Saturday, October 31, 2020
Uncategorized The Agenda, Nov. 2 to Nov. 8: Can tech...

The Agenda, Nov. 2 to Nov. 8: Can tech and real-estate money buy the election?

-

Plus: Danny Glover stops by the Mission to promote Mirkarimi, Yes on I

Ross Mirkarimi, Roberto Hernandez, and Danny Glover rally in the Mission
Ross Mirkarimi, Roberto Hernandez, and Danny Glover rally in the Mission. Photos by Michael Redmond

By Tim Redmond

NOVEMBER 2, 2015 – Tomorrow, we will see whether big tech money can dominate and control a San Francisco election.

The mind-boggling influx of cash from Airbnb, which will almost certainly set the record for the most spending by one corporation on a single issue in San Francisco history, is seeking to swamp Prop. F, which seeks to make the short-term rental platform limit its listings to legally registered units.

In fact, when all the money is counted, Airbnb will probably spend almost as much money on this election as it brags it spends on local taxes every year.

Why? Because the company is worried sick about the prospect that real regulation could pass in San Francisco and spread to other cities. As we’ve said in the past, the Airbnb business plan, as it currently exists, doesn’t work unless a large number of hosts routinely violate local laws.

At a certain point, it has to be overkill – I got five mailers from Airbnb in the past few days, and I’m not sure how many people will respond to that kind of blast. But it’s really, really, hard to beat an $8 million campaign.

The fact that Airbnb is still sending out mailers at this point, and paying for TV ads, suggests one of two things:

The company sees the election as still competitive. TV is a really expensive way to send a message in San Francisco (you pay to show an ad to a lot of people who aren’t local voters) but apparently money isn’t a problem.

Or Airbnb wants to crush Prop. F so badly that it will send a message that San Franciscans don’t want further regulations on short-term rentals.

But I’m not sure that’s the message we will see. The Airbnb campaign focused entirely on two elements of Prop. F that were, and are, the least important parts of the measure: The limit on renting in-law units and the private right of action that could, in theory, have “neighbors suing neighbors.”

The real issue here is enforcement, and that’s what Airbnb hates. Prop. F would ban the company, and any others like it, from listing places that don’t have a legal registration number. That would instantly eliminate all of the thousands of illegal units – and cost Airbnb a huge amount of money. And if SF did that, other cities would follow.

Airbnb would still have a role, and a business plan, as a facilitator for occasional short-term rentals of owner-occupied or tenant-occupied units. But its stock valuation would drop overwhelmingly, instantly.

That’s what all the money’s about. And if Prop. F goes down, and Aaron Peskin wins, it’s a fair chance that the crux of the law – the mandate of legal registration – will be back before the Board of Supervisors next year.

 

Glover gets in Hernandez's car for a low ride
Glover gets in Hernandez’s car for a low ride

Danny Glover, who needs no introduction around here, stopped by 24h and Mission Sunday to go for a cruise in a low-rider parade – and to make a strong pitch for Yes on I and Mirkarimi for Sheriff.

Glover’s a San Franciscan, who still lives in the Western Addition, who worked in the Mission in the 1970s, and who remains active in the community. I’d never met him before, although I knew he was friends with Mirkarimi, so I ran down there for the 3pm rally (that didn’t really start until about 3:30).

Glover told me that he was there because Mirkarimi “is the most progressive sheriff in the country.” He said he works in the county jail with friends who are trying to promote restorative justice, “and who do I see in there? The sheriff himself, helping with the circles. He understands.”

Prop. I, Glover told me, “is a no-brainer. I remember this neighborhood when it was a sanctuary for people from the wars in Central America, a vibrant neighborhood. Now I’m distressed — those of us who were born here can’t afford to live here.”

