. He didn’t just have the best field campaign; he had the only field campaign. And no, Julie, hiring unemployed guys and paying them $15/hour under the table doesn’t count. Money can kill a proposition, but it’s a different dynamic in a candidate race. If the candidate is a known quantity, and the district is manageable with a ground campaign, money can be beaten. At some point I think it even backfired. So that’s a bright spot. But progressives have serious work to do if they want to win real power.

  189. Lee was exactly as popular as the two most controversial props (I and F) were as unpopular (He had 56% of the vote and they both failed by the same no). I need to look more closely at the votes but it seems like he was weighed down by his association with those Props. It would be hard to vote for Ed Lee and for those items

    Christensen, on the other hand, was less popular than than those two Props. She lost D3 despite the fact that Prop I and (verrry narrowly) Prop F failed with those same voters. Her policy positions prevailed in her D, but she didn’t. This suggests to me that if Christensen spent more time on policy, and associating herself as a vehicle for these policies, she could have won. In hindsight, it looks like attacking Peskin’s personality was a loser strategy.

  190. She was an awful politician, but you never would have known from all you SFBarfers:

    Nothing we do will have any point if Christensen loses this race. As it is now, Julie is the tie breaking vote between Wiener, Farrel, Cohen, Breed, Tang on the one hand and Avalos, Campos, Yee, Mar and Kim on the other. If Peskin wins, the conservatives [sic] will have a majority on the board (for a year at least).

    Wow, you feel scared now! Don’t worry – you can come phone bank. They’ll tell us what to say.


  191. More like blaming AirBnb for the housing crises and other wild accusations turned out to be a mistake.

    A better bill would have passed, you are right.

  192. There were many dollars spent on a campaign of lies and distortions just like the $9 million against the soda tax last year.

    And in both cases, if the measures had been written better they might have won despite the money (particularly if the soda tax had been more like the Berkeley measure and only required a majority).

  193. Yeah, there will be some movement around the edges. But if tonight is a dramatic shift in power, it’s a shift from the mayor’s agenda to nobody’s.

    Also Christensen just doesn’t seem to be a very good politician …

  194. At the very least, the 120 day cap Lee said he supported and Christensen blocked (one of many major fuckups) will get through. Probably more because Peskin can negotiate.

    And Tim is right, Lee fucked up by caving to pressure and appointing Christensen. And his focus was getting her elected. He made most every public event about supporting her. And his backers spent about a million dollars, some supporting her, but most attacking Peskin. He has been weakened.

    Even the Chron in supporting No on F wrote:

    Some opponents of Prop. F like to say the city should just sit back and give the current law time to work. We disagree. The Board of Supervisors should revisit some of the gaps in the ordinance it passed, starting with a requirement of landlord permission and outlawing short-term rental of in-law units that were approved for the expressed purpose of meeting a permanent housing crisis.

    Airbnb, VRBO and the other major platforms can do their part by assuring that its hosts play by the rules.

    Prop. F is a response to a weak law, but it is not the answer.

  195. But no major contender did challenge Lee. Unbelievable how you can spin an awful result (except for Peskin) for your side. Notice you don’t even mention the trouncing your buddy Ross Mirkarimi got. And how will any AIRbnb regulation pass the muster of a veto by Lee. This denial of reality is the reason progressives are continuing to lose elections.

  196. I don’t quite get what rational argument anyone could have against F who isn’t an AirBnB shareholder, employee, or profiteer. Are there that many of them?

  197. More likely outcome IMO is that we see mostly stalemate on these issues until after 2016. Lee can still veto action the supervisors take after all.

  198. even then, Prop F got 45% and Prop I got 43% despite a historically low 30% turnout for a mayoral election. turnout next June will likely be very low too but the november presidential could hit 60%. this was just round 1 of a three round match, and the community only needs to win one round to win it all. get ready for 2016.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

Giants food-service workers take job action, demanding safety

More than 200 briefly walk off the job and demand meeting with management; Giants brass ducks as strike looms.

50 years ago, San Bruno Mountain was almost cut in half

Remembering a successful community campaign to save the local environment—as climate challenges loom.

Why no COVID vaccine requirements for Giants fans?

Concession staffers have to get the shot—but people cheering and shouting in a packed stadium can threaten the workers and themselves.

More by this author

New rules on search warrants moving forward with little public input

The public defender wasn't consulted. The DA hasn't been inolvolved. But the Police Commission wants a major policy change—now.

Why have DBI, Planning, and the cops gotten away with so much for so long?

Plus: $70 million for parking meters when the mayor says we can't afford to keep SIP hotels open to save lives. That's The Agenda for Sept. 13-19

COVID and wildfires are a double threat at state prisons

New outbreaks, and constant fire threats, have been largely ignored by the major news media.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED