ENDORSEMENTS 2010

Walker, Mandelman, and Kelly for supervisor. No, no, no on B. Yes, yes, yes on 19. Our complete endorsements for San Francisco, state, and national races

|
(55)
Progressive choices: rafael Mandelman in D8, Debra Walker in D6, and Tony Kelly in D10
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY MATTHEW REAMER

On every level — federal, state and local — the Nov. 2 election is critical. Californians will decide whether a billionaire with no political experience and a failed business executive with right-wing views should be the next governor and senator. They'll address a long list of major ballot measures. In San Francisco, voters will decide the balance of power on the Board of Supervisors, weigh in on ballot measures that could deeply affect the local budget, and decide whether this city wants to allow a harsh crackdown on the homeless.

Absentee ballots are already in the mail. Vote early, vote often, and vote like your city and state depended on it. We'll publish our Clean Slate clipout guide to take to the polls on October 27. Click below for our endorsements. (East Bay endorsements will be added next week.)

>>NATIONAL RACES

>>STATE RACES

>>STATE BALLOT MEASURES

>>SAN FRANCISCO CANDIDATES

>>SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT MEASURES

>>EAST BAY ENDORSEMENTS

Listen to our Endorsement Interviews with local candidates here

get the single page printable PDF in color or black and white

Comments

Looks like DeWitt Lacy is everybody's number 1 or 2 endorsement. He is in good position to win the race.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 5:50 pm

A few comments:

1. I think your endorsement of Reilly will hurt her given your description of her. I was considering voting for Reilly, but it sounds like she's flip-flopped on her supposed fiscal positions just to get elected. D2 wants someone with some fiscal/budgetary common sense on the Board. (Reilly was also kind of weak at the D2 debate.)

2. The SFBG staff may be the only voters in the City who vote against Prop G (muni).

3. It's a shame, though predicable, that SFBG wouldn't endorse Prop B. The SFBG just wants to ignore the impact that employee pensions and benefits are having on the the general fund--yet the SFBG always claims the need for more taxes in light of the structural deficit. What do you think is causing that structural deficit?

4. The fact the SFBG is against state Prop 20 and for state Prop 27 make these endorsements lack all credibility in my view. So state legislators should pick the contours and make-up of their own districts to stay elected? That position is silly.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

I'm also surprised by the No endorsement of Prop 20. One of the problems we have is the increasing partisanship of politics. With bi-partisan committee drawing up the lines, we should see more competitive races. While that might mean more Republicans get elected, it will also mean that less-crazy Republicans will be elected. With the current "safe seats," the most-right Republican often wins, and that's bad for all of us.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

Hey guys,

Thanks for the interview last Friday. Tony and I enjoyed it and since you didn't post your audio version I'd like to give your readers a chance to see the full video here. Again, thanks for the access. As I said, running for office is all about influencing Public Policy for me and getting one's own ideas across to as many people as possible.

Here's our conversation:

http://blip.tv/file/4194624

Thanks again,

h. brown

Posted by Guest h. brown on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

city workers have already promised to pay their own retirement contributions in full, which is to commence July 01, 2011 [nine (9) months from now]. they did this when they ratified their most recent contract earlier this year. it should be noted that regarding pension reform and prop b; very little money will be saved by forcing city workers to contribute their fair share a mere six [6] months prior to schedule.

So apparently then, the "big savings" hoped for by passing such a brilliantly thought out piece of agenda must come from the lesser emphasized "healthcare" component of this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying. in exchange for continued health care provisions to children or other needy legal dependant of the hard working city employee, the wealthy authors along with greedy bankroller venture capitalist-billionaire backers of this divisive proposition have opted to use this "hidden" aspect to boost their "savings" figure which they shamelessly tout knowing full well that such drastic cuts will not only displace the most vulnerable, namely children and retirees needing healthcare who cannot otherwise afford it but to also undermine the overall universal healthcare concept, which most San Franciscans recognize as smart and cost effective

--all in an effort to gain a certain amount of esteem and notoriety for its author to run as a mayoral candidate in the 2011 local election with the support of the powerful wealthy. people, please see this for what it is and not for what it is not! cuts to preventive healthcare at minimal savings to the city fund will end up costing us tax payers double, triple and quadruple -when urgent care and emergency services at skyrocketing rates and exuberant medical industry costs and fees are factored in as the only remaining viable options for those no longer able to qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!

please vote NO on B.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

Pensions are eating the general fund alive. And public city workers get healthcare benefits for a low, subsidized cost that private workers don't receive--that's not fair or equitable, particularly when taxpayers are paying for the benefits that public workers get and private workers make less money, on average, than public workers make in the City.

And City workers have not agreed to pay their pensions "in full." That's just false. VOTE YES ON B.

