The New York Times, which has local reporters and ought to know better, ran a headline last week stating that the progressives had “ousted” London Breed and replaced her with a white man. The Chron repeated the same line today.
Whatever you think about the decision last week – and I think a lot of us have mixed feelings – nobody was “ousted.” Breed was acting mayor because of the death of Ed Lee; she was also Board of Supes president. This was always intended to be a short-term situation; in the long term, it’s not good for the city to have the same person write the budget, appoint the committee that oversees the budget, vote on the budget, and sign the budget. The city attorney made it very clear that Breed was not actually the mayor.
So the board at some point was going to vote for an interim mayor – someone who would have that job and no other. Breed was, in many ways, the “caretaker,” the person holding the city together while the board figured out how to replace Lee until the voters can weigh in this June.
Breed could have been the interim mayor. She didn’t get six votes. That’s not an “ouster,” it’s an election. Whatever you think of the result.
The big winner in all of this: Mark Leno.
There is, and there will be, a backlash against the progressive supes who decided that they would rather have Mayor Farrell for five months than have Mayor Breed for ten years. (And let’s remember, on quite a few of the big economic and land-use issues, Breed and Farrell have voted the same way.)
Sup. Jane Kim, who is running for mayor, had to take a tough vote. She had to say, in public and for the record, that she supported Farrell and not Breed. Ron Conway, who is a big Breed supporter, will go after her.
Conway may also go after Jeff Sheehy – who is the main reason that Farrell, and not, for example, Tom Ammiano or any of the long list of women of color who progressives put forward – is the interim mayor. The five progressives on the board were united in the idea of choosing a candidate who wasn’t going to run in June; they needed Sheehy to get to six. He clearly was willing to go with Farrell, but not with other options.
Sheehy told the Ex that his vote may doom his June election, which was in trouble anyway.
So yeah, this whole thing is odd.
But meanwhile, Leno didn’t have to vote, hasn’t made any public statements about what happened, and has been able to stay above the fray. So nobody is mad at him — which is a big deal in local politics these days.
The other thing that could help both Leno and Kim: If the two were to endorse each other. That ranked-choice strategy worked in Oakland when Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan ran as allies, not as adversaries, in 2010.
The board’s Budget and Finance Committee holds a hearing Thursday/1 on a detailed and complex piece of ethics legislation that is supported by the Ethics Commission and opposed by some local nonprofits.
The measure would
1) prohibit earmarking of contributions and false identification of contributors; 2) modify contributor card requirements; 3) require disclosure of contributions solicited by City elective officers for ballot measure and independent expenditure committees; 4) require additional disclosures for campaign contributions from business entities to political committees; 5) require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions; 6) extend the prohibition on campaign contributions to candidates for City elective offices and City elective officers who must approve certain City contracts; 7) prohibit campaign contributions to members of the Board of Supervisors, candidates for the Board, the Mayor, candidates for Mayor, City Attorney, candidates for City Attorney, and their controlled committees, from any person with pending or recently resolved land use matters; 8) require committees to file a third pre-election statement prior to an election; 9) remove the prohibition against distribution of campaign advertisements containing false endorsements; 10) allow members of the public to receive a portion of penalties collected in certain enforcement actions; 11) permit the Ethics Commission to recommend contract debarment as a penalty for campaign finance violations; 12) create new conflict of interest and political activity rules for elected officials and members of boards and commissions; 13) specify recusal procedures for members of boards and commissions; and 14) establish local behested payment reporting requirements for donors and City officers.
Most of that is fine with most reform-minded folks and progressive community groups. The problem comes with what are called “behested payments.” Those are contributions made by corporations to nonprofit organizations or the city made after an elected official requested help.
Friends of Ethics cites examples including:
Kilroy Realty contributed $500,000 on June 24, 2013 at Mayor Lee’s request. Six weeks later, on August 15, 2013, City Planning approved Kilroy’s request to.add six stories to its building at 350 Mission Street. As-the city moved forv1ard with other elements of Kilroy’s requirements, Kilroy contributed a second $500,000 on January 31, 2014.
San Francisco Waterfront, sponsor of 8 Washington, contributed $10,000 on June 12, 2013. During this period, signatures were gathered to put 8 Washington on the ballot, which qualified on July 12, 2013. During the election, Mayor Lee frequently appeared on behalf of San Francisco Waterfront in mailers and on television ads.
The legislation would ban behested payments from any organization that has any contractual relationship with the city. That’s a very long list.
Local nonprofits, including the Human Services Network, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, the Chinatown Community Development Center, and the Phoenix Arts Association Theater, oppose the ban on behested payments, saying that it would “significantly narrow the range of eligible donors in the city” and damage the entire nonprofit sector in the name of addressing a few bad actors.
Limits on campaign activity would also apply to unpaid board members of nonprofit organizations that have contracts with the city – although nonprofit board member have no financial interest in the organization or its contracts with the city.
The Finance Committee and the full board don’t have to accept the whole package as it is; there is a lot of good here, and the measure could be amended to keep the stricter disclosure rules, the limits on contributions from companies with land-use matters before the board, and all of the other very positive changes without messing up nonprofits.
The meeting’s at 10am in the board chambers.
Full disclosure: No elected official has ever asked for contributions to 48hills, and I somehow suspect none ever will. I am on the board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, which gets city money. I don’t make political contributions to candidates anyway.
The Planning Commission wasn’t willing to give a condo-conversion permit to the owner of a building who evicted a 100-year-old woman. In fact, the commission voted its “intent to deny” the application and continued it to Thursday/1.
But on the Thursday/1 calendar, that decision is proposed for continuance to March 8. Maybe the planning staff needs more time to draft a formal resolution of disapproval. If the owner is getting a second shot at this, there will be a serious outcry.
woah! you’re talkin crazy man!
like Rose Pak was.
Sheehy should be wearing his vote as a badge of honor. He can say that he isn’t beholden to anybody. “Ooooh, Scary Conway is going to run ads against me? So what? I did what is right.” And really, is Conway all of a sudden going to jump on the Mandelman train? Seems unlikely.
That said, Sheehy sure doesn’t seem to be running a great campaign, which is disappointing, bc I think he’s done a solid job so far. Time will tell
Policies don’t matter. Breed is bad because you’re supposed to believe that Ron Conway is evil. Conway = evil and likes Breed. Therefore, Breed = Evil.
You’re welcome. I summed it up for you without requiring you to exert any mental energy on critical thinking or analysis. You don’t need to see any numbers, or even have a basic understanding of economics. Just know that rich tech white guy = bad and he likes Breed so Breed = bad. Tech is bad too. So anyone who likes tech you should vote against.
No new housing! No new tech! Progress!
“He may be doing harm to your vision of San Francisco. Not the same as doing harm to San Francisco.”
Only in SF would a pro-DACA liberal philanthropist who is from the area himself be vilified as if he were Trump’s pick or something.
Conway likes real estate and tech. Progressives don’t, because they already have their own real estate and don’t work for/with tech. Therefore, Conway is bad. It’s childish logic. A scapegoat. It’s getting sad. Bravo @Zhoosh:disqus
The NYT article is written from outside the “I’m the most progressive” echo-chamber pissing contest that is SF politics. To the rest of the country, and I see this whenever I read an article about SF politics written from outside of SF, the “progressives” are perceived more like far left extremists and the “moderates” and “rights”, like Breed, are actually the progressives. Ask anyone else in the country if a black woman raised in the city who’s pro-choice, anti-Trump, and checks just about every other left/liberal box there is is a “moderate” they will laugh at you. The spectrum is so ridiculously skewed here that the “progressives” are struggling in a scramble because no one can pass the litmus test.
Breed gets disqualified from being a “progressive” because she believes building more housing will relive pressure on the housing market and is friendly to Tech companies. Outside of the extreme progressive bubble here in SF those are NOT conservative policies. Outside of the far left status quo here (where socialism is apparently the only acceptable left) supply and demand is real and the tech companies are not nearly as draconian as local media makes it out to be.
It used to be Wal-Mart and similar companies were the epitome of a shit company, with zero benefits and world wide mass exploitation, but hating on them just isn’t progressive enough anymore. The targets are now set on tech companies with generous maternity leave that actively resist our terrible president (how many letters have been written from tech CEOs about DACA?) because in doing so one signals that they are the most progressivist. It’s delusional and it’s waning. It’s unfolding here with this whole Breed situation and it’s very interesting to watch.
10 years from now we will look back on the SF Progressive as a conservative movement in disguise. Those that have wrapped so far over to the left that they’re shaking hands with the right. When someone like Breed is vilified as badly as she is, using the tactics straight out of the conservative playbook (Conway:Soros, ‘race isn’t the issue here’, shilling accusations, denial of academia/science[economics], preserving ‘neighborhood character’, scapegoating the foreigner/other), we’ll soon see how “progressive” these people actually are.