Sup. David Campos promotes Yes on I
Sup. David Campos promotes Yes on I

Campos told the crowd that the Mission community tried repeatedly to get City Hall to listen, and to slow the development that causes displacement in the neighborhood. “But City Hall has been taken over by real-estate interests, and the only way forward is to have the voters send a clear message that the city is not for sale.”

 

The money against Prop. I is also boggling, for a measure that would impact only one neighborhood. The developers are hoping again for a crushing defeat that would slow down any effort to slow down development-driven displacement.

The Battle for the Mission, though, is not going away, and if I fails, then every single project will be fought at City Hall and in the streets.

And then there’s D3, where the big tech and real-estate money is pouring in to stop Peskin.

 

The election is still anyone’s to win: Even in D3, where there’s been massive voter communication and GOTV efforts, only 30 percent of the people who received an absentee ballot have voted (as of Oct. 27). Citywide, it’s about 23 percent (with the Republicans ahead at 28 percent).

The campaigns that can get their voters to the polls by Tuesday night will win. It’s that simple.

We will be watching the results, and coming to you live on Election Night with early updates and analysis.

 

And while everyone is watching the election, there’s a critical vote Tuesday/3 at the Board of Supervisors on a new way of calculating the impacts that office and housing developments have on transit.

We have been following this for months. In essence, the legislation is a billion-dollar handout to developers, a law that allows them to pay only a fraction of the costs of the impacts they create. It will lead to more crowded buses, worse Muni service all around, and high profits for the real-estate industry.

The Planning Commission ducked the real question. The mayor defends his position.

I wonder if anyone at the board will ask why we’re charging developers about 20 percent of what we know they cost the city – and whether we ought to keep building if it keeps costing us more money.

 

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.

99 COMMENTS

  1. What’s wrong with that phrase? It is bland and accurate.

    The Yelamu were the Ohlone tribe in San Francisco. They arrived roughly 5,000 years ago.

  2. When the Chron goes out and has an article on election day saying that not all Chinatown is fond of Ed Lee… I am smelling this too. In the past, supervisors have been surprisingly resilient to money bombs from mayor supporters, that is since district elections.
    Hennessey is the previous sheriff. Hennessy is the one running now.

  3. Is the “correct date” SF was “baptized” San Francisco, by the Latinos/Anglos that ruled back then. Before that it was called Yerba Buena, founded by Spaniards in 1776. I don’t know what the tribes before the European occupation called the SF Peninsula, there was no SF then! An before that the dinosaurs where in charge so maybe we should bring them back! Again, I was complaining about the phrase: “more Latinos in SF than ever”.

  4. ??? I don’t know what are you talking about? YOU are the one asking the very stupid question: “what the correct number of Latinos is?” I made fun of you answering “42”. Now you are talking about “reverting to an ethnic mix”? YOU are the one talking about “quota for a given race”, so why do you keep asking me about it??? I’m just talking about SF history. SF, love it or LEAVE IT!

  5. We will never know who would have won without the money.

    But so what anyway? People use the resources they have to get the outcome they prefer, whether that be money, time, effort, intimidation, protests, strikes etc

  6. So cities should revert to the ethnic mix they had 1,000 years ago?

    By that argument almost everyone currently in the US should leave

    What is really racist is claiming that there is a correct quota for a given race just because you personally prefer that race.

  7. Why is 1847 the correct date? What about 1747, when the population of what is now San Francisco was 0% latino? The Portolà expedition didn’t show up until twenty years later.

    ‘The Mission for the Miwoks!’

    ‘Calle veinticuatro Ohlones!’

    ‘La Lengua para los indios!’

    Yeah, this really works, man. Thanks for a great idea.

  8. When one side can bombard people’s mail boxes and air as many tv ads as there is inventory for & the ads lie, an election can be bought. It happened last year with the soda tax which probably would have won if the soda companies hadn’t spent over $9 million against it. And it is happening this year with Airbnb which looks like it will also spend over $9 million.

  9. You’re wrong. The Prop 8 campaign knew they were losing, but they could win with enough money:

    We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.

    The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  10. The uniform is standard San Francisco Sheriff’s department. What is it that makes a person in a sheriff’s uniform look like a third world dictator to you? Is it the fact that a person of color is wearing it?

  11. I’m going to go out on a limb and say Peskin landslide. Everybody says it will be close. Christensen’s camp even claims to be ahead. Making a prediction against the polls can be foolish, but there, I said it. Peskin has the only field campaign there is, and I have a suspicion that the spending is just so over-the-top that it’ll turn people off. Maybe I’m totally wrong, but if I’m right… well you heard it here first.

    F and I, I’m pessimistic about. It’s easier to kill a proposition if you have the money. And Mirk, unfortunately, looks like he’ll lose. Damn shame, because he’s done a lot to build on Hennessy’s legacy and create a truly visionary sheriff’s department.

  12. The correct number of Latinos is “42”, 41 is too few and 43 is a crowd! ROTFL Sorry, I’m sort of a language engineer and since this region was originally Native American->Spaniard->Mexican->US America, the phrase “more Latinos than ever in SF” is really funny (or racist!?).

  13. So… In 1847, when this City was named “San Francisco”, instead of “Yerba Buena”. Do you think the Latino population was 15%, more than 15% or less than 15%? Do you think the large Anglo population named it in Spanish because of their love for burritos? ROTFL An yes, there are more Latinos in Cali than in recent decades. Villaraigosa was the first Latino Mayor of LA in 130 years!

  14. Millionaire businessmen can be accused of many things, but fools they are not. They don’t part with their money easily, so if buying elections didn’t work, rich people wouldn’t do it.

  15. I’d sure like to know what these more efficient means are. The BOS and the mayor have had plenty of time to fix the STR law and it’s still full of holes. Let’s face it: the STR law won’t be fixed until Airbnb wants it to be and they’ll spend any amount of money to stop initiative efforts. At some point you’ve got to hope they begin to hit diminishing returns.

  16. Yikes. What’s the story? Targeted for supporting another candidate, or proof that a small donation and a sign don’t go very far these days?

  17. Sometimes money can buy elections, sometimes it can’t. It depends on many other factors.The amount of money spent in an attempt to defeat President Obama in 2012 was staggering – billions went into advertising and smear campaigns designed to brainwash the public, and it was all poured down the drain.

  18. Bias is the only explanation for supporting F unless the data and statistics that were asked for can be provided.

    Saying “I don’t know” is a legitimate response.

  19. ‘Land use regulation attempts to balance the needs of residents in a way that works best for all.’

    Still waiting to hear about the position of bias and blind hatred that informed zoning decisions going back decades.

  20. It’s not hatred of tech, it’s love of community.

    you’ve gotta be ignorant to think what you espouse.

  21. You were invited to explain the rationale behind regulating such endeavors, rather than merely parrot that the city is entitled to do that.

    And to explain how you measure the alleged harm done by their absence, and the numbers you derived.

  22. What points? We’re still wondering what bias and blind hatred drove zoning decisions that date back a half century and more.

  23. Or maybe it will be like the public power debate, where its proponents kept putting it on the ballot and the voters kept rejecting it.

    In fact, the more it re-appeared, the more voters resented it and rejected it. And in the end, its supporters gave up on trying to bully the voters into supporting what they disagreed with.

  24. What was the motivation behind seeking to restrict who residents can share their home with?

    In any event, that previous prohibition was not enforced and everyone knew that, so it was moot.

    Again, I am waiting to show how harm is done here, given that these would never be affordable homes anyway?

  25. Short-term rentals of residential property were forbidden under the status quo ante without a conditional use permit. Where are the bias and blind hatred that underlie that longstanding policy?

  26. Home sharing is as different from a hotel as it is from having your mom stop over. It’s really neither. A better analogy would be is that it is being a landlord where your tenants never stay very long.

    Whether it needs to be regulated as if it was something it is not is surely the issue here.

  27. Land use regulation attempts to balance the needs of residents in a way that works best for all. Traditionally, residential neighborhoods exclude hotels. ‘Sharing’ is when your mom sleeps in your guest room for a few days.

  28. The Mission is not the most desireable neighborhood in SF. It really is not. Can Wealthy Labor Unions and Tenant Eviction Attorney Lobby’s buy San Francisco?????? Obviously if they poured 150K more in donations to Aaron Peskin than Julie Christensen!

  29. Impossible to argue with that. It’s the reality.
    The Mission is the most desirable neighborhood in the city.

    The real history is that working class Irish, Italians, and much forgotten Jews, joined Chicanos, but most of them left without fanfare.
    Then there was a 25 year period that cultivated the identity people think of as The Mission, during which time the area was less desirable, and even then it drew a crowd who fancied themselves as bohemian. By the late 80’s, the commercial streets were beginning to gear themselves towards what we’d now call “gentrification”, but by 1993, that was the clear direction the neighborhood was going.
    Today, we talk about chunks of 4 or 5 areas as if they’re The Mission and mourn a neighborhood that never really existed.

  30. The problem is that people criticize the funding of campaigns only when it is the other side that is doing it. Left-leaning pro-F activists stay strangely silent when SEIU throws money at candidates and propositions.

    Again, people use what they can at election time. If you have money, you use it. If you run a non-profit “news” site like 48Hills, you use that as a mouthpiece. If you can put feet on the ground and knocking on doors, you use that.

    Isn’t that all simply part of the democratic process – using whatever resources you have to try and get the result you want? One could reasonably argue that all campaigning is non-democratic interference with elections.

  31. So they’re going to spend another $750k on advancing yet another ballot measure? Will they think more about the consequences next time? Surely there’s a more efficient means of pursuing policy goals than this.

  32. Those who oppose the sharing economy appear to do from a position of bias and blind hatred. Once they decide that home sharing is evil their mind is set, even though I have not heard any real rationale for the opposition.

  33. I have in the past. Tim’s walking a very fine line by running endorsements on SFBG and linking to them from here, and this website has a very clear bias of criticizing some politicians, which only seems to ramp up as we approach election day.

  34. You are advocating the displacement of thousands of San Francisco homeowners who are able to live in the City only by making extra money by occasionally sharing their guest rooms.

  35. Jorge, can you explain what the correct number of Latinos is?

    How would we know if there are too many or too few? Does such a concept even make any sense?

  36. But F is more like making car dealerships responsible for car makers following the law.

    The effect of F passing could be to drive the platforms to other jurisdictions where SF cannot tax or fine them. Old school “command and control” regulations do not fit so well with internet businesses, which can be located anywhere.

  37. I do not hope F will win I just think it will. My main point is, the far left need to rethink their message and look for allies in the Tech industry, and not go blaming others if their message does not resonate with voters

  38. The real problem with F supporters is that this smacks of a dislike of those who make money.

    Nothing about F will create one affordable home, and even if short-term lets could be banned (which I doubt) then owners will still either not rent out controlled units or will charge sky high rents to compensate for the risk.

  39. But how? For instance this proposition will not stop, say, advertizing a short-term let in CraigsList.

    At best all such a vendetta will achieve is to drive temporary lets off the major platforms and back onto CL, newspapers, foreign agencies and so on.

  40. Prop 8 passed because, at the time, a majority were not comfortable with gay marriage. That has changed since, which is a big part of why 8 no longer applies

    You could make much the same argument about civil rights in the 1960’s. A majority opposed it so it was a struggle to pass it, but eventually people came around.

    I don’t think money had much to do with either. It was a deeply emotional conviction for both sides

  41. 48 Hills is a non-profit and it is certainly campaigning in all but name. Why are you not criticizing 48 Hills for the exact same crime?

