The Democratic County Central Committee Wednesday night voted to endorse Mark Leno and Sup. Jane Kim for mayor, leaving the third spot vacant after Sup. London Breed said she didn’t want the endorsement.
The vote came after Kim supporters agreed to support Leno for the Number One slot when Leno supporters agreed to endorse Kim as the Number Two.
Kim has endorsed Leno as her second choice. Leno has yet to endorse Kim.
The rules of the committee don’t allow joint endorsements, and it would have taken a supermajority of 21 votes to change those rules. Enough Breed supporters were ready to block that effort that it would have narrowly failed.
As it is, the two campaigns seem to have agreed that a ranked-choice voting strategy is the only way either of them can win.
The DCCC endorsed Rafael Mandelman for D8 supervisor, but then – oddly — gave Sup. Jeff Sheehy the second slot. They are the only two candidates in the race.
There were some other strange moments. State Sen. Scott Wiener, breaking with the mayor, the police chief, all the candidates for mayor, and anyone else with any sense, voted to endorse the SFPOA measure mandating Tasers for local cops. The committee overwhelmingly rejected Prop. H, but Wiener, along with Angela Alioto, Fiona Ma, and Mary Jung, voted to endorse it.
The panel, now dominated by progressives, voted to endorse Kim’s measure for a higher commercial real-estate tax to fund child care – then rejected a rival measure supported by Breed that would use that tax for affordable housing. The rival measure, Prop. D, sets the tax rate much lower – and includes a poison pill invalidating Kim’s measure if it gets more votes.
But the four candidates who are running for judge against incumbents got nowhere — even the progressives on the panel sided for the most part with the incumbents.
One of the huge improvements since the progressives and Chair David Campos took over the DCCC: the meetings are now in community centers where this is air and cell service, instead of the tomb where they used to meet in the basement of the state building.
The supporters of Breed, including the independent expenditure committee that is backing her, have been trying to keep Ron Conway’s name away from the effort. Conway, who represents the interests of Big Tech and was a major player in the administration of Ed Lee, has given no money to Breed or the IE so far.
But the Big Tech money is starting to show up.
The latest filing of the IE backing Breed (and so far, attacking Leno, but Kim might be a target too) shows a $19,999 contribution from Pia Oien, who lists her address as Woodside and her occupation as the owner of Atelier 414 LLC.
That LLC owns PIA, a San Francisco boutique. Oien and her husband, Matt Cohler, according to reports, also bought the most expensive house ever sold in Marin County. Maybe they don’t live there yet.
PIA, the store, is a big deal in the tech world – in fact, Conway was there for her opening reception:
It’s not often one sees venture capitalist Ron Conway at a woman’s boutique opening — in fact, one has never seen Ron Conway at a woman’s boutique opening — but when PIA recently opened its doors in Jackson Square with a festive cocktail party attended by the City’s tech industry notables and leading tastemakers, it was clear that this is not to be a run-of-the-mill establishment.
Conway is also somewhat close to Cohler; they have done deals together, and Conway listed him as one of the key people he seeks advice from and one of the folks “I like to collaborate and problem solve with.”
Oien has never been a big contributor to local campaigns; Ethics Commission records show only one recent contribution, $500 to Ahsha Safai for Supervisor. Cohler, on the other hand, put $25,000 in 2016 into Progress San Francisco, an Aibnb-funded superPAC that spend most of its nearly $1 million in cash supporting Safai and Marjan Philhour for supervisor.
Safai narrowly won; Philhour lost to Sandra Lee Fewer.
So Conway’s not anywhere in any public records backing Breed, although he endorsed her almost immediately after Lee’s death and more recently brokered a meeting between Breed and New York Mayor Bill DiBlasio.
But his pals in the tech world are clearly on board with the Breed IE.
Lite Guv Gavin Newsom is running around the state talking about how much he opposes ICE and supports sanctuary policies:
“You are looking at the poster child for sanctuary policy,” he said, urging the audience to look up his fiery cable news cameos on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs.
But that’s not exactly true (nor, by the way, is his claim that he “was the guy who brought you the plastic bag ban.” That was former Sup. Ross Mirkarimi.)
In 2008, after an undocumented immigrant killed three people in San Francisco – Newsom started reporting undocumented youth arrested for felonies to ICE. That, as the Mercury News notes, meant deportation for some people who were later found to be innocent.
As then-Sup David Campos told the paper:
“Don’t try to rewrite history and portray yourself as a champion of immigrants when you yourself were prominently involved with a policy that led to the separation of families.”
But then, Newsom is great at rewriting history. He constantly talks about his support for single-payer health care, saying he made it work in San Francisco – but in fact, he fought against then-Sup Tom Ammiano’s efforts to create free local health care and had to be brought kicking and screaming into the room to support it.
Sup. Sheehy was walking through the Castro with Mohammed Nuru, director of public works, when a constituent started asking him about DPW’s policy of removing tents and clearing out homeless people. It’s all on this Facebook video.
Nuru says – and Sheehy never contradicts him – that there are beds for everyone on the street, that the city will not allow tents on the sidewalks, and that anyone who wants to be inside can be accommodated.
That’s just wrong; there are nowhere near enough shelter beds, navigation center beds, or supporting housing beds for even half of the homeless people on the streets.
Check out the video; it’s pretty amazing.
Yikes, what a woefully disappointing group of candidates. Essentially the same folks that rightfully earn the not so friendly moniker “Board of Stupidvisors.” In the best interests of all rational SF voters, I would recommend Ellen Zhou, someone who supported the most vulnerable of SF as a civil servant but also realizes the paralyzing ideological chains that keep the City filthy at the street-level, crime abundant and growing, and unaffordable.
https://www.ellenleezhouformayor2018.com/
Have a look and be enlightened on what’s possible.
Well, that is refreshing. A lot of people react quite negatively to the idea. No, people should not be drinking in public. Or on buses. And such. Many seem to want the sort of “classes” one saw in the past.
No problem here. It all contributes to the climate of in-civilty (as in ‘civilized’) that seems to be the ‘real’ San Francisco Values’.
I have no problem with enforcing the laws, as long as it is evenly applied. That mean, you bust people for consumption of alcohol, and public intoxication, you do it to everyone. No drunk tech bros partying in Delores Park. No staggering Marina types on pup crawls. And when they decide not to stand in line at some fancy bar and go out and pee between cars, and I have seen them do it, you bust them there too. That sort of thing.
“legally “dissuade””?
Well, you can simply enforce the laws we currently have. If folks start to realize that we are fed up with the BS, then they might realize coming to SF isn’t gonna be the picnic they imagine.
No need, the results of the polls thus far that have played out the RCV indicate that Kim and Leno voters are not so similar that they effectively rank the two. The RCV strategy relies on the notion that Kim and Leno are drawing the same or similar pools of voters. The polling thus far seems to indicate that this might not be true to enough of an extent to make a 1-2 strategy effective.
And she’s got the YIMBY Action endorsment!
The ‘deal’ to which you refer is speculation – from your link: “. . . many speculated behind the scenes that Peskin made promises to sweeten the deal.”
Again, aside from political junkies, who do you think cares about a supposed betrayal of a something that is “speculated” to have happened?
Too bad you can’t read Joe Fitz in the Examiner. The argument “no one cares” is often the cover given to bad deals. It’s a core question of judgment. Fitz is a progressive source for news and he was not silent over this:
“The much-ballyhooed “deal” between Supervisor Aaron Peskin and Supervisor Jeff Sheehy went up in smoke at the local Democratic Party board Wednesday.”
http://www.sfexaminer.com/leno-nets-major-backing-sf-dem-party-breed-refuses-3-endorsement/
In a Citywide election moderate homeowners can make the difference. It may be wise of Breed not to associate too much with progressives. Kim may have done herself a favor by opposing Wiener’s legislation. The could tip the balance on the West-side.
Nobody really cares about this real or pretend controversy. You are giving too much weigh to this non-issue.
I agree that backroom deals are not good and probably illegal. It’s just that I didn’t see you or anyone else having issues with them when the unelected Conway and Lee were having them.
Those are otherwise good insights Geek Girl but miss the point of the original post. It asks why would progressive supervisors make such a one sided deal for the Farrell vote. Why did D8 have to be linked?
So far these are the known costs of the deal: a) Farrell is Interim Mayor; b) progressive supervisors came all in for Jeff Sheehy against their publicly stated positions; c) Meagan Levitan got a DCCC appointment which is what she could not secure at the ballot. Farrell, Sheehy and Levitan won in this deal.
For what? London Breed was removed as Acting Mayor with a white straight male who has the same politics. The “optics” are grim and can’t be explained outside an airplane hanger hosting a Trump rally.
If Kim or Leno can overtake Breed in first place on June 5th the scale of this deal may be rationalized. That’s a pretty large contingency though. It doesn’t take an archeologist to unearth this stuff. Joe Fitz grasped a good chunk of it.
What IF progressives had one candidate that is compatible with IRV tactics for any Mayoral or BOS contest and put their strategery to get to one candidate. Willie then can’t promote Kim as the spoiler. Clubs can speak with one voice. Limited finances can be better used. 2 progressives candidates running is dumb.
That’s a lower risk, higher reward strategy than this cyncical play that has already cemented London Breed in the #1 slot according to every published poll since January’s vote.
And the deal hasn’t helped Sheehy, who has been beyond political rehab for six months. He’s a self destructive actor.
At a time of incredible cynicism about politics, this deal hurts all involved. It’s so bad it’s working against its expressed aims in not just one but two contests.
48 Hills should have been on this. Excusing this because of tribalism is in error.
So, you are ok with backroom deals, as long as you think the people doing it have your backs. BTW guess why they do deals in the back room?
And that Twitter tax break? Pass with an 8-3 margin, in one of the most transparent deals ever. I didn’t like it, but it was not a back room deal. Would have been better to have Twitter to move to Santa Clara, and force the South Bay absorb more people. but coming out of the great recession, the city was desperate to remain relevant economically.
Well, that is what we will have if Breed is elected.
Compared to Conway, they are saints.
This article could use a lot more on Matt Cohler, who is worth about $400M, is formerly of LinkedIn and Facebook, and is a big VC heavyhitter, bringing companies like AirBnb to Benchmark Capital, one of the largest VC firms out there.
See https://www.recode.net/2016/9/28/13095682/bill-gurley-benchmark-bubble-uber-recode-decode-podcast-transcript
As a result, Benchmark Capital — and Matt Cohler — has a real financial interest in San Francisco real estate being pricey, as do most of London Breed’s bigtime financial supporters.
Cohler’s wife, Pia Oien-Cohler, isn’t one of the people listed as endorsing Breed… but Cohler himself is on the list. See https://www.londonformayor.com/endorsements/
Cohler apparently used his wife as a way of funding a SuperPAC that was created under false pretenses, supposedly about “women who support London Breed”, but the money is focused on real estate and VC / dotcom interests.
Interestingly enough, one of the anonymous accounts used to retweet and astroturf the Twitter site for Breed’s superPAC is one titled Airbnb SF / @SuperhostSF ; it was used extensively by the Pro-AirBnb forces in the legislation that went before the city a few years ago. There are also big name real estate brokers involved in promoting and funding the superPAC. Amongst this crowd is longtime luxury realtor broker Kathleen Gilheany, who used the anonymous @SqueakilyJr account to promote the superPAC.
Also, Mae C. Woo, who gave $25K to support London Breed.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1830531203644038&set=pcb.1198492460287040&type=3&theater&ifg=1
She’s listed as a retired real estate broker, and appears to own all or a large part of several buildings throughout S.F., with multiple tenants. She is a partner in the Woo Family Trust, and also in W&W Four Seas Inv. Corp.
It appears to be the same Four Seas notorious for foreclosing on the International Hotel back in the ’80s, and evicting dozens of people. See https://en.wikipedia.org/…/International_Hotel_(San… and
https://law.justia.com/…/court-of-appeal/3d/81/604.html
Unlike say Chris Daly, Aaron Peskin, Jane Kim, John Avalos, David Campos….very reticent, public figures they….
Watch for scum Conway and his scum organizations to put out mailers that attempt to “disrupt” any Leno/Kim RCV strategy.
Yes, we need to bring back the Lee-Conway type of backroom deals. They were much better.
You know what they say about clocks. . .
Hard to know what happened during the tent removal in question, but we do know Nuru allowed tents to be moved in violation of the prop Q guidelines voters approved.
http://sfist.com/2017/03/15/frustrated_by_filth_sfs_public_work_1.php
You cannot legally “dissuade” people from coming. That is, you cannot harrass them, arrest them if they have not broken a VALID law, refuse them certain services, or legislate against anyone helping them. In most large cities, things are run by religious groups. For example, in Birmingham, AL, the Jimmie Hale Mission is a huge shelter and service provider. It was founded by a man who gave up being “the meanest man in town, when he met a woman name Jessie. He married her, and they founded the mission. It has expanded over the years. Jessie Hale had a daughter who as far as I know, still works there. Sadly, poor Jimmie died, all his past life had left him with health problems, but Jessie worked there until she died. She lived a long life, and helped many, along with Bro, Leo Shapiro, who came there as a client, began working, and eventually became the superintendent. He also worked right up to his death. There are other shelters, Brother Bryan’s, The Firehouse, Salvation Army… The Firehouse now has 16 locations. What we do here is, in many ways, rather pitiful.