Finally, the propaganda about the billionaire(s) funding Prop B is unpersuasive. The unions are paying far more to defeat Prop B than anyone is paying to fund the campaign.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

Prop B will end up costing taxpayers more because of the huge healthcare cost increases which will force working families to drop coverage and go to SF General Hospital instead. Every elected official except Adachi has come out against this poorly written measure. The only people funding it are Billionaires who have no idea what it mean to be a regular working person in San Francisco. Vote No on Prop B!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

What a load of BS

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:18 am

Conceed to pay our FULL pension at 7.5 percent. Prop B would have required 2 percent more contribution. I understand the fiscal woes of the city need to be addressed. I believe they were with concessions and layoffs! That health care provision would have been a overnight severe direct blow to FAMILIES living right here !!! So much for SF leading the way to Universal Health Care for all...oh wait it just did! Prop B FAIL! :)

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 4:19 am

While I personally like Debra, Rafi, and Tony (and am supporting Rafi), I certainly hope you don't use that picture on tomorrow's cover. The implications of endorsing all white candidates as your 1st choices for Supervisor in a City that is half people of color are scary.

If I were downtown, I wouldn't even have to make an edit. "The San Francisco Bay Guardian is out of touch with San Francisco, and district elections disenfranchises communities of color." They made that argument in 2000. After that, progressive got smarter and more disciplined and empowered strong, progressive candidates from communities of color.

But now we seem to have reverted. If the Bay Guardian endorsed candidates are successful, there will be no African-Americans on the Board of Supervisors for the first time since before Ella Hill Hutch!

And on the subject of District 6, I fear that the Guardian has made a grave mistake leaving out James Keys. The Keys campaign is the only candidate who was aggressively pursuing an RCV strategy with the 3 strongest progressives, even though it was not in his campaign's interest. Keys has strong progressive positions, an identified base and legitimacy in the Tenderloin, a big-name endorsement that he's using effectively, access to resources with public financing, a serious mail program, and 4000 ID's.

Where does the SF Bay Guardian think those votes are going. With a strategy that included our 3 strongest candidates, I think a chunk of those votes to could have gone to Walker or Kim or vice-versa. Now, I think it is a tougher sell.

An anecdote from this morning-- an African-American Tenderloin resident dropped by the Keys office to tell us they had voted for James Keys, 3 times! Either James Keys wins this, or, unfortunately, that's an exhausted ballot. These are the realities in the TL -- it's unfortunate, but I'm actually not surprised that the Guardian doesn't get it.

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

Chris -

The first African American elected to any office in the City and County of San Francisco was Willie L. Brown, Jr. in November 1964 when he won election to the state assembly. Two months previously, on September 1, Terry Francois became the first African American to serve on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors when he was appointed to fill the unexpired term of John J. Ferdon who had been appointed District Attorney.

Francois was elected in his own right to the Board and served continuously until 1977 when he resigned in a fit of egotistical pique because the voters had approved a measure in 1976 restoring the city's more older method of electing supervisors by district instead of city-wide. In November of 1977, the late Ella Hill Hutch was elected to the Board to represent what was then called District 5. Two years later, Doris M. Ward defeated incumbent District 7 Supervisor Robert Gonzales. Hutch died in 1981 and Willie B. Kennedy was appointed to fill her unexpired term. The one year period between Francois' resignation and Hutch's election is the only time there has been no African American on the Board of Supervisors since September 1, 1964.

Posted by Darryl Cox on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 5:54 am

Thanks Darryl for that history lesson. I knew that there was a break between Francois and Ella Hill Hutch, but I did not know that circumstances. So if Francois did not resign, it would be the first time that there's no African-American representation on the Board of Supervisors since the signing of the Civil Rights Act!

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

As opposed to screaming that everyone else is racist, which is going to totally energize the black community in D6.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

How about a simple " I Support Civility"

Print up 836,000 copies and distribute immediately
Spread the word. Do the work. Become a citizen.

Posted by Joe Citizen, San Francisco on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

God what a self-serving pile of steaming vomit Daly's response is. Personally, I feel people of "color" are responsible for a great deal of the problems in the city...or hasn't anyone ever passed through the Bayview....and do you think those "bangers" stay in their hood? Nope.

Keys? Give me a break. His hope for getting elected is Daly. Gods help us. We had to endure years of Daly, now we are supposed to vote in a "Daly of another color"?

D6 is a disaster. It has been since Daly was elected. If there is no media glory in a problem, he is simply not interested. He has hung his entire history on Trinity Apartments. One good (mostly) action does not wipe out years of the incredible amounts of crap he's pulled in the District and the City.

PLEASE, since your little bar deal fell through....go to Fairfield with your family and screw up THEIR city for awhile...we've had enough of you.

Posted by Ken Howard on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 6:00 am

While I personally like Debra, Rafi, and Tony (and am supporting Rafi), I certainly hope you don't use that picture on tomorrow's cover. The implications of endorsing all white candidates as your 1st choices for Supervisor in a City that is half people of color are scary.