True, but all things being equal Asians tend to vote for other Asians. Back in the 60’s there was competition among the different Asian groups for resources but the eventually got together to present a united front. There were even differences among Chinese around six difference groups of Chinese competing for resources.
I am aware there can be fights within ethnic groups that appear to be related. Fifty years ago I recall a hotly contested mayor’s race in Columbia WA. The town was then around a third Norwegian, a third Swedish, and a third Finish. They elected a Jewish mayor.
When is Kraus going to drop in this thread and tell us what Conor is really all about? Is he really The Man From Mars??
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2016/04/16/omg-the-new-york-times-goes-long-form-re-frisco-housing-3500-words-on-sfbarf-et-al-conor-dougherty-is-the-man-from-mars/
You left out a critical number. Perata received only 19.6% of Kaplan’s vote transfers. Aka 6,407 of them. Roughly 25% of ballots *with Kaplan as first rank choice* went into the garbage.
There in lies the difference. The election was decided by 2,025 of Kaplan’s vote transfers. Quan over took Perata by a 3:1 margin in the final elimination round. Quan for the win.
In 2015, Francisco Herrera closed the margin on Ed Lee at a 4:1 margin in the last round. Still, Francisco was a blip in Lee’s rear-view mirror.
You tell me what’s going to happen?
Bernie Sanders said that and.got slammed.by gay activist Mike Signorelli et al.
Identity politics is a.disaster for progressives.
Btw were the supes who voted Breed board Prez. RAcist and sexist.
?
Yes, I saw the numbers that you linked to from the Oakland Dept of Elections. They are wrong. Peralta won. Just kidding.
What they do show is that Kaplan had 32,719 votes when she was eliminated. Quan got 18,864 of them, or 57%.
And they had this big formal alliance that might not fly in SF. Especially now it might be problematic if the other candidates officially gang up against the Black chick. After arguing for a level playing field.
So don’t assume that if (Kim+Leno)>Breed that Leno will win. Plus, if you believe the David Binder poll, there is another 12% split between Alioto and some Republican which I would imagine would lean Breed.
Luckily the deadline to change profession titles doesn’t pass for a couple more weeks. Phew .. close call.
I read “Small-Businessman” in the Chronicle. What do you think it’s going to say? Former State Senator? Have you ever seen a ballot where it said former anything?
Is the Chronicle wrong because you say it is?
Not sure much identification btw Chinese and Korean. Throw in the Marxism to many Taiwanese and Hong Kong/Cantonese, and … Kim looks slim.
No, the law should simply be followed. If you read it honestly, it is clear that the role of acting mayor is intended to be very short. Either the person who is acting is made interim, or someone else is chosen. In the first case, the person who is acting mayor stops being president of the board, and a supervisor. In the second, they go back to what they were, and the interim mayor takes office, and loses their seat if they are a supervisor. It nowhere implies, or really allows, for what Breed rather cynically tried to pull
And that does NOT entitle Conway to try to turn San Francisco into his private kingdom.
I would not say “no housing issue,” but most have far less. AirBnB spent a lot of money to keep from being properly regulated. Of course, once they were, they lost half their listings. Hmmm, coincidence?
Voters are often swayed by whoever puts out the most ads, and such. it is sad, but money does play a major role in politics, and some, like you, count on it.
And you obviously don’t want to face reality. This race is by no means a done deal. Breed has baggage that people want hidden. She is associate strongly with Lee, who was in the basement in his last poll. She is not going to be able to really distance herself from being the continuation of his failures.
That was in a Chamber of Commerce poll. Such polls are of little actual worth as they often say what the group, in this case the very pro-moderate Chamber of Commerce wants them to say. Careful wording of questions, and carefully picking where the “voters” are chosen from, can skew the results. Granted, the Chamber’s last poll indicated Ed Lee had only 30% positive, and 50% negative, with the rest undecided. Odd how they did not mention that when they released it.
Ragone is a sleazy public relations type who had done some pretty unethical stuff. Of course, he is going to parrot the Conway line.
Oh, right. That’d be @Playland. It’s so hard to keep your alter egos straight.
Are you sure it’s not going to be “small business owner?” Did you get a preview, or you’re taking the Chron’s word on it?
Every ethnic minority has been reviled at some point in American history except the WASP who claim to have been the first arrivals ( which is a misguided assumption because Native Americans have been living in North and South America for approximately 10,000 years. ) There was a time when the Irish and the Italians were not considered “white”.
