Avalos for mayor? He's talking about it

04.12.11 - 11:10 am | Tim Redmond |

(130)

The San Francisco mayor’s race is taking a new twist: Sup. John Avalos -- one of the best, most consistent and productive progressives on the board -- is looking at running.

Avalos told me he wasn’t interested in the interim mayor job and “this was never on my mind when I ran for supervisor.” But the process of selecting an interim mayor and the politics of Sup. David Chiu’s re-election as board president left him deeply disturbed. “I was blown away by how the process was perverted into a backroom deal based on personal ambition,” he said. “The side of the progressive movement that’s about good government and transparency was lost.”

So he’s been meeting with potential supporters and discussing what an Avalos for Mayor campaign would look like.

Although he’s only been in office two years, Avaos has been Budget Committee chair and has a solid and impressive legislative record (the local hire law being his most recent accomplishment). He has as much experience as Matt Gonzalez did when he ran for mayor (and, obvioulsy, as much experience as Chiu, who is also running.)

He makes the case that the progressive movement is better off in the long term if there’s a strong progressive in the race: “If we don’t have someone running, we won’t do as well in district elections next time,” he said, noting that the progressive victories in 2000 and 2004 were helped by the energy generated by Tom Ammiano’s mayoral campaign in 1999 and the Gonzalez campaign in 2003.

Not everyone in progresive poltics agrees with that analysis; I’ve heard from a number of community leaders who question whether what everyone agrees would be a longshot mayoral campaign is the best use if prorogressive resources right now.
But Avalos, to his immense credit, isn’t going to do this on his own. “I don’t believe in just announcing one day,” he told me. “I’m going to talk to people, and if there’s enough support for me, fine, and if there isn’t, I won’t run.”

That’s a sharp contrast to Chris Daly, who has pretty much announced that if no other progressive runs, he will. And with all due respect to the former District 6 supervisor -- who has done a tremendous amount of good for the city, and I mean that with all sincerity -- Daly’s not the right person to carry the progressive standard in the November mayor’s race.

Comments

A long shot...

is better than no shot at all. Avalos has integrity and can articulate a genuine agenda for working families. If he does this, instead of get too involved in the contest to be the most progressive, I think that he may have a shot.

Posted by Yes! on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

Sup. Avalos

Sup Avalos has a heart of gold and represents the spirit and soul of the City and its inhabitants.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 12:32 pm

Tim, Gonzalez and Adachi

Tim,

Gonzalez and Adachi are the two top Progressive candidates and they stick in your craw like a Long John Holmes ... ... movie.

That said (you sucking, I mean) then as an actual Progressive, I'd love to be able to vote an IRV ticket of Gonzalez/Adachi/Avalos in that order.

You and the Guardian couldn't pick a winner in a friggin' one horse race.

Go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

Adachi Has Fallen To The Dark Side

H, Adachi teamed up with Joe Nation to craft his pension reform package.

There is no lipstick on earth that can hide that pig.

Adachi is done.

(And because of his new public face of leading pension 'reform', he would pull too many ranked choice votes to the right if he ran.)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 11:16 am

Adachi's point is not pension

Adachi's point is not pension reform, rather to kneecap progressive candidacies by distracting them with right wing Wisconsin style "pension reform" initiatives financed by billionaires.

It worked last year, cost progressives the Board of Supervisors, and Adachi is going to do the same thing this year, trying to put forth a divisive, right wing ballot measure intended to keep progressives from Room 200.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 11:33 am

Revisionism?

There is lots of flying here re: Prop B spending and November electoral outcomes. This is also a meme Guardian Editor Tim Redmond asserted at the Bernal Heights Democratic Club in a more nuanced way, since he stuck by his in print interpretation that the November 2010 supervisor elections were a wash for progressives. In fairness, this was before the "transactional" moment that catapulted Ed Lee into the Mayor's office.

Unfortunately, the assertion is not supported by evidence. At best it's a Senator Kyle style leap, at worst it's the old ploy that if (fill in the blank) repeats a lie long enough and enough times people will buy it. Americans just elected a Congress that believes prosperity is rooted in tax cuts and the attendant income inequality. The GOP has been dumping that line into the body politic for almost two generations and suckers buy into it. So that kind of politics can "work."