If I were downtown, I wouldn't even have to make an edit. "The San Francisco Bay Guardian is out of touch with San Francisco, and district elections disenfranchises communities of color." They made that argument in 2000. After that, progressive got smarter and more disciplined and empowered strong, progressive candidates from communities of color.

But now we seem to have reverted. If the Bay Guardian endorsed candidates are successful, there will be no African-Americans on the Board of Supervisors for the first time since before Ella Hill Hutch!

And on the subject of District 6, I fear that the Guardian has made a grave mistake leaving out James Keys. The Keys campaign is the only candidate who was aggressively pursuing an RCV strategy with the 3 strongest progressives, even though it was not in his campaign's interest. Keys has strong progressive positions, an identified base and legitimacy in the Tenderloin, a big-name endorsement that he's using effectively, access to resources with public financing, a serious mail program, and 4000 ID's.

Where does the SF Bay Guardian think those votes are going. With a strategy that included our 3 strongest candidates, I think a chunk of those votes to could have gone to Walker or Kim or vice-versa. Now, I think it is a tougher sell.

An anecdote from this morning-- an African-American Tenderloin resident dropped by the Keys office to tell us they had voted for James Keys, 3 times! Either James Keys wins this, or, unfortunately, that's an exhausted ballot. These are the realities in the TL -- it's unfortunate, but I'm actually not surprised that the Guardian doesn't get it.

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

YES TONY KELLY D-10

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
D6

Just for the record, Chris, I don't think we could have done any endorsements in D6 without someone telling me we made a grave mistake. I respect your opinion, as I respect the opinions of others who would have been just as disturbed if we had made other decisions.

But we don't base our endorsements on what will make people happy; we do our best to recommend the people we think will best carry forward the progressive agenda.

Posted by tim on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

FYI - Jim meko opposes Sit/lie, Prop. L .. hope you guys can correct the online article at least.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

The BG is the KKK

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 10:27 pm

Regarding sit-lie (Prop L), I noticed that numerous merchant associations are listed as supporters of sit-lie. I was saddened and disgusted to see that the Merchants of Upper Market and Castro (hereinafter referred to as MUMC) are supporters of sit-lie on the supporter’s website. When governing bodies such as the Board of Supervisors prepare to vote on something, in order to be fair, they hear from both sides before voting. The MUMC couldn’t be bothered with fairness and hearing from both sides apparently. MUMC only heard from the supporters of sit-lie. Here’s the complete text from their June 2010 Newsletter from the MUMC. Notice that no mention is given to the opponents of sit-lie being at their meeting. The effort for sit-lie is being led, in part, by another merchant in the Haight so because it’s another merchant that must be sufficient for MUMC's support. The MUMC voted yes to support sit-lie after hearing from only the supporters of the measure. This is from their newsletter....

>>>MUMC NEWSLETTER
June 2010

MUMC Members Asked to Support “Civil Sidewalks”
You’ve probably read and heard in the local media in recent weeks about proposals for a new “Sit/Lie” law in San Francisco. The proposal, now called “Civil Sidewalks,” appears headed for the November Ballot, since it appears unable to move successfully through the current Board of Supervisors. That stalemate is despite polling earlier this year which reportedly showed that 70% or more of San Francisco voters support a reasonable version of “Civil Sidewalks.” “Civil Sidewalks” is NOT what some opponents have inaccurately claimed – it is NOT a crackdown on indigent, homeless, or mentally ill people who find themselves on our streets - San Franciscans are proud of our culture of offering a multitude of social services to those citizens who need them. “Civil Sidewalks” IS a proposal to restrict aggressive, threatening, negative and excessively hostile behavior by those blocking sidewalks, mainly in front of small businesses in the City’s neighborhood commercial areas. While respecting the basic civil rights of those citizens, “Civil Sidewalks” also addresses the equal right of other citizens to peacefully walk our streets and to shop in our neighborhoods, without being threatened or unduly harassed.
The legislation includes procedures to first warn and ask an offender to cease and not block a sidewalk, impeding other citizens. Then, if the offender refuses, there is an escalating scale of sanctions for those who won’t comply with the request. “Civil Sidewalks” provides a tool that San Francisco police officers currently do NOT have (again, despite inaccurate claims by opponents). The uncivil, hostile, aggressive behavior addressed by “Civil Sidewalks” currently requires a formal “citizen’s arrest” complaint before the police can act. Many citizens are reluctant to do that, fearing retaliation from the threatening offender(s), and not being willing to invest the
subsequent time required to follow through to enforce their complaint with the courts. “Civil Sidewalks” simply allows the police to act directly when they witness this behavior, and allows them to act directly upon a reasonable complaint and information provided by others. As the campaign gears up to take “Civil Sidewalks” to the November Ballot, proponents are asking merchant organizations like MUMC to give their early support. Kent Uyehara, a small business owner and merchant from the Haight, has been one of the first proponents of “Civil Sidewalks.” He and some of his colleagues from the recently-formed Civil Sidewalks Coalition will be at MUMC’s June 3 Members meeting (see top of this Newsletter for meeting details). They will further explain what ”Civil Sidewalks” is and isn’t, and will answer
questions. Then, MUMC Members will be asked to vote their support for “Civil Sidewalks” at the meeting. We hope that all 2010 MUMC Members will join us at the meeting for this very important discussion and vote. - article based on information provided by the Civil Sidewalks Coalition
MORE…