If there is going to be any real progress in terms of less ethnic discrimination people shouldn’t even consider candidate’s skin or ethnicity. But I guess we aren’t at that point yet.
Well its just wrong to assume that a black lady is going to be more progressive or liberal than a white guy but a lot of people vote that way. Voters in SF do tend to pay more attention to local politics than the voters in most cities however.
We do have them, both folded into one.
You can argue that there just isn’t enough voter interest to sustain supervisor run offs; the numbers indicate otherwise for mayoral elections however.
I think that we are poorer for no longer having those overheated, high stakes elections that you refer to. Getting voters to think about the issues…democracy and all that.
Runoff turnout higher in 1991, 1999, 2003 (all mayoral election years); lower in 1975, 1979, 1987, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002. (2000 and 2002 were district supe runoffs; turnout was lower in all those districts.) Those years when it was higher had overheated, high-stakes elections (Agnos/Jordan, Brown/Ammiano, Newsom/Gonzalez), and took a great deal of effort on both sides to drum up voters to go to the runoffs.
Well, the difference is that Haney is not a polarizing politician, and neither Trauss or Johnson are strong competitors. It is highly unlikely that race will see subsequent RCV rounds.
The election to look at is Perata vs. Quan.
But 1999 was the same thing. 203,674 voters in November, 228,274 came out in December.
We had a good thing going.
That was exceptional. Runoff turnout was typically lower.
I’m not your research assistant, dude.
Malia won with something like 1,500 votes. It’s not a good comparison.
The Perata/Quan election has the most similar stats. Stick your head in the sand if you want .. I’ll look for a link later.
But in 2003, the year of the last mayoral runoff, 208,000 people voted for a mayor in November. Then after a month of Newsom/Gonzalez 253,000 people came out to vote, an increase of 21%.
So we did away with that? Why? To save a few bucks???
There is a school of though saying that, if Oakland voters had been able to focus on Jean Quan defend herself for a month they might have presented that particular disaster.
I don’t know for whom I am going to vote just yet, as Breed, Leno, and Kim all seem smart and hard-working. But the removal of London Breed and the way it revealed the so-called progressives’ moves did get my attention. Anything Aaron Peskin is involved in engineering gets my attention, and usually in a negative sense. So I am more inclined towards Breed than before. That said, it would be really helpful if the news media would start outlining the candidates’ differences in policy preferences. The main issue is the cost and availability of housing. What policies has each favored?
OK, I understand what you mean.
In the same way, Johnson entering the D6 race on the conservative side alongside Trauss gives that side an advantage against Haney.
Or, by the same coin, women will listen to Ronen’s speech.
People don’t dislike Conway because he’s tech, but because he’s an unelected manipulator.
I don’t know or want to know anything about Oakland. There are supervisor races in San Francisco where somebody came from behind. Malia Cohen for example.
But I think that a lot of people will head to the polls to vote for their favorite. Then they’ll remember that they need to make up 2nd and 3rd choices. So they’ll scan the ballot and the name London Breed will stand out, and perhaps they’ll remember her as the Black woman that everybody thought got a raw deal.
RCV elections ended up helping progressives and conservatives alike. They are a blessing. I remember runoff elections, and they are a PITA. The month between an election and the runoff is the worst politicking anywhere.
As to the poll, yes, it’s going to be tight. 33% undecided means it’s still wide open.
Have a lovely day.
You and I have been through a lot together pal. I’ll spare you no problem.
Can you post that same RCV link that shows all the transfers? Can you find the breakdown for the Perata/Quan election? I’ll look later when I’m at the computer, but those results would help show how this election could go.
I go by their actual voting records. Also: look at their campaign donors. Why would a billionaire who is from and lives in Atherton give the supervisor from the Haight, Japantown, Western Addition etc. hundreds of thousands of $$$$$$?
Yes. San Francisco is the only city in the United States with housing issues. You’re right, I am an idiot not to realize that.
And yes, those stupid Airbnb voters really hate Airbnb but were just blinded by those ads. Silly voters.
No I haven’t seen a link to the poll itself.
I don’t think you understand how people use their 2nd place votes. Brokeass Stuart, for example, got 18,347 first round votes last time. 6,544 (35%) either don’t even bother with a 2nd place vote or it was for an obscure write in candidate.
1,923 of his remaining votes would have gone to Ed Lee, which is about a third of his votes that were transfered or 10.4% of his total first place votes. And that’s for an extreme candidate like Brokeass Stuart. Amy Farah Weiss isn’t all that different (7% of her votes would have gone to Ed Lee).