” according to usual crap one hears, people supposedly come here for all the great benefits”
Well, the fact is that they self-describe coming here homeless from somewhere else homeless. I don’t know what is attracting them; but its obvious nothing is dissuading them.
And why should we have to provide them a bed? For free, none-the-less? And that doesn’t mean either that we must open up our parks and streets so they can camp there.
From 1960 to 1980 SF lost almost 100,000 residents; so there were bound to be places for cheap. Since then we’ve added about 200,000, and things are no longer cheap. The Welcome mat from the recent past is worn out and no longer applicable.
Conway likes to puff his image.
Well, according to usual crap one hears, people supposedly come here for all the great benefits the City showers on them Of course, ask them to name them, and they suddenly get very quiet. Yes, some people come her from elsewhere. In fact, a large portion of the population is from somewhere else. They come seeking fortune, they come seeking acceptance, they come because it is San Francisco, a shining City on 48 hills that is celebrated in music, movies, and books. But, when people here lose their housing, for any number of reasons, they quickly find that those services are mythical. We simply do not have beds, at the moment, to house everyone. People ARE forced to live on the streets. Oh, a real jerk could argue that people can just leave, but that is a bogus claim. Most people, having moved here, don’t have the means to just return home. The Homeward Bound program, or as I call it, “The Thank God, and Greyhound You’re Gone program,” is a cruel option. No pets, little in the way of baggage is allowed, and you have to have someone willing to take you in. So, for many, they have property literally stolen and/or vandalized by the police or Nuru and our very own version of the SA.
That evil Ron Conway is one of the country’s biggest gun control advocates and helped pay for the March for our Lives. So weird that is never mentioned….
Sheehy voted as he did because Breed was trying to pull a fast one. She wanted to have more power than she should, and she thought she could get it without looking like she was doing something wrong. Her plan was to let the Board be divided, and unable to make a choice. She assumed that Conway would keep the moderates in line, and the progressives would lack the votes, so it would be a 5-5 split (she could not vote for herself) and she could win by “default” and claim it was not her fault. Everyone knew what she was up to, and both Farrell, and Sheehy, were not happy with this blatant scheme. So, they took her, and Ron Conway, down. Sheehy will get NO support from Conway, but of course, neither will Mandelman. Farrell is dropping out of politics in order to deprive Conway of a chance for revenge. Conway is scum, and he go out played. Money isn’t everything, though he is still trying to pull the strings by having surrogates give money, and reimbursing them by donating to their favorite charities.
I suspect the does. Remember, Sheehy is running for reelection. And for some, kicking the homeless is a plus. He happened to pick the wrong person to do it to. In this case, the real culprit is Nuru. He was basically installed a the head of what was effectively Lee’s personal version of the SA (too brutish and ignorant for the elite SS). He enjoys harassing the homeless. He is basically a bigot for hire.
Peskin is a good supervisor. He may be a bit over the top, but he gets stuff done. He will respond to people, even if they are not in his district. Breed won’t respond to people who are.
If Sheehy asks to have a homeless person, or encampment moved, Nuru jumps at the chance. First off, he wants the moderates in power, because Kim, Leno, or Alioto is very likely to ask him to leave.
The allegation that Nuru said there are beds for everyone on the street never transpires in the video.
This election will show whether a moderate(Conservative?) “silent majority”(or even significant plurality) exists in SF, as some fervently believe(or are agitating for). Will the #1 and #2 Alioto, Greenberg, and (maybe)Zhou, ballots have #3 votes for Breed?
Leno is hoping to get some of those #3 votes by sidestepping support for Kim. I don’t know if anyone has made a spreadsheet of how each ballot is marked 1,2, and 3. I think the data is available, but could be wrong. I’d be very interested to see it after this election.
Here is a link to the lie he told. If you want to split hairs, you could say it is sort of, kind of, true. They have to OFFER someone EITHER a bed in a shelter, for ONE night, and them they go back to the streets, OR a bus ticket as part of the Homeward Bound scam. They do not have to actually supply a bed. If there are no beds, they offer a bus ticket, which many cannot even qualify for. Basically, they have to abandon any pets, give up most of their property, and get by on $10 a day for meals, and have someone willing to take you in at the destination. Oh, and you cannot drink or use drugs during the journey,
https://www.facebook.com/jim.youll/videos/10101556079705598/
Your aunt was able to get a bed because someone in the shelter, on a long term bed CAAPS or a ninety-day bed, missed curfew, got screwed by the shelter staff (it happens), or had an overnight pass. Most people waiting have to sit in a drop-in center, and cannot lie down to sleep. If they can sleep sitting up, fine, but they get rousted if they fall over, even if there is room.