Closer to home, the No on B committee named "Standing Up for Working Families" spent $1.6 million to defeat Jeff Adachi's measure. Firefighters Local 798 spent an additional $300,000 separately in the form of an independent expenditure.

The major union contributions to the formal No on B campaign were:

Local 21 $250,000
Municipal Executives Association $104,389
Firefighter Local 798 $285,552
Plumbers Union Local 38 $30,000
IBEW (PGE) $5,000
International Association of Firefighters $20,000
POA $100,000
Teamsters $5,000
Municipal Attorneys Association $100,000
SEIU National $50,000
*SEIU 1021 $290,000

In fairness, SEIU 1021 is a very progressive union. The case that B caused progressives in supervisor contests to lose stands on that plank. The other donors listed are not traditionally progressive. Local 38 is home to Larry Mazzola that gave San Francisco Frank Jordan. 798 and the POA are the backbone of the City's "moderate" Democratic establishment that has a hand in glove relationship with downtown economic interests that oppose new taxation. The others listed were engaged the kind of rational actor politics described by Mancur Olson.

For the sake of argument let's tease this argument along. Had B prevented Labor from making a major contribution to the races in D6 and D8 there might be something to this. In fact, Labor spent $230,000 on behalf of Rafael Mandelman and $151,000 on behalf of Debra Walker. It's sad for progressive politics they lost. Their defeats and those of Janet Reilly and Tony Kelly paved the way for the Willie L. Brown restoration.

However, the D6 and D8 spending translates into approximately $18 a vote in D8, and $26 a vote in D6. Those sums are less than what Michael Huffington spent but they are not peanuts.

The Adachi backed a formula attempted to carry too much fiscal freight, and the healthcare benefits provision did not differentiate between employees that make $200,000 a year from those few in number City employees making $35,000 a year. For campaign purposes that contrast was pure gold. Had B passed, however, it would free up money that could have mitigated that inequality.

Between now and 2015 it is not possible to keep the retirement system solvent without real sacrifices, $600 million worth plus/minus. This year stabilizing the pension system cost $423 million. The SFBG is right to advocate for taxes and push progressive politicians to be bold who otherwise might be tempted to play it safe, but winning voter approval for $600 million in new revenue is not happening according to local polling. For the present that means new levels of cost sharing or job losses and service cuts are inevitable. It's nihilistic to deny this financial reality. Deficit financing or having a debt ceiling is not an option for any local government Equally deluded is the concept federal bankruptcy and pension laws will be amended by Speaker Boehner or a cloture defined US Senate that benefit San Francisco.

In a fantasy world, San Francisco would have a strong Mayor capable of asserting real pressure on bargaining groups to preserve their defined benefits through new cost sharing arrangements and concessions -- enough to keep the fund solvent without bleeding the general fund. Such a Mayor, after having extracted the necessary concessions would then be able to go to pinched voters and ask for a new round of taxes. That Mayor would also be able to use the power of his office to instill a little fear so economic interests capable of spending seven figure amounts on consultants, direct mail and television would not snuff out the proposed taxes.

San Francisco does not have such a figure. It's improbable that it will because political power is increasingly diffused. Instead as citizens we need to act like responsible adults, and take a few political risks merely to hold onto the existing institutions of local government. Jeff Adachi is not "the dark side." That measure lost but the core issue remains one our city alone has to deal with it. Chanting words from cable television won't make it go away.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

The most intelligent thing I

The most intelligent thing I have read on the Guardian in quite some time.

C'mon marcos, where is your snappy comeback?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

Good post.

I don't agree with all of it, but it has some good points, presented well.

Posted by The Commish on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

Unions spent $2.8 million to defeat Prop B...??

Great post but wasn't quite sure how to interpret your #s. It is a staggering amount of money particularly given all the talk of "billionaire" opponents. This would mean the unions outspent the billionaires about 2 to 1 - impressive.

What did they get for all this money? As you more or less point out, they just put off the inevitable for a year and the next ballot measure will likely be stiffer than Adachi's as the problem has worsened. As they allocated money and valuable boots on the ground to Prop B, every one of their progressive, union supporting candidates for Supervisor lost even Janet Reilly a big favorite and a big union supporter. All of this makes it more likely the Mayor's significant pension and health benefit reforms will muster the 6-5 vote.

Also as you point out, these escalating benefit costs inexorably lead to job losses so in essence these folks were campaigning to kill their own jobs.

The law of unintended consequences indeed...

Posted by Guest on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

Billionaires buying elections

Be honest. The money that the unions coughed up came from the dues of working men and women, not ultra-wealthy individuals. As Sarah Phelan said,

"The city's campaign contribution archive shows that less than 500 people donated a total of $1 million in support of Adachi’s Measure B. And that unions, collectively representing the 25,000 local workers who chose to donate $2 per pay check for political purposes last year, donated $1 million to fight Measure B."

Yes, the unions spent more. What does that prove? There are more workers than billionaires. And thank goodness! If you liked Citizens United v. FEC, you're going to love the latest "pension reform" brought to you by Mike Moritz and Howard Leach? So, these billionaires are buying elections left and right now. Does this sound like democracy to you?

Listen, I just opened up the March issue of The Economist today (a neighbor saves this rag for me). The billionaires' game is all spelled out in black and white in an op-ed entitled "Taming the Leviathon." It's the usual dreck about the need to cut "big government" and "move towards towards a small core civil service with a lot of competing suppliers for services." (translation: they want to privatize services now performed the public sector.)

Tell me, how is this different from the game that's being played in Congress right now concerning the budget? (ironic that you mention that).The GOP has been yelling about budget deficits for years. Never mind that they've contributed to the deficit with their incessant demand for pass tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy. And that means less money for cities and states.

The main reason I don't support the Adachi/Moritz "fix" is simple~ it doesn't get at the root of the problem. At best, Adachi's measure will only forestall the inevitable. You see, while we were sleeping, the conservatives have gotten busy. And they've been digging a monumental trench in state and federal budgets in hopes of bankrupting the public sector. (22 percent of San Francisco's general fund budget comes from state and federal money.) So that when local governments are completely crippled, they can claim that that the public sector doesn't "perform" as well as private businesses can.

And yes, turn off Glenn Beck! I don't know which channel on cable TV you've been tuning into, but most of the pundits I've seen are polishing their pitchforks and breaking out the torches to go after public workers.

Maturity has nothing to do with scapegoating workers or immigrants. Real leadership requires getting at the root of the problem. A true leader is someone who can make the case that cities need revenue-generating measures in order to deliver essential services. As Paul Krugman argued in a recent op-ed, unions are the only remaining counterweight to oligarchy. Well, perhaps you'd like to argue this issue with a Nobel-prize winning economist.

Ultimately, we need someone with real budget experience who will come up with a progressive solution to the problem. And, for my money, that man is John Avalos.

Go Avalos!!

Posted by Lisa on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

Whichever party spends more = "buying" election.

Gee- we get it, you don't like billionaires- ha. They're all evil bent on U.S. destruction. Adachi donors volunteered their funds, that is a distinction and the donor issue is irrelevant if you are always going to be outspent by unions. You can't "buy" anything when unions have a bottomless pit of taxpayer dollars. If spending dollar amount is determinant as to who is "buying" elections than the unions bought the Prop B outcome. That's just conventional wisdom.

Your comments would have made more sense if the City's revenues had actually gone down- but they haven't. City revenues have been flat and as a matter of fact, are projected to increase 5% over the three year budget horizon. Anyone in the Controller's office would tell you that the City has fared relatively very well revenue-wise through the economic turmoil. (I am trying to stick to the City not the state or the country for that matter).

So revenues are increasing 5% but budget deficits are projected to be over $1 billion over the three-year horizon. Gee- I wonder why that is....?

Adachi doesn't get at the root of the problem? Please tell us your revenue-generating plan to pay down the $6 billion unfunded pension liability and the $4.5 billion unfunded retiree health care liability! If Adachi does not get to the root of the problem, why am I reading about a new union plan to increase employee pension contributions? So the union plan does not get at the root of the problem either? I think you are fighting the inevitable.

Agree that state and federal dollars are a critical component of the City's budget, particularly the Department of Public Health. It is very disturbing to see cuts in the DPH as a result of these rising benefit costs. You should should be disturbed that the City is running an operating reserve of less than 1% (should be at least > 5%) when it has no idea how much state money it is to receive in a year like this one...

For the record, have never watched Glen Beck but do watch Maddow and O'Donnell...!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

oligarchy versus the collective power of working men and women

@Guest,

If you'd like to continue this discussion at "Link pension reform to tax reform" (my preference) or at "Unions didn't cause the financial crisis", I'll be happy to respond to this. But this is kind of off topic for this piece, which is devoted to John Avalos' (possible) mayoral candidacy. (the only reason I responded is because I thought that those comments should not go unchallenged.) However, here's what Paul Krugman has to say on the issue:

"In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions."

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/krugman-unions-are-only-remaining...

Posted by Lisa on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

You repeat the false assumption

that the unions represent working class and the middle class in todays America.

Claiming something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you make the claim.

The modern public employee union is for policies that drive down wages and increase the costs of government, while duping people like Lisa into thinking that they represent "working people."

I love Lisa's massive quotes and references, which are usually conspiracy theorist ravings or self referential preaching to the converted. Again the fringe left and right meet in the middle.

Posted by meatlocker on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

How wonderful that Avalos is "considering" gracing us!

There's nothing I love more than a politician who says they've "never thought" about running for higher office - it unmasks them as the charlatans most politicians are anyway. Because if there's one thing politicians think about it's how they're going to scamper up the ladder and who's dick they need to suck to make it happen the quickest. Take Jane Kim for example. Remember how she said she "had to be honest" and that she'd "never thought of running for public office?" LOL - this after her whole professional life had been spent running for office. Jane's turned out better than many expected but - that statement was absurd.

Still, it is comforting that Avalos is considering bequeathing his amazing amount of experience and knowledge on us. Frankly I don't know how San Francisco and its residents have managed to get along so far without the wisdom and skills of John Avalos. But we needn't worry any longer - help is on the way.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

John Avalos - the Sacrificial Lamb for a Sect

If John Avalos runs for mayor, he will at least give the progressives a voice in the election process. As things now stand, they have none.

However, Avalos will have trouble becoming more than a voice. To have any chance at all of becoming mayor, he will have to win a respectable percentage of the city's middle voters.

That will be a tough challenge for him. In manner, he can be as abrasive as Chris Daly. In politics, he will have to placate the belligerent ideologues, such as marc salomon, or they will attack him.

Both the abrasiveness and the ideological belligerence will turn off middle voters. They want a practical problem-solver with social skills.

So the upshot of an Avalos race will likely be, first, a rallying to his banner by doctrinaire progressives, followed, later, by self-righteous resentment on their part after he is defeated because of an inability to widen his base.

Nonetheless, the sect will have its sacrificial lamb.

And isn't that what the doctrinaire religious sensibility often craves?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

Avalos Abrasive?

Avalos is known as someone who is principled, but can build consensus and work with people with whom he disagrees with. I know Chris Daly is your favorite topic, and while they are often on the same sides of issues, Avalos' approach is completely different. He has also been independent from Chris on a number of occasions, which has caused Chris to blow up and John to not get involved in the useless back and forth of petty personality conflicts or loyalty oaths.

Please provide evidence for Avalos' alleged similar behavior to Daly. I know you like to accuse people of being testosterone driven etc, but that really doesn't seem to apply here.

Posted by District 11 on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

Avalos is a weak candidate with

little chance of winning. He doesn't have much name recognition, and would be considered too liberal by many for a city-wide vote.

Posted by Chad on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

The only reason Gonzalez

The only reason Gonzalez didn't win in 2003 is because when Newsom was locking in the mail-in ballots Gonzalez had not yet decided to run.

So strange that four years later the strongest candidate against Newsom was Chicken John. What happened??????

Also strange that two years ago a progressive candidate couldn't become board president and a compromise, almost subversive Koch Bros. mole candidate, David Chiu, kind of lied that he was a progressive and weaseled his way in, if you believe Randy Shaw's last column, and got the seat.

And that same crazy dynamic put Newsom's and Willie's and Rose Pak's candidate as interim mayor, what Chris Daly called "the worst fumble ever."

I don't understand why progressives think they can't win. Every time they try they do just fine.

If Gonzalez had started a few weeks earlier, who knows?

If someone could have run against Newsom for his second term, who knows?

If Daly and Mirkarimi could have stop fighting each other for board president, you know fur sure that lying non-progressive weasel (according to Randy Shaw) wouldn't be "emancipating" himself from progressives right this very second now on sfgovtv.