So I don’t think you should assume that you can just add up Jane Kim and Leno’s totals.
Also, if Breed was very close to 50% she would get there just because of the silly exhausted ballots shrinking the total vote denominator.
And please, spare me the part about the DOE being wrong and you being right. We’ve been through that already.
Comparing 65,464 cities that have no housing issues with San Francisco and others cities that do have housing issues is more idiocy from you.
And yes, the voters got to vote but the election was bought by AirBnB. The spent millions of dollars for ads, and who knows how much to buy Mayor Ed Lee’s support and the support of other politicians. We know that Chiu benefited from a $500k donation once he watered down his legislation.
It is toxic and it is wrong. For the moment it is legal, but the tide is turning on this one.
Yes, too bad that the voters didn’t get to weigh in on meaningful Airbnb regulations. Oh..wait…never mind.
Airbnb is in 65,000 cities in the USA alone. How many of those 65,000 have had stricter regulations than San Francisco. 6 maybe?
And do you want to ask the voters if they want to make it harder to get an Uber? I don’t think so.
Easy to blame the bogeyman, I know. He may be doing harm to your vision of San Francisco. Not the same as doing harm to San Francisco.
I don’t think SF will have reason to drop RCV after this election, but that’s moot for the time being.
Each ‘point’ is going to be around 2,000 votes. I’m not convinced any candidate will reach 50%. If Breed doesn’t hit before Kim or Leno is eliminated then she’s in trouble.
Thanks for the link. Is there anyway to look at the poll itself? I’d like to see how they projected the 2nd and 3rd rank choices.
Conway is a bully. Conway is granted access to politicians that we don’t have because of his wealth and bribes.
Conway thwarted meaningful AirBnB regulations for 6 years. Same with regulations of the ride-share industry.
He certainly is not the cause of all of our problems, but only an idiot would refuse to recognize the harm he does to San Francisco and to democracy.
New poll shows London Breed way out in front in SF mayor’s race
That being said, the best thing that could happen to SF is if Breed trounces Leno in round one but still winds up being denied the job because of RCV (instead of going head to head against Leno).
It could finally prompt SF voters to scrap the silly RCV simulation in favor of real elections.
The NYT articled was co-written by Conor Dougherty, who wrote a biased piece favoring Sonja Trauss a year or two ago. This article does not make clear the fact that the appointment of Farrell is for five months only, and that he is barred from running because the deadline to file has passed. Nor does it discuss the fact that Ed Lee ended up mayor because Willie Brown and Rose Pak made a power play to appoint him as a caretaker mayor — without the guarantee that he would not run — because the other nominees were “too liberal.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07bcmayor.html
Back then, Willie Brown suggested that any Supervisor who was reluctant to go along with his plan to get Lee appointed was racist. Now we have Amos Brown talking about how SF embraces the Chinese community but is racist against African Americans.
She’s going to need a bigger lead than that once it goes into subsequent voting rounds. By those numbers, she would lose if the election were held today.
I would think that when Farrell runs in 2019, he would rather face a progressive than Breed. In a Citywide election Westside “conservative” homeowners will have more impact; they turn out to vote more than progressive renters. That may work in favor of Breed since Kim may be seen as an unacceptable Marxist to Chinese voters, even if she is Asian.
Yes! Associating with the evil bogeyman who is responsible for all of our problems is definitely bad..really bad!
Interesting that Breed will be listed on the ballot as “Acting Mayor” while Leno will be “Small Businessman”.
Yes, it does look like someone was playing checkers last week.
And the big winner of all of this is: London Breed!
Breed clocked in with 33 percent of first-place picks, to 16 percent for Leno and 15 percent for Kim, in the David Binder Research poll of city voters conducted January 13-16.
And, based upon the so-called “progressives” boneheaded move this past week (could the optics have been any worse?!), Breed’s support is only going to get larger!
Keep up the good work “progressives” and she might be able to pull if off in the first round!
And she will lose votes if she continues to enjoy the support of Conway.
Yes, but there are two vectors involved in terms of being a Black woman. The second one is going to be more important in this election. Women are aching to vote, particularly if they feel that one of their own has been treated improperly.
Also in terms of Ron Conway and tech, I think that a surprising large number of people realize that we are living in the year 2018, not 1988. A whole lot of jobs rely on those computer thingies.