So, yes, Nuru effectively lied. At the very least, he did not tell the truth. And on top of that, the man is belligerent, and comes across as a bully. Which, how course, he is.
These type of backroom “deals” between supposedly rivals looks no better than Peskin’s backroom deal to put Mark Farrell in City Hall.
This is what ranked choice got us. More backroom deals. And while there was a public DCCC “vote”, this deal was done weeks ago.
I voted against the prop, but I’m well aware it passed.
It is interesting that some of the progressive players behind the Farrell vote seem to owe Sheehy a favor. But I can assure you that you won’t be reading anything about that here.
Try baycitybeacon.com
While you may or may not support a “No Tents” policy, that is what the electorate has deemed for SF.
I believe that supporting such a policy allows people to live in degradation when they really need to make personal changes to improve their lives.
Tents are also a public health hazard, to them and to others.
Does Sheehy know the camera-person? It seems highly unusual that someone of his status wouold make claims like that to a San Francisco stranger. Or even an acquaintance.
And what power does Sheehy have to accomplish that? Are you attributing Peskin-like persistence and megalomania to Sheehy? Police operate under the auspices of the Mayor – not the Supes.
The authors insistence that Sheehy could exercise that kind of clout are rather unbelievable. Possibly true. But unlikely. At least the way its claimed.
Where did I claim Nuru is not lying? What I am questioning is Tim stating that Nuru said or implied “that there are beds for everyone on the street.” You couldn’t cite that dialogue because it never happened. Tim can’t cite it either.
My aunt is a senior, but she is not elderly and she is not disabled. I was stating a fact when I said that she was in the system for over a year without being denied a bed. Laugh all you want.
Shelter beds are typically a coordinated effort between a private property, a NFP management organization, and the city. Length of stay depends on the terms. Bethel Church allows women a one week stay after a Sunday check-in.
Shelter beds can generally be granted for a maximum 90 day stay, after which a 1 month extension can be granted. My aunt had two extensions, one at Sanctuary and one at Next Door. Like you allude, getting granted a 90 day stay can be tricky.
In regards to the lists, there are two. One is a daily list for a same day shelter bed. The other is the list for a city subsidized SRO. The latter can take up to a year.
The daily list for shelter beds does fill up and facilitators will tell perspective seekers that there are no beds left. What I was pointing out was that, even though my aunt and I were told several times there were no beds available, the city did find a bed for her when she waited.
I don’t support Mohammed Nuru’s “No Tent City” policy, but he and Sheehy were accosted by a frenetic person. The allegation that Nuru said there are beds for everyone on the street never transpires in the video.
Maybe his thinking is “who’d vote for someone that endorsed Kim”.
Leno has always like the idea of positioning himself in the “middle”.
His campaign brochure pictures look sick and sad, with that plastic smile.
“No one should be FORCED to live in a tent on the street.”
And yet 30% of the homeless were homeless somewhere else before coming here (actually, more like 40%, since 10% came here and were only briefly housed).
Sounds like people are making that choice – not FORCED, in many cases.
C’mon Leno, do the right thing and endorse Kim as your number 2. What are you waiting for?
Editor– Maybe you can help the public out. More of the fine grain detail of the vote that made Mark Farrell Interim Mayor needs to be told. It’s impact on the Mayoral race has been partially covered but no one has even broached its impact on the D8 Supervisor race. That was clearly on display last night at the DCCC.
Although Mandelman won the #1 endorsement of the DCCC last night, Jeff Sheehy curiously snagged its #2 pick on a 14 Sheehy-13 No Endorsement vote. Supervisors Fewer, Peskin and former Supervisor David Campos all voted for Sheehy joining “progressive stalwarts” like Scott Wiener, Mary Jung, Meagan Levitan and Tom Hsieh, Jr. Jane Kim differentiated herself from the herd and voted No Endorsement in D8 for both the #1 and #2 positions after having publicly endorsed Mandelman.
These votes are central to a larger “understanding.” Has anyone bothered to ask these progressive supervisors what they were doing to undercut their own publicly stated position? Not to mention literally every progressive endorsement organization and activist.