Can't really blame anyone for thinking that progressives tend to be a little bit distracted....

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

The left have fought with each other since

at least Lenin and Trotsky. They can't help themselves.

Daly and Mirkarimi probably hate each other more than either one hated George W. Bush.

And this is why they cannot govern even if they win, which of course they also cannot.

Posted by Chad on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

Avalos for mayor

If he wins maybe the SEIU could just pay his salary instead of the tax payers.

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

Wide Open

This year's Mayor's race is wide open. That's why downtown, their columnists, and the crazy internet trolls are so worried!

Last Fall, "moderate" Malia Cohen won her race for Supervisor with less than 25% of those voting for D10 Supervisor. (In fact, she got less than 12% of the first round votes!) This year's Mayor's race is even more crowded and scattered than that D10 race.

John Avalos would be no long shot. With the shoe leather of community organizers and progressive activists along with public financing, John would run circles around the lot of uninspiring careerists who comprise the current field. Don't take my word for it, check any downtown sponsored poll on the race. Even the current Mayor isn't supported by 4 out of 5 likely voters!

Running for office takes a great deal of sacrifice from many people, but I believe progressive San Francisco is ready to put in the work. And it appears we may have one of the most inspirational candidates to come along in some time.

Posted by Chris Daly on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

The Case for Avalos

Great piece, Chris~

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/982/the-case-for-john-avalos/

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

Keyes

I don't think your James Keyes endorsement worked out so well.

Posted by The Commish on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

Don't you have a bar counter to wipe down?

Instead of gracing all of us with your useless opinions? Better yet - why not return to Fairfield and grace them with your useless opinions? The last election proves that no one cares what you have to say.

Two words for you Daly: Jane Kim.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

Jane Kim?

I tought Jane Kim would be fine. I was wrong.

Posted by Paul Quick on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 11:33 pm

Your right Chris. The race

Your right Chris. The race is wide open. John would be an excellent mayor, has a really great combination of name recognition yet still a fresh face on the board, and is steadily progressive while working well with everyone. He has a solid, progressive voting record and appeals to working families.....And he needs to enter the race soon.

PS: Do you think Chad and Arthur Evans are the same person? Is Arthur Evans a real person out there? Sometimes I think he is Willie Brown..........except for the last sentence he wrote in this thread.

Posted by tommarc on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

Run John, run!

I am thrilled that John John Avalos is thinking of running for mayor, and I strongly encourage him to run. Avalos is a solid progressive with an impressive record that includes budget experience, community organizing, and working together with people across the board to protect essential services. As he says, we need to return to good government and transparency in place of corrupt backroom deals. We want government by and for the people, not the downtown interests. John Avalos will deliver on that. And as Avalos' record demonstrates, he will continue to stand up for the most vulnerable while ensuring that city government is open and accessible to all. John Avalos for mayor of SF!!

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

Thanks, John Avalos, for

Thanks, John Avalos, for taking a principled stand on the Arboretum. I thought your ordinance was a win-win solution, paying tribute to what the place was actually designed for, and letting everyone get a sustainable arboretum. How about that? Actually paying attention to the soul of a place. I say, when you have a creative solution that can satisfy both sides, take it!
Now we're left with a lot of angry people who have been unheard. Great. And a garden, that in my opinion, has been besmirched.
If I hear the words "In a perfect world" one more time, i think i'll be sick. You make your world. You stand for a world you want to see. And you find ways to do it. If you can be that kind of a mayor, you have my support.
Thanks again for your voice today.

Posted by Guest daniele erville on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

Avalos' stand on the

Avalos' stand on the Arboretum last year is the reason I wouldn't vote for him today. He's the main reason the fee was implemented in the first place, despite his recent supposed change of heart. I'm still not sure if his support for a "temporary" fee was due to a Daly-esqe lack of foresight or simple cover to allow him to cave to the rich while giving lip service to his progressive base.

As John Kerry found out, being for something before you're against it isn't going to win you a lot of elections.

Posted by JMC on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 11:15 pm

I've got no problems with

I've got no problems with offloading the costs of running city government onto the backs of the tourists which drives local inflation that raises our cost of living.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 7:52 am

Advice to John Avalos: Beware of Endorsement by Chris Daly!