Wouldn’t it be a refreshing break if people would discuss and vote for politicians on the basis of their capabilities and stance on the issues rather than someone being a white guy or a woman of color?
Or you can think of it this way.
If Herrera were in the race, he likely would have been the 4th to last candidate eliminated, considering the current field. Leno, Kim, and Breed would have been the only candidates left.
If that had been the case, the windfall of 2 rank choices that would be transferred from Herrera to Breed would have likely put her at 50%+, and given her the win.
Leno and Kim wouldn’t have gotten the opportunity to consolidate the progressive vote down to a single person. The progressive vote would have still been split between the two of them, and Breed would’ve had a wrap. That’s how it goes.
Look at what you just said: “maybe a few BL”. Your saying an RCV ballot would be Breed 1st rank and Leno 2nd. There’s your answer.
The reason Conway wanted Herrera to step aside is because *if Breed was incumbent* then she had a good chance at getting 50%+ of the vote (aka winning) in the first round.
Polarizing politicians don’t do well in RCV elections. That’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion of one of the RCV creators. But don’t take my word for it, ask Don Perata.
Could you clarify? I see progressives voting mostly KL or LK, and conservatives voting mostly B (maybe a few BL). How is that any different than a two-candidate election?
The other thing to think about — since Breed is no longer the incumbent — is if it is now a disadvantage that Herrera is no longer in the race.
There is no strong second round vote on the moderate side, and this election will almost certainly go into subsequent voting rounds. What that means is Leno and Kim are going to get a lot more second place votes than Breed. Polarizing politicians are at a disadvantage in a RCV election.
I read that NYTimes piece soon after it was released, and I don’t remember it ever having a headline mentioning a “white man.” It could’ve been switched, but it’s not the headline that made it to print.
The NYTimes SF guy is Thomas Fuller. He’s not a local and hasn’t been around town long. Either way, he doesn’t get to write his own headlines.
The co-author who contributed is Conor Dougherty from Oakland. He’s the one I’m more skeptical about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/san-francisco-mayor-breed-farrell.html
Yes, that stood out to me as well. I thought the article had been alright except for that.
“She gains the votes from being a Black woman pushed aside in a backroom deal in favor of the whitest guy that most of us have ever seen.” Maybe. The AA vote would have gone to her by a wide margin anyway.
On the other hand, Mark Leno has been a contender for mayor for a while. People have had time to think about him, and he’s been well-defined. Breed has not had time to define herself outside her district, before having to jump into the race on short notice, and she’s already getting brought up very explicitly as the candidate of Ron Conway and the machine. She doesn’t have a lot of time to fix that.
Amos Brown’s quote in the NYT article, “They opened the floodgates to Southeast Asians and to China, but they told black folks to get out of the way”, is not going to help Breed in the Sunset, either, unless she can elegantly shake it off.
Do the math…Breed lost the votes associated with being the 5 month appointed “incumbent” (although I’ve read that the Election Department is saying that it is too late to change her description on the ballot).
She gains the votes from being a Black woman pushed aside in a backroom deal in favor of the whitest guy that most of us have ever seen. The intricacies of the city charter don’t matter; the visual does.
She also might get more of Kim’s 2nd place votes now, or didn’t anyone notice the parade on Saturday?
That NYT article… From the Anti-Breed side, they quote Ronen. From the pro-Breed side, they quote Amos Brown, Breed, and Peter Ragone, for the last word in:
‘“They said they didn’t want a white rich person in charge and then they put a rich white person in charge,” said Peter Ragone, a Democratic political consultant in San Francisco who was the communications director for a former mayor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. “What I’ve learned over the years in San Francisco is that for progressives it is not about conscience or ideology, it’s about power.”’
Who the hell is Ragone, a rich White mouthpiece to a rich White ex-SF politician, to lecture us about rich White people in city government? Or, ha ha, about power? Were the NYT that desperate to get an unbalanced coverage?
“in the long term, it’s not good for the city to have the same person write the budget, appoint the committee that oversees the budget, vote on the budget, and sign the budget. ”
IF this is true, then maybe the City Charter ought to be revised. After all, isn’t that exactly what is supposed to happen?
Perhaps a change ought to be made, when the POBOS assumes the position, that an ‘acting POBOS’ be voted upon (with the current POBOS consenting or appointing if sufficient votes aren’t available), until the next election.
Otherwise, what you are complaining about has existed for over 20 yrs. And many changes in the Charter. Or, maybe its just Breed, which is really the sticky point.