When a deal smells so bad it can’t explained to the public, perhaps it should not be done in the first place.
One of these politicians might need credibility to answer a public need, and this type “Make a Deal” for its own sake approach to politics engenders cynicism at a time of incredible distrust about politics and public institutions. This is the sociological manna the GOP exploits to win the critical elections.
Journalists should cover stories like this one instead of denying the reality. The progressive community deserves more than apologetics and tactical avoidance from 48 Hills.
If you think that the YIMBYs really care about providing affordable housing, I can offer you a good deal on the Golden Gate Bridge.
I was reacting to his claim that Nuru is not lying. He is. I am glad he helped his aunt, and care enough to stick with it. But the simple fact is, there is not housing or help for those who seek it. The ONLY way to get a long term bed in a shelter is to a) apply for, and manage to succeed in getting into one of the programs under County Adult Assistance Programs. Two, GA and PAES, require physical labor if able. In another words if the person does not have a temporary disability, or is not permanently disabled, they are required to do physical labor 8 hours a week. Usually either cleaning streets, or cleaning buses. Both are very hard, and involve physical dangers. Anyone over 55 is exempt, but they do not get any services from PAES, including job training. It used to be that job training exempted one from workfare, but that was one of Newson’s little jerk moves. If one is over 65, they get help without working, of course, and if they are judged to be permanently disabled, they are required to participate in SSIP, which means they are forced to apply for SSI, and they have to pay the City back for hthe money ($76 a month). they actually receive. The City wants to take the full “grant” of about $500, but Social Security will not allow that. All but $76 goes for shelter and “services.” They will, if requested, provide a break down of what is charged for way. So much for “rent” on the shelter bed, so much for meals, etc. People on the street, who have their tents destroyed (which is not supposed to happen) get offered one night in a shelter, or a bus ticket, and that is all. So they end up on the street without any shelter from the elements, and no, they are not give anything but one night, if that.
OK. As much as I dislike Rosh (and it is a monumental type of dislike) I find it quite troubling that anyone, no matter how troubled, would “ROTFL” at his description of his efforts to find a bed for his aunt. There is help out there for those who seek it. No one is FORCED to go without treatment that could help them.
Or, it makes Sheehy a liar.
ROTFL! There are now more people on the list than available beds. Your aunt was lucky, and I would imagine, disabled or elderly. And being on the shelter list does not get one into an SRO. You have to be in the County Adult Assistance Program, which guarantees you a bed, or in a shelter. Otherwise, you are only given a 60 day bed, if you reach the top of the list, and then it is back to the bottom to wait again. Generally if you luck out and get a bed for the night, it is because someone missed curfew, or otherwise got screwed over by the system, and was put out for a night.
t
And it is against the rules to consume alcohol or drugs IN the shelter. You can do it all you want before coming in, as long as you do not become belligerent or such. And Nuru repeatedly says that there are available beds. There are not. They take away people’s tents, and leave them without even that bit of shelter. No one should be FORCED to live in a tent on the street. And that is what regularly happens.
I didn’t see where he said it. What’s the minute number?
I went through the process of finding beds and watching one’s number move down the list when I was advocate for my aunt a couple years back. I will say that the system did find her a bed every night for over a year. She now rents from THC (Randy Shaw).
A lot of homeless will not stay in the shelter system but will still get on the list in order to have a chance at a subsidized SRO. Staying in a shelter means you can’t get loaded. Fortunately my aunt doesn’t drink or do drugs — she would have never made it if she did.
Sheehy denied it, which makes it hearsay.
If ‘progressive’ voters stick to the strategy, they have their pick of Leno or Kim. It’s not a Hail Mary.
Nuru should be fired for lying like that. As I have said many times, he was like Ed Lee’s SA leader (SA were the Nazi’s thugs). And you have to love how Sheehy keeps that silly grin on his face as he is walking along lying, and dodging questions, and trying to extricate himself from a very damning interview.
Did you watch the video? Sheehy came to his house and was bragging about having someone removed from a tent, in the rain. And please, spare us the lame “why don’t you put the homeless up in your home?” crap. That is the lamest bit of drivel dreamed up by anti homeless bigots.
You gotta love folks running around screaming about affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing!! and then when there is a ballot measure that could bring in big bucks for affordable housing, the DCCC, CCHO and their ilk are nowhere to be found.
Who is the person that recorded the video? Does he have stable housing? If so, did he offer a warm, dry place for the person whose tent was destroyed?
Anyone but Breed!