Chris Daly endorsed Matt Gonzalez for mayor against Gavin Newsom in 2003. Gonzalez lost.

Daly opposed Newsom's Care Not Cash initiative. It passed.

Daly opposed Newsom for mayor in 2007. Newsom won.

Daly endorsed James Keys for supe in district six in 2010. He lost.

Daly opposed Prop L, the civil sidewalks law. It passed.

Daly opposed creation of the Community Justice Court. It's a success.

The list goes on and on.

Daly is radioactive. He has some of the highest overall negative ratings of SF politicians. His endorsements set off voters' Geiger counters and stir them to run to the opposite positions.

If Avalos, who is Daly's former aide, campaigns while Daly loudly pounds the drum for him, he'll be wiped out. The progressives would do much better to keep Daly under wraps, out of sight.

Good luck with that!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

Arthur Evans' Obsession with Chris Daly...

Evans seems to spend much of his time in the throes of ecstasy, provided by thoughts of Daly.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

Daly holds the record for getting things done

"It is Daly, however, who holds the record for getting things done. He authored more legislation that became law than any other supervisor – more than 150 ordinances Daly told The San Francisco Examiner — and wrote more charter amendments (12) approved by the voters than anyone else on the Board."

http://citireport.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/good-to-be-bad-chris-daly-on-...

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

Just what San Francisco needs...

More laws. Laws authorizing the city to snoop in our garbage, laws authorizing the city to snoop in Happy Meals. It's always good with progressives until it's them on the receiving end of laws they don't like.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

Snooping out garbage?

So, we should pay higher garbage fees to buy up more land for landfill (and pay federal fines for non-compliance with the laws on this) because sorting our trash would--gasp!-- allow Chris Daly to "snoop" in our garbage?

Anymore paranoid fantasies you'd like to share?

Posted by Paul Quick on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 11:39 pm

Is this a support of Avalos?

As he wants an alcohol tax to support the cities bums who use up the majority of certain services?

Instead of addressing these bums actions, he wants the rest of us to pay for it.

The progressive world view is to harass the people already obeying the law with their micromanagement, while letting people not interested in getting along and obeying the laws already on the books, do as they wish and cost us millions.

The actions of "progressives" in this city are there for all to see.

Posted by maltlock on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 9:57 am

The epitome of progressive thinking

Tax alcoholic drinks to pay for the less than 1% of users of alcohol who are reprobates and chronically inebriated. Don't ask the reprobates to take personal responsibility for their actions and god forbid - never ask them to pay a price. The price should be paid by those who follow the rules.

I've always wondered why progressives are the loudest supporters of "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco. When society shares their view of what's sinful they're the first to hop on the bandwagon of higher taxes and stronger regulation. But watch their reaction if someone attempts to tax porn or add an extra tax on strippers (neither of which I'd support, like I don't support higher taxes on alcohol and cigarettes either) - it's like all of a sudden the National Socialists are at our door.

The hypocrisy in full view on these pages is repulsive.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 10:16 am

Thank you, John Avalos, for Local Hire!

Thank you for insuring that "local dollars invested in public infrastructure be recycled back into San Francisco’s economy and local communities," as you put it so well. That's some of the most impressive legislation I've seen come out of the BoS's. Kudos!

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

Will Avalos entice Britney

Will Avalos entice Britney Spears to come to town and sing for free?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

Run Chris Daly, run!

Tim, I disagree with you about Chris Daly. We need at least three solid progressives in the race for IRV to work in our favor. And Chris has accomplished more important legislation than anyone else on that board. He may rub some people the wrong way, but that's because he has always been more an activist than a politician. Chris is our "fighting Bob" La Follette. He's the real deal -- a genuine progressive who's willing to fight for the little guy, whatever it takes. We need someone like him to run. Just saying.

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

Run... back to Fairfield. The

Run... back to Fairfield.
The only thing genuine about Chris Daly is his wish to keep the poor people of San Francisco poor.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 7:47 pm

Avalos would definitely make

Avalos would definitely make an interesting candidate. He's one of the nicest people in City Hall. His genuineness and normalness really connects with people. Today's debate at the Board about the Arboretum fee was a good case study: to my eyes, Avalos came off as passionate and principled, while David Chiu sounded like a politician with his "faux-compromise" amendments.

