No, there is not a “scandal” in the endorsement process of the Bernal Heights Democratic Club, a relatively modest organization in my neighborhood.
Yet the Chron ran a sensational op-ed today by a tech executive saying that the club somehow violated its own rules to wire an endorsement for Jackie Fielder for D9 supervisor.
It’s one of two recent attacks on Fielder by allies of Trevor Chandler—and neither of them make much sense.
I wouldn’t bother to write about this—when has the Chron ever cared about the Bernal Heights Democratic Club?—but there’s a much larger issue here about how local media (and the site formerly known as Twitter) inflames issues and debates without regard to facts.
In the piece, David Sepulveda, who is the head of finance data science at Autodesk, tries to compare a small mostly progressive group of neighbors to the corrupt and immensely powerful party that ran Mexico for 70 years.
It’s one of several items that, had this been a news story, the Chron might have wanted to fact check.
Here’s what actually happened: The club bylaws require a 60 percent vote for an endorsement. The first time around, no D9 candidate got to 60 percent, so, as is normal under the bylaws, they held a second vote.
Here’s a message from the club leadership:
Endorsement voting is governed by our Club’s bylaws (available online at bhdemocrats.org). Article X of our bylaws cover Endorsements. Article X.F includes both a regular method and an emergency measure to revoke an endorsement vote in extreme circumstances. That “emergency measure to revoke an endorsement” clause is not the section of the bylaws that we are following for this vote. The May 16 endorsement vote for District 9 Supervisor did not achieve a 60% threshold for any candidate to receive the Club’s endorsement, so there is no endorsement to be revoked.
Because the Club members did not reach an endorsement on May 16, the Executive Committee turned to Article X.B of the bylaws, which are very clear:
X.B. Multiple ballots shall be permitted, but the Executive Committee shall determine the number of ballots allowable and establish rules for a “no recommendation” alternative.
Six candidates in this race asked for our Club’s endorsement. We are democratically voting for our Club’s District 9 Supervisor endorsement, and strongly reject the mischaracterization that we are using emergency powers or breaking any rules to ensure a win for an “establishment candidate.” As always, we will stand by the 60% threshold that our bylaws require. We welcome all members eligible to vote tonight to come and do so.
It gets weirder. In his piece, Sepulveda says that he doesn’t support Fielder:
I did not vote for Fielder simply because I do not think her policies are what our district and our city need. (For example, she believes that to create more affordable housing, owners of single-family homes should build accessory dwelling units and that the city should force them to rent them at below-market rates.):
That’s not even remotely true. Here’s what her platform says:
Some parts of San Francisco are home to “Monster Mansions” (i.e. homes over 3,000 square feet). We want affordable housing everywhere in the city, including in the wealthiest neighborhoods that have historically excluded poor people de jure and currently exclude them de facto. No Monster Mansions should be able to get a building or renovation permit unless it adds an ADU or apartment priced at 80% Area Median Income (AMI, $80,700 annual income for one person-household) for studios/1-bedrooms or 100% AMI ($115,300 for two-person household) for 2- and 3-bedroom units.
She never called for forcing any existing homeowner to build an ADU, unless they are building a monster home—and requiring the developers of very-high-end housing to include affordable units has been a part of the city’s housing policy for decades. It’s called “inclusionary housing,” and the mayor and every current member of the Board of Supervisors supports the idea.
Of course, Chandler immediately tweeted out the op-ed—almost as if he was expecting it, which he probably was. This is how campaigns often work: You plant an op-ed from a supporter, or a story that a news outlet is willing to run, then you express outrage and use it to organize.
Meanwhile, Chandler is also tweeting a response that Fielder gave to the Rose Pak Democratic Club four years ago when she was running for state Senate against Scott Wiener.
Club president Jeremy Lee told me the response was part of an internal questionnaire that wasn’t supposed to be public, and he’s filed a complaint with the Democratic County Central Committee. But the document was, indeed, linked on an old Facebook post from the club; nothing on the Internet ever goes away.
And what was this scandalous statement that Fielder made? She was asked this question:
“Do you support or oppose new developments that cast additional shadow over open space?” Fielder checked “oppose.”
Chandler tweeted that as “Jackie Fielder would oppose 100 percent affordable housing because… shadows.”
Chandler hasn’t been around long, and doesn’t know any of the history here. In 1984, San Francisco voters approved Proposition K, which limits any new commercial development that shadows a public park. It was designed to limit office buildings from creating a dark, sunless downtown.
No affordable housing project has ever been limited by Prop. K. None ever will. Affordable housing always gets an exemption. Fielder in fact told me that she supports the affordable housing project at 3333 Mission—which will cast a shadow on open space. Oh, and the only open space that counts is space under the jurisdiction of Rec-Park.
Prop. K is not a Nimby thing; its sponsor, then-Sup. Bill Maher, was a huge supporter of new housing and of new development in general. It’s been a popular tool for protecting the parks for decades now, and hardly anyone in public office is calling for its repeal. Of course Fielder supports it; that’s not in the least bit controversial.
So, thanks in part to the Chron and Twitter, we get scandals where none exist.
Full disclosure: My family has a family membership in the Bernal Heights Democratic Club.