  42. What a bunch of tools. No politicking is going to stop the changes in the Mission. People want to live there and no proposition or grandstanding is going to change the economic tidal wave sweeping the neighborhood.

  43. While we’re seeing record spending, and more outside influences than normal – the key word is more, it’s not new.

    Your team does it. There team does it. Whether there’s 50k or 3m being tossed around makes little difference in the big world of ethics. Sure, in the old days you could win an election on 200 votes (literally) and influence it with $500 (literally)…now it’s going to be 200 votes, and 5-500k minimum.

    Don’t be fooled and pretend those supporting your favorite candidates or causes didn’t play the very same game. I’ve been at Sunday Streets events where stoned kids have tried to force professionally designed voter pamphlets on me, which were made to look like handmade zines, meant to take into the voter booth and vote Green. “So you know who to vote for!”. Screw that. Same with anyone else trying to tell me how to vote.

  44. Automobile safety has been regulated heavily and very effectively these last few decades. Good regulation works.

    The problem with Prop F isn’t platform regulation, but poorly conceived regulation made permanent by initiative.

  45. This is a tremendous amount of money spent on an off-year election. For the political class, prop. F was like the federal stimulus package during Obama’s first term. I saw mailers from groups that were invented to send out mailers, most of them, of course, opposing prop. F.

    A close look at this spending, and who made the real money in this election would be instructive.

  46. “Of fucking course money buys elections.”

    It does – just not in the way you’re claiming. Multiple studies have concluded that candidates, or measures, can’t be won without some threshold of money – but further money after that point has significantly diminishing returns. (Here’s one: http://www.pitt.edu/~cwb7/assets/papers/JOP%2011%20article.pdf ) Winning an election requires money, but money won’t win it for you alone.

    The No on F campaign has been absurdly well-funded, but Yes on F has still had about $750k to its name – waaay better than any other measure by a long shot, and plenty to send a message pretty far in a city this small. You can’t just blame it on being outspent.

  47. Yeah, so you are basically saying lets make hosts responsible.
    As it is now.
    What’s the point of making the platforms responsible?
    Do you make a car manufacturer responsible for someone speeding in their cars? Stupid idea, but very popular.

  48. By aggressively pursuing those who post their rentals on other sites with $1,000 per day fines, we can effectively kill business on other sites.

  49. If you thinks politics is won simply on the merits of the arguments, and has nothing to do with money (especially in SF at the time of Web/Gold Rush 2.0), you are unbelievably naive. Shit, if you are “informed” I’d hate to see what an uninformed voter looks like.

  50. I’m not naive. I am well aware of the spending and the amounts. The air is positively saturated with ads and none of the noise has done a thing to change my mind or even bolster my existing opinion.

  51. Making the platforms responsible may sounds nice but in no way is implementable.
    It only has Airbnb in mind, its business model and the fact that it’s SF based and is willing to engage in dialogue. No other business/platform will be affected by such provision.

  52. How are you so naive, yet you started your original comment by saying how informed you are? Of fucking course money buys elections. What is the point of a “campaign war chest” if not to sway votes? Money in elections buys image, airtime, repetition, and the support of people whom other people trust.

    Just because you personally ostensibly read all the texts of all the propositions, as well as researched all the current and past voting history of the prospective candidates doesn’t mean everyone else does. Especially in this glorious age of 140 characters, swipe right, hyper gentrification, and the acceleration and consumption of every last bit of information, all it takes is one well-crafted, well-paid-for (Chris Lehane) image and you’ve swayed someone’s mind. Do you think the average millennial will read even 5% of what they’re voting on (if they even vote at all)? They will read it with the “F format,” an internet-age phenomenon in which a person reads the first couple lines, then a little less of the next few, then scans all the way to the end, closes the app, goes back to Instagram, and completely forgets what they were reading about or that they were even reading anything in the first place.