Avalos also probably the candidate in the race with the best chance of engaging the artistic community in the City that gave the Gonzalez campaign so much energy. (What other candidate has a record player in his office?)

I think his--and David Chiu's--biggest challenges will be their simple lack of name ID compared to long-time hacks like Yee and Herrera. But with IRV, public financing, a crowded field, and a strong ground campaign, who knows what could happen.

Posted by Jeremy on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

Look let's face it, if the left blew a chance in 2007 with a crippled incumbent emboriled in a sex scandal and other woes, what hope do they have with "Mayor" Newsom II (aka Ed Lee), and a pack of candidates who have been running and sucking up the matching funds, all the while the progressives play with themselves?

Sorry, but you're gonna lose. Matt LOST in 2003. After years of tricks, gimmick laws and more, he fucked you all over in 2007, and Daly's "progressive convention" was a failure. Ross is running for Sheriff, and meanwhlie you are going to have to accept that downtown and Willie Brown are going to pick the next Mayor. Sorry you can't see it, and sorry you had to fuck over John Avalos, a nice guy who deserves better from you lot.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

Avalos for Mayor

I think John would make a good mayor - he is right on the issues, has integrity and obviously qualified in several regards. I have no idea how much money is going to be spent on this race among all candidates - IE included. However, I like his thoughtful statement: "“I’m going to talk to people, and if there’s enough support for me, fine, and if there isn’t, I won’t run.” If he does not run, his endorsement of another candidate would have a lot of influence with me. Of course us commoners don't get to see the secret polling results on the race.

Mark Barnes

Posted by D6 Resident on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 7:49 pm

Avalos For Mayor?

I was hoping Daly would run.

Posted by redbeardedguy on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 8:06 pm

Run John run!

I am really hoping John decides to run. This city needs a true progressive campaign after so many years in the proverbial wilderness on the mayoral front. He has a remarkable record of accomplishment after just a couple years in office.

The landmark local hire legislation that just passed with a huge coalition of support from community and labor orgs from all over the city is on par with Ammiano's health care ordinance as one of the most substantive policy accomplishments in a generation.

John is the only city official that has succeeded in bringing in revenue for the City in a dire budget era with the commercial property transfer tax. With all the cuts to city services we're still facing, we need this kind of leadership to balance the budget equitably.

John is just a great guy - he's really down to earth and clearly cares about people. District elections and public financing were put in place for a reason -- So good hearted people with grass roots support could get into office and compete with well healed special interests. It would be a shame if these reforms were not taken advantage of to their full potential by a candidate with proven results.

Run John run!

Posted by Julian on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

There's still work to do in district 11!

John Avalos is a great guy, however, I would be extremely disappointed if he decided to run without finishing his term as supervisor in district 11. He would be no different than any of the aspiring politician that some many people that typically comment on sfbg criticize. Before he's accountable to the "progressives", he's accountable to District 11 residents - the people that voted him in and pay his salary. And perhaps the "progressives" and otherwise should realize that before they encourage/disparage/perpetuate misinformation people running.

And it's pretty hypocrital to be self righteous about "transparency" and "accountability". John Avalos, and every effective legislative aide, has had to be good at back room dealing. That's what they do. I highly doubt that many of the legislations that John, or any supervisor, had meetings open to the public about local hiring, etc. that allowed residents, not apart of an organization, to weigh in. This would be another point of weakness, not strength in my eyes, to John Avalos' campaign: his accountablity to "groups" and not communities - and so far, those groups don't respresent me or the majority of my neighbors.

I like John Avalos, despite of what I've written, and I believe that he would make a great mayor. But if he runs for mayor, the guy who knocked on my door and told me what he was about isn't any different from any of the shit head politicians, progressive/moderate/crazychrisdaly type that are running.

But this is just my two cents.

Posted by district 11 voter on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

Lisa,

How many times do you plan on posting in one thread? It's kind of odd. And is Julian your other name--the Julian post is almost the same as the Lisa posts.

Posted by The Commish on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 9:44 pm

Lisa has 2-3 sock puppets here

Quite strange.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 12, 2011 @ 10:29 pm

Strange comment out of The Comish aka Alfred Evans, aka Lucretia

I do know Julian, but I do know he is speaking for himself. Are you projecting your own sock puppet personas again?

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 3:02 pm