NEXT MUMC MEMBERS MEETING
Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 9:00am to 10:30am
Eureka Valley Recreation Center (EVRC) – 100 Collingwood Street
(between 18th and 19th Streets, behind DeLano/IGA Foods)
A G E N D A
• City Hall Update - District 8 Supervisor Bevan Dufty
• “I Bike SF” Promotion – Mari Hunter, Mayor’s Office
• Proposed “Civil Sidewalks” Legislation – Kent Uyehara, Justin Buell, Civil Sidewalks Coalition VOTE
• Plans for PRIDE Celebrations Frameline 34 – Desiree Buford, Frameline
Pink Saturday – Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
PRIDE Parade and Celebration – Troy Coalman, Amy Anner, SF Pride
• Castro After Dark Update – Chris Hastings (Lookout), Larry Metzger (Mix, Triple Crown)
• Member Announcements<<<

That’s about as sleazy, lacking of character and disreputable tactic as one can get to only hear from the proponents and vote to endorse a measure. How many other merchants associations in San Francisco listed in support of sit-lie did the exact same thing and only heard from the supporters? They (MUMC) claim that sit-lie is not about the homeless. Then in the same newsletter they write about this:

>>>Time to Replace
NO TRESPASSING Posters
July 1 !!
It’s time for the semi-annual changing of those important MPC 25 “No Trespassing” signs in your front window. To be current and valid, any MPC 25 sign (if yellow and/or with a non-current date) must be replaced with a GREEN, currently-dated version, to be valid for the SECOND HALF of 2010. Your poster also must be currently-signed and dated for the period July 1 through December 31, 2010, using a new format introduced last year. Finally, your poster MUST include manually-written times for each day of the week that it is to be effective. “24 Hours/7 Days” IS NOT sufficient – you must fill in “12:00am to 11:59pm” for each day
of the week, for posters to be enforceable on an “always” basis.
A current sign is required for police and other law enforcement officers to take action regarding loitering, sleeping, panhandling, etc. on your premises when no owner’s representative is present, such as late at night and on weekends when you’re closed. Copies of the GREEN version for second half of 2010 will be available at MUMC’s June 3 Members’ Meeting (see meeting details at the top of this Newsletter). After making sure that YOUR “No Trespassing” poster is current, help keep the area near your business clean and safe by reminding your business neighbors to also get a new one, if their poster needs to be updated. MUMC Members’ Dues fund the printing and distribution of these posters – thank you!<<<

So according to their No Trespassing posters, the posters are intended to prevent “loitering, sleeping, panhandling, etc. on your premises when no owner’s representative is present, such as late at night and on weekends when you’re closed. “ Who would be doing any of those things? The homeless in particular but yet MUMC claim the sit-lie measure is not about the homeless.

One can see which businesses belong to MUMC by going to their website.
Click on: Go Castro to see the members in the various categories.

For the MUMC sit-lie vote one has no idea exactly which businesses attended that meeting or how they voted, but apparently the majority of whomever was there voted in favor of sit-lie. How many were there? Was it even half of the membership?

It was also interesting to see who the Board Members are:

Steve Adams
MUMC President
President - Sterling Bank & Trust

Tina Roberts
MUMC Vice-President
Owner- Urban Bread

Dr. Alice K. Charap
MUMC secretary
Chiropractor

Herb Cohn
MUMC treasurer
Owner - Herbert S. Cohn CPA

Catherine O'Shea
Vice President - Banking Center Manager Bank of America

J.D. Petras
Owner - Café Flore

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

Boycott FTC Skateboards and SFO Snowboards!
How someone like Kent Uyehara, who makes a living from selling shirts and skateboards to some of the most hassled people on city sidewalks, could be pushing to restrict the use of public space even further is a little mind boggling.
If you don't like being hassled by cops, it's a good idea to never buy ANYTHING from this fascist in skater's clothing.
Americans who love freedom should take note of the merchants in the above comment and spend accordingly.
Watch for the Civil Sidewalks signs in windows. Tell them you won't be purchasing anything from them ever again, and why.

Support business owners who don't want to put you in jail for sitting on a sidewalk, and let the rest starve themselves out of business with their anti-social behavior.