    PS, AirBnb put in +$8mil, Yes on F put up $300k. AirBnb is one company. Yes on F is a coalition (including hotels and unions). So if Airbnb wins it is buying an election, and if Yes on F wins it is the will of the people DESPITE the corruption of money in politics.

  53. People know that this sort of thing always goes down in Chinatown.

    Even if there was no fraud, 501c3 non-profits aren’t even supposed to engage in campaigning for candidates. However, you can bet that each and every CCDC will be all hands on deck for Peskin on election day.

  54. I do think it is different this time. There have been 3 webapps being pushed and Conway is an investor in all of them. One is Crowdpac, which keeps recommending that I vote for Wilma Pang and not Peskin. This app was posted to North Beach Nextdoor by someone who was an aide to Mitt Romney and John McCain. Crowdpac lists SV Angel (Conway) as one of its investors. Many partners and others at SV Angel have donated to Christensen. I guess conflict of interest (or even the appearance of it) is something that was “shared away” by the oligarchs of the sharing economy industrial complex.

    I can’t remember what the other two apps I saw are called. One was a simple poll app and the other – to me – looked like gambling – you could buy shares with a value based on odds. Both of these other apps can be linked to Conway as well.

    This is just one example of how money influences an election.

  55. Prop F cannot be changed at the Board. The city charter reads:

    No initiative or declaration of policy approved by the voters shall be subject to veto, or to amendment or repeal except by the voters, unless such initiative or declaration of policy shall otherwise provide.

  56. Danny Glover doesn’t live in the Western Addition.

    He lives a block from the Safeway off Market. While Hayes Valley is technically “Western Addition” (west of Van Ness), its not quite the same as McAllister & Buchanan or Turk & Pierce.

    But then again, Haight & Fillmore or Geary & Fillmore isn’t Haight & Fillmore or Geary & Fillmore any more, eh?

  57. I will agree with you that the No on Prop F campaign is pretty over the top and almost completely unnecessary, for the exact reasons I stated above: I think most SF voters are aware and those that are aware have their opinions. I also agree that Airbnb’s approach to their business is not awesome but I don’t conflate that with their right to do business.

  58. “Buying” an election? Sounds like whats going on in D3, with Rose Pak and the CCDC; recruiting unmarked ballots from non-english speaking tenants.

    Personally, I am revolted with the ad splurge against Prop F – and I’m against it. I also don’t like how ABnB is doing business, though I think its a valid model. Tim is right that they’ve ramped this up, using illegal and semi-legal means all in an effort to boost their stock IPO price.

    A piece of cake is delightful; eating the whole cake only causes problems.

  59. The good part of F is making platforms liable (currently only the ‘shares’ are). Also, imo, eliminating multiple listings. And people should be registered before listing, and that data (in general) c/should be shared by the platforms.

    The ‘bounty-hunter aspect is ominous. And criminal penalties should be extended to the platforms. Also, the record-keeping should be simplified so that where you spend the night should not be necessary info. And in-laws should be able to be listed; they are the epitome of face-to-face ‘sharing’, and a real “neighborhood experience”.

    This can be changed at the board. Less acceptably with a Christiansen board, and unknown with a Peskin board; but possible. Don’t put this whole thing in amber.

  60. Money does buy elections – do you really think that Prop 8 Passed because “the people spoke” or that more people came to the polls and voted for Prop 8 because of the incredible money that came from out of state religious organizations that used commercials to focus on Prop 8 being about teaching your kids about being gay then about the issue of being denied marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4

    About how this worked:
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8

  61. Yeah, I actively disagree with it but part of living in a city and sharing it with other people is that you don’t always get your way. That trade-off works for me, despite my “no” votes on both props I and F 🙂

  62. Just like: “adding supply doesn’t lower prices in SF!” and “AirBnB is taking units out of the market!”

  63. I’m guessing that if it is a repeat, some of the ‘bounty hunter’ stuff will be removed.

    And voters can vote to change it, so it can be changed.