Posted by SamIAmNot on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

Sam, I would say "get real", but first let me say: "grow up". If you can't make a distinction between someone is truly needy and down and simply asking for a handout (indeed regardless of their age or even parental wealth) and someone who is deliberately trying to intimidate simply for the joy they get out it, well, then I feel for you and will continue to ignore people like you, whatever their requests.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

Then it MUST be bad. Everyone knows these local businesses are the epitome of robber baron capitalism. Chairman Mao told us so.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

Why is it so hard for some people on here to read? I read your comment Barbara. You said very clearly that it is not known which members were at that meeting and it's not known how they voted. It's also not known if urban breads and that cafe flore are for it or how they voted. When will these ASSES start to read? The way the newsletter thing was written by the merchant group it looks like they were all forced to agree to it because the thing says this "Then, MUMC Members will be asked to vote their support for “Civil Sidewalks” at the meeting."

ASSES.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

Did you remove my comment? Why?

Posted by Guest You must be CRAZY on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:52 am

Shame on you. This is totally false and should be retracted asap.

"Jim Meko . . . . supports sit-lie and is awfully cranky about local bars and nightlife."

Your credibility is out the window.

Posted by Roy Carr on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:16 am

A rare day that SFBG and Salomon agree on a D6 slate.

A major endorsing authority like the SFBG should rank the candidates in order of strength while a minor endorsing authority, as if, like me should endorse in reverse order of strength.

Meko needed to be crankier about getting rolled by the Planning Department, effectively wasting tens of thousands of volunteer hours from me and others if he wanted to be taken seriously as a candidate. And his hiring of Jamie Whittaker for the campaign, a poor man's rookie Ryan Chamberlain, indicates an utter lack of judgment that scotches any claims of progressive or even liberal legitimacy on Meko's part. Meko is the moderate in this race, and the only thing in the middle of the road around these parts are yellow stripes and the occasional, rarely sighted, nearly extinct San Francisco armadillo.

That said, Steven T. Jones and the comfortably housed crackers over at the SFBG never got over Meko's legitimate objections to Club Six's very inappropriate impacts on the very dense, very low income, very racially diverse, very residential Sixth Street community.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:34 am

gee whiz, daly, the sky is falling, like totally

Posted by guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:50 am

Timid,

Where's your correction on Meko and Sit/Lie? You print a lie and leave it out there. In our meeting last week (which you're too chickenshit to post) Brugmann said that I should call him or you before writing anything negative about them. Well, you wrote that Meko favors Sit/Lie which is ... a lie! Did you phone Meko before you printed that? No, because you're hypocrites.

Your attacking him for his work with the Entertainment Commission is also petty bullshit. He helped found the commission and has served as the Citizen Representative since its inception. The club owners tried to force him out a couple of years ago his support at the Board's Rules Committee was so broad that Tom Ammiano changed his vote. Don't you think the average citizens deserve a voice on the Entertainment Commission? No, unlike the clubs, they don't buy ads from you.

Meko is a man of integrity. He's not a spoiled whining child like Salomon and Steven T. Jones. Your magazine used to be the lefty gold standard. Now you're an on-the-skids rag sucking up to out-of-touch carpetbaggers like Jane Kim and selfish political hacks like Debra Walker.

Meko in D-6!

And, print that friggin' retraction!

go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:11 am

How can we trust the SFBG when they tell lies. You owe Jim Meko a full page apology.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12b82ac92d0d...

Posted by Jerry Jarvis on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 10:22 am

Just for reference, Jim Meko has not changed any of his positions since the June 23rd SF Young Democrats D6 candidate forum where this photograph hosted at Fog City Journal snapped Jim's and other candidates' positions on controversial measures .... including Jim's OPPOSITION to Prop. L/sit/lie

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/2010/06/dsc_7...

Hoping the online article can be corrected to reflect TRUTH.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:25 am

I have already posted a correction on the page with the D6 endorsements -- we made a mistake on Meko and sit-lie. He opposes it. That doesn't impact, or change, or endorsements, but for the record, I have corrected that item on the web and will correct it in the paper next week.

Posted by Tim Redmond on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

I received a campaign flier in the mail from the Coalition for Sensible Government. Not to be confused with the Civil Sidewalks Coalition, not that there's much difference between the two. Very likely the same people (since the real estate industry is one of the major financial backers of sit-lie). My radar goes off when people use words such as sensible, common sense and reasonable in campaign literature. Those words can be code for something else and something is usually up with that and that was the case with this flier which was an endorsement of Scott Wiener. They spelled Wiener's name wrong on the third page. They have the e before the i in big letters at the bottom. It's not on recycled paper and there's no little recycling symbol on it to suggest that one should recycle it. On the back it reads >>>...This mailing is not authorized or approved by any candidate for City & County office, a committee controlled by a candidate, or by any election official. It is paid for by the Coalition for Sensible Government with major funding by the San Francisco Association of REALTORS...the total cost of this mailing is $11,527.<<< What a waste of money and precious resources such as virgin paper.

One of the San Francisco non-progressive gay papers (it's really an outdated rag which shall remain nameless) has endorsed Wiener and sit-lie. They oppose Prop M in their endorsements. Their second choice for D8 was Prozan and they endorsed Sparks for D6, Carmen Chu for D4 because "She has proven to be a strong advocate of the LGBT community and our issues." (That's sufficient for an endorsement?....only LGBT issues.) They also endorsed Lynette Sweet in D10. I am well aware of the politics of this rag and I am not surprised by their endorsements. I expected them. The police used the 1970s version of sit-lie to go after gay people in The Castro but I guess this unmentioned rag didn't research that at all. For Prop L they wrote this paragraph which I find rather foolish, naïve and gullible...."We would be reluctant to support such a measure if it were in another community than San Francisco. However, we have confidence in Police Chief George Gascón, who strongly supports this measure, as well as the officers on the street who have undergone intensive sensitivity training to respect the diversity of cultures and lifestyles that thrive in San Francisco." How trusting of them to have confidence in the police chief and officers. Their fawning endorsement of Wiener was difficult for me to read as it consisted of the usual slogans and cliches such as "track record of getting things done at the local level" and "hit the ground running." I don't know how many people read this particular publication considering it publishes online only once a week and in our 24 hours society most of what they publish is usually old news by the time it's published on Wednesday night. They publish a small number of Letters to the Editor and they have no online forum. I often get the impression that the people who operate this unnamed publication are living in a time in the past. I think mainly people who are not on the Internet like this paper and read it and the paper has published some letters to that effect praising the publication.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:51 am

Gee... the Guardian, a Potrero Hill publication, endorses Tony Kelly, a Potrero Hill candidate. Too bad the Guardian isn't interested in the political issues in all of District 10. If they were, they'd have endorse Kristine Enea. District 10 is on the threshhold of major development and needs a strong leader to promote local interests: Kristine Enea. Kelly might be a pleasant person to hang out with in a Potrero Hill bar or mini-brewery, but he's woefully inadequate to take the reins as D10 supervisor.

Posted by Jim Hunger on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

Nonsense Jim,

I have been active in stopping and shutting down polluting power plants in the Bayview Hunters Point, and in fighting Lennar corporation's abuses in that same neighborhood, and Tony Kelly has been there helping to get rid of those power plants, and has been the -only- Potrero Hill based D-10 candidate to stand up publicly and firmly against what Lennar is doing to the Bayview.

Kelly is actively fighting for environmental justice in the entire district. Furthermore he has stood up repeatedly against bad corporate giveaway development projects all over the City more times than I can count.

Meanwhile, Kristine Enea has meekly sat on the sidelines while Lennar plows through the district destroying it, and has even spoken in favor of Lennar's unacceptable projects.

Looks to me like Kelly is the one to elect as first choice if we want justice for the Bayview and the entire City.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

Kristine recognizes that San Francisco is already in a legal contract with Lennar and can't break it without being obligated to settle with Lennar, which would cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars. Kristine has said that Lennar needs to be watched to make sure that they keep up their side of the bargain. If it could be proved that Lennar is egregiously failing to keep their contract obligations, then the city would have grounds to force them out without being liable to pay for their expenses and legal expectations in entering the contract.
Apparently you don't understand the legal aspects of this situation, Eric, but that's the way contracts work. Ideally they protect both sides so that the other can't just capriciously walk away from the terms of the contract. Not only would it cost the city hundreds of millions to break the contract with Lennar, it would be virtually impossible to find another contracting entity that would be willing to accept the kind of arrangement I'm guessing you want (i.e., the failed ballot initiative to up the % of below-market housing, etc.), especially since the city, of necessity, would need to make them accept the cost of Lennar's work thus far.
Raving about dumping Lennar is simplistic and unrealistic, Eric. If you have a reasonable alternative—or if your candidate Tony does—by all means, lay it on the line. I've been listening to Tony talk for months now and have heard nothing of the kind. Your commments in this blog have likewise shown no wisdom in this regard.

Posted by Jim Hunger on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 10:23 am

Why no explanation here? I live in her district and would like to know why the SFBG just skipped it (it is a non-trivial portion of the city). Did she screw up (more than the average Congress-critter) or what?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

The San Francisco Guardian has chosen to endorse Rafael Mandleman and Debra Walker. That is unfortunately. I guess they weren’t around when they both tore apart the Milk Club and the queer community to fulfill their own political ambitions. When I ran for D6 this last time against Chris Daly, no one abused the political process and civility to the extent that these two have done.