  64. OMG, i hope you won’t. Prop F is terrible, though it has some good pts. It will make a whole new class of bounty hunters, and teams that will hit up legit ‘sharers’ for a “settlement” to forget about filing suit. There is currently a “private action’ built into the legis; what the current legis doesn’t allow is personal profit which is what F proposes. And the problem is that – being voter approved – it can’t be changed!

  65. Cool. And if it passes, either now or at some future date, I will shrug and say, “well, I guess the people made their choice.” My point is, folks like Redmond will not.

  66. Don’t worry. If F fails, it will be on the ballot again in 2016. We voted multiple times on a ballpark and we can do that with other issues as well.

  67. To me, the best part of the “you can’t beat money in politics” accusations is that they lack any kind of logic or detail. How exactly was the election “bought”? Did Ron Conway and his minions hand out hundred dollar bills at the polling stations? Did Ed Lee replace all the legitimate ballots with pre-marked ones in exchange for a giant check? And assuming this is true and props I and F pass, how exactly did the “voice of the people” beat it, then? Did the “righteous” voters karate-kick Conway repeatedly when offered a Benjamin? Did someone find Ed Lee’s check and tear it up before he could cash it?

    “Buying” an election looks like a pretty unassailable plan to me, so if what they say is true, what accounts for the vigorous leafleting and even showing up at the polling stations at all?

  68. Exactly. When 8 Washington went down it was because of “the will of the people”. If Props F & I go down, it will be all about “you can’t beat money in politics” or some such.

  69. I have to say, I am baffled by this notion of “buying elections,” as if to suggest the majority of us are too uninformed to understand the ballot without the benefit of a multi-million dollar campaign. If props I and F pass (which I doubt they will, but anything is possible), you can bet that the so-called progressives will crow that the “people have spoken” or some such shit, while, if things don’t go their way, they will scream “corruption.” Either the system works or it doesn’t. It’s very convenient to change your cause-and-effect relationships after the votes are in. It’s as lame as calling anyone who disagrees with you a paid shill. Is it so completely insane that reasonable people disagree with you?

    If those championing prop I and F were truly politically-minded, they’d accept the vote of “the people” no matter which way it swung.

  70. Nice. When confronted with hard facts in the form of data, Jorge Castillo’s response is “Vote 1-2-3 FUK Ed Lee.” Meets expectations, at least.

  71. Prop F’s private right of action with an attorney fee provision is the opposite of what works. People behave when they see high chances of quick, small penalties, like red-light cameras. People do not respond to massive, unlikely ones, like the death penalty.

    Probably the best result for proponents of effective regulation is a narrow loss for F, spurring Board action. Leaving aside the plaintiffs bar, a win would be pyrrhic.

  72. TIDF Tuesday is the biggest issue besides the elections, with the AHBP in the sunset meeting at the Ortega library there is definitely issues the SFBOS and Mayor and Planning Department needs to be aware of in terms of impacts of all this “pressurized” development. The more density shoveled into neighborhoods even along existing lines, the more need to build, rebuild, and connect and fix the existing infrastructure systems.
    Tim Colen and Peter Cohen presented at the Sunset meeting of Supervisor Katy Tang, the questions were the best part, as many people including the majority of attendees were not happy with it…

  73. Prop F’s private right of action with an attorney fee provision is exactly opposite of what works. People behave when they perceive the high likelihood of a quick, small penalty if they offend: think red-light cameras. People do not respond to a distant chance of a massive penalty someday in the future: think death penalty.

    Probably the best result for proponents of effective regulation is a narrow loss for F, spurring effective regulation. Leaving aside the plaintiffs bar, a win would be pyrrhic.