Back in 2007, prior to their candidacies, I had the pleasure of representing a victim of Rafael and Debra when they led a troubling, self-serving witch hunt within the Milk Club regarding a specious accusation leveled at my former client that he used "sexist" language. For that, they attempted to get him off the board and take over the leadership to advance their own political ambitions. Rafael Mandelman should have recused himself, because of actual conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. But, he did not. He is unethical. He being an attorney should have known better.

My former client had given over twenty years of service to the Harvey Milk club. He had served on its board in various executive positions. He has actively advocated for progressive causes, feminist issues and community involvement. The allegations proffered by Debra Walker during her self-interested campaign of slander were particularly specious in that my client had s served as an officer in the local chapter of the National Organization for Women.

The persecution of my former client was initiated for purely political reasons – i.e. to benefit Debra and Rafael in taking over the Milk Club. The purported “victim” was in a relationship with Gabriel Haaland, who supports both candidates. Said victims own statements at the time were enlightening, "I believe there are some extremely strong leaders in the club who believe in women being leaders in politics and in the progressive community. Because of that conviction, yes, the club can move forward and people care enough about the club to maintain the integrity of promoting women's leadership." What did "women being leaders in politics" and "promoting women's leadership," have to do with the complaint? Nothing. Prior to her official candidacy for D6, Debra Walker filed the complaint as a power move. It was Debra Walker who attempted to push my former client off the board. Debra Walker was among the group that rejected the executive board's finding that the allegations were unprovable. It was Debra Walker, among others, who violated the club's own disciplinary process and, contrary to the club's own bylaws, intimidated the membership into "approving a motion calling for [my client] to immediately resign his board position and be placed on six-months probation." It was Debra Walker who attempted to scapegoat [my client] for her own personal political gain.

The Harvey Milk Club was pushed away from the very important business of its mission to fulfill Debra and Rafael’s own agenda. That, in sum and substance, is the only story here.

Posted by Magdelyn (aka Manuel) on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 10:27 am

The San Francisco Guardian has chosen to endorse Rafael Mandleman and Debra Walker. That is unfortunately. I guess they weren’t around when they both tore apart the Milk Club and the queer community to fulfill their own political ambitions. When I ran for D6 this last time against Chris Daly, no one abused the political process and civility to the extent that these two have done.

Back in 2007, prior to their candidacies, I had the pleasure of representing a victim of Rafael and Debra when they led a troubling, self-serving witch hunt within the Milk Club regarding a specious accusation leveled at my former client that he used "sexist" language. For that, they attempted to get him off the board and take over the leadership to advance their own political ambitions. Rafael Mandelman should have recused himself, because of actual conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. But, he did not. He is unethical. He being an attorney should have known better.

My former client had given over twenty years of service to the Harvey Milk club. He had served on its board in various executive positions. He has actively advocated for progressive causes, feminist issues and community involvement. The allegations proffered by Debra Walker during her self-interested campaign of slander were particularly specious in that my client had s served as an officer in the local chapter of the National Organization for Women.

The persecution of my former client was initiated for purely political reasons – i.e. to benefit Debra and Rafael in taking over the Milk Club. The purported “victim” was in a relationship with Gabriel Haaland, who supports both candidates. Said victims own statements at the time were enlightening, "I believe there are some extremely strong leaders in the club who believe in women being leaders in politics and in the progressive community. Because of that conviction, yes, the club can move forward and people care enough about the club to maintain the integrity of promoting women's leadership." What did "women being leaders in politics" and "promoting women's leadership," have to do with the complaint? Nothing. Prior to her official candidacy for D6, Debra Walker filed the complaint as a power move. It was Debra Walker who attempted to push my former client off the board. Debra Walker was among the group that rejected the executive board's finding that the allegations were unprovable. It was Debra Walker, among others, who violated the club's own disciplinary process and, contrary to the club's own bylaws, intimidated the membership into "approving a motion calling for [my client] to immediately resign his board position and be placed on six-months probation." It was Debra Walker who attempted to scapegoat [my client] for her own personal political gain.

The Harvey Milk Club was pushed away from the very important business of its mission to fulfill Debra and Rafael’s own agenda. That, in sum and substance, is the only story here.

Posted by Magdelyn (aka Manuel) on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 10:30 am

I know your former client. I've talked to him.

I don't know what went down at the Milk Club. Frankly it's water under the bridge now. But just to be clear, he strongly supports Rafael in D8, and while Jane Kim is his first choice in D6, he's totally fine with Debra, as long as a progressive wins the seat.

I think rather than focus on petty personal issues, we should adopt a little of the attitude of your former client. It doesn't do anyone any good if Scott Weiner and Theresa Sparks win those seats (except the Chamber of Commerce of course).

Posted by Greg on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Yes, I remember that. I was a new member of the club and that was my second meeting when that happen. Was your client a soft-spoken elderly gentleman? I was so turned off by what I saw that I never went to another meeting.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

How about a simple " I Support Civility"

Print up 836,000 copies and distribute immediately
Spread the word. Do the work. Become a citizen.