  74. San Francisco’s Latino Population and percentage per year:

    2000 – 109,50414.1%
    2010 – 121,77415.1%
    2014 – 130,428 15.3%

    http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html

    http://missionlocal.org/2011/06/latinos-make-gains-everywhere-except-in-the-mission/

    I welcome a more diverse San Francisco and am glad that newcomers find this a welcoming place. I actually volunteer with a group that helps mostly Latino immigrants find housing, jobs and learn English.

  75. I still think F will win, however no matter what happens, I would like to see the uber left to rethink it’s message. Rather than blame big money, rethink the anti tech and anti development rhetoric, be for something not against. The city is changing and if you want to shape its future you will need the support of new residence.

  76. “there are more Latinos in San Francisco than ever” !? Really? You have some background/data on this right? Or you just see too many brown people around?

  77. The Tech haters are going to lose, hate does not win elections in San Francisco. An overwhelming majority of San Franciscans actually like Tech workers, like newcomers and welcome this Asian majority workforce into our city.

    Everyone knows there are more Latinos in San Francisco than ever, the odd obsessive focus on The Mission is bizarre. Don’t other neighborhoods matter?

  78. I’d like to be sanguine about this election, but I’m not optimistic about any of the critical ballot propositions. Way too much money on the other side, way too little on ours. May my pssimism jinx it.

    I have some guarded hope for D3, though.

  79. The fact is we will never know what effect big money had on the election.. as we cannot verify the results as accurate due to the corporate owned ” secret ” software that does the ” secret ” tabulation. To think otherwise is naive.

  80. Campos may want to reconsider the size of the t-shirts he models – no one wants to see his bulging muffin top.

More by this author

Big Money’s racist attacks in D7

Plus: School Board members of color get threatening online messages. Is this really San Francisco in 2020?

The biased coverage and real story around Lowell High and school renaming

Attention Chronicle: A lottery for the 'elite' school is neither new nor a radical idea -- and neither is discussing changing the names of schools celebrating racists and colonialists.

State billionaires saw vast windfall since COVID

While millions suffer, 161 rich people take in $312 billion -- and nobody in Sacramento seems to care.

Fear — and hope — for journalism

So many bad things happening to local news media -- which is why we are trying to make a difference.

Another big-money anti-tax front group emerges in SF

The Chamber of Commerce and GOP donors have created Fed UP SF to attack progressive taxes.

Most read

Letter from Kenosha: A community under seige

A police shooting, a right-wing vigilante, military humvees, and a small town trying to heal

More election sleaze: Fake tenant groups in District 1

Organizations that didn't exist a month ago are suddenly saying that tenants support Marjan Philhour.

The end of Shahid Buttar’s campaign — and the lessons

Shahid Buttar’s campaign against Rep. Nancy Pelosi was always a longshot. He was challenging the person most responsible for challenging Donald Trump, and while...

Frida’s artful life on film—and in the galleries

Mexican icon's dramatic work and life are having a San Francisco moment, with de Young show and two screenings

Scott Wiener goes after homeless people in tents

In what homeless advocates call a “cruel” move, Sup. Scott Wiener is asking city departments to crack down on homeless people who are living...

Screen Grabs: San Francisco’s real royal family, still glittering onward

'50 Years of Fabulous' comes a courtin'. Plus: a record of the 1972 National Black Political Convention, angsty Hungarians, more

For Puerto Rican freedom, MaJo Montijo summons a bomba ‘Huracán’

Oakland musician fights "continuous colonial disaster," including Hurricane María aftermath, with gale-force release.

The biased coverage and real story around Lowell High and school renaming

Attention Chronicle: A lottery for the 'elite' school is neither new nor a radical idea -- and neither is discussing changing the names of schools celebrating racists and colonialists.

Big Money’s racist attacks in D7

Plus: School Board members of color get threatening online messages. Is this really San Francisco in 2020?

GOP-linked big money attacks progressive candidates and taxes in SF

Millions in PAC money from the 1 percent -- and big Mitch McConnell backer -- floods into San Francisco for last-minute hit pieces.

You might also likeRELATED