Posted by Joe Citizen, San Francisco on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

How about you print up 836,000 copies of a simple "Mind Your Own Business" and shove them up your ass?
Do the citizens. Spread the work. Become a word.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

I had no idea what I was getting into before I started running for mayor, but now I am getting the hang of the game playing.

Posted by http://www.haroldmiller4mayor.com on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

Dear SFBG: I hope you actually read these rather than just posting them automatically and forgetting them.

I have been using your endorsements as my main guide to voting for over 30 years. In those early days, after reading your endorsements I felt fully confident that I had all the information I needed. You carefully discussed all the even vaguely progressive candidates on the ballot. You explained which races were safe enough for protest votes and which ones really close. You thoughtfully interviewed the Peace and Freedom candidates. You often gave second choices, along the lines of "if you really can't stomach Joe Democrat, we recommend Sally Third-Party."

Today your endorsements are written as if nobody were on the ballot except the Democrat and the Republican. Why bother? Why not just say "vote Democrat" and leave it at that? Anybody who comes to the SFBG for advice is unlikely to vote Republican anyway.

(Your endorsements on ballot propositions remain truly valuable, explaining the arguments on each side as well as the realpolitik behind them. Whoever writes those should be put in charge of the candidate endorsements!)

My second, less global request is that you be more complete about East Bay endorsements. (It didn't matter so much back when the East Bay Express was a progressive paper.) I'm in the dark about Superior Court Judge, Office #9; Albany City Council; AC Transit Director At-Large; and EBMUD Director, Ward 4.

Also, I know you always say to vote yes on all the judges because you don't like the idea of elected judges, but this time, the Governator is putting up for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court someone who isn't already on that court. I'd really like to know more about this mystery candidate.

Posted by Brian Harvey on Oct. 22, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

Dear SFBG: I hope you actually read these rather than just posting them automatically and forgetting them.

I have been using your endorsements as my main guide to voting for over 30 years. In those early days, after reading your endorsements I felt fully confident that I had all the information I needed. You carefully discussed all the even vaguely progressive candidates on the ballot. You explained which races were safe enough for protest votes and which ones really close. You thoughtfully interviewed the Peace and Freedom candidates. You often gave second choices, along the lines of "if you really can't stomach Joe Democrat, we recommend Sally Third-Party."

Today your endorsements are written as if nobody were on the ballot except the Democrat and the Republican. Why bother? Why not just say "vote Democrat" and leave it at that? Anybody who comes to the SFBG for advice is unlikely to vote Republican anyway.

(Your endorsements on ballot propositions remain truly valuable, explaining the arguments on each side as well as the realpolitik behind them. Whoever writes those should be put in charge of the candidate endorsements!)

My second, less global request is that you be more complete about East Bay endorsements. (It didn't matter so much back when the East Bay Express was a progressive paper.) I'm in the dark about Superior Court Judge, Office #9; Albany City Council; AC Transit Director At-Large; and EBMUD Director, Ward 4.

Also, I know you always say to vote yes on all the judges because you don't like the idea of elected judges, but this time, the Governator is putting up for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court someone who isn't already on that court. I'd really like to know more about this mystery candidate.

Posted by Brian Harvey on Oct. 22, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

Dear SFBG:
Did you forget Congressional District 12 (Speier), or is the omission a statement in itself? Also, there's nothing on the Chief and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal Associate Justices—all of which require a yes or no vote. Are these confirmation votes necessary, and are these judges worthy? A little insight here would be nice....

Posted by Harry M on Oct. 25, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

F Newsom! This thug stole the mayoral election (count) from Gonzales, whom more people voted for, which would have meant a huge U.S. city under a Green party banner-- thoroughly unacceptable of an outcome for the power-drunk Democrat machine. The censorship of the Greens has since cranked up quite a bit, featuring their use of the term "green" in marketing everywhere to dilute the real deal.. just in case the average Joe Shmoe cable-tv dolt ever comes across the words "Green Party", it'll just be that forgettable color again.
He has no chance of losing anyway, the office is a joke at any rate, so do use your vote to protest this developer-connected bigwig being in politics generally.. are there true-left Party options, or some decent write-ins? I would hope SFBG would be anti-establishment enough to inform us.

Posted by bakunin on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

Please print something for these, I depend on the SFBG so I can make an informed decision. This is the first omission this large that I've seen in years.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 8:18 am

Related articles

  • Listen to the Guardian's endorsement interviews

  • Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

    Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections

  • Endorsements 2011

    Avalos for mayor. Mirkarimi for sheriff. Onek for district attorney. Yes on C, No on D, E, and F ... complete endorsements for the San Francisco election

  • Also from this author

  • Guardian endorsements

    Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

  • The future of Piers 30-32

  • Hold BART accountable for deaths