Realtors and tech spending big to flip the Board of Supervisors

|
(93)
District 1 candidate David Lee is benefitting from unprecedented spending by wealthy interests.

Wealthy interests aligned with Mayor Ed Lee, the real estate industry, big tech companies, and other downtown groups are spending unprecedented sums of money in this election trying to flip the balance of power on the Board of Supervisors, with most of it going to support supervisorial candidates David Lee in D1 and, to a lesser degree, London Breed in D5.

The latest campaign finance statements, which were due yesterday, show Lee benefiting from more than $250,000 in “independent expenditures” from just two groups: the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth PAC, which got its biggest support from tech titans Mark Benioff and Ron Conway; and the Coalition for Responsible Growth, funded by the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

Lee's campaign has also directly spent another nearly $250,000 on its race to unseat incumbent Sup. Eric Mar – bringing total expenditures on his behalf to more than $500,000, an unheard-of amount for a district election. Mar has spent $136,000 and has $24,100 in the bank, and he is benefiting from another $125,000 that San Francisco Labor Council unions have raised on his behalf.

Breed has benefited from more than $40,000 in spending on her behalf by the two groups. Her campaign is also leading the fundraising field in her district, spending about $150,000 so far and sitting on more than $93,000 in the bank for a strong final push.

Incumbent D5 Sup. Christina Olague has done well in fundraising, but the reports seem to indicate that her campaign hasn't managed its resources well and could be in trouble in the final leg. She has just $13,369 in the bank and nearly $70,000 in unpaid campaign debts, mostly to her controversial consultant Enrique Pearce's firm.

Slow-and-steady D5 candidates John Rizzo and Thea Selby seem to have enough in the bank ($20,000 and $33,000 respectively) for a decent final push, while Selby also got a $10,000 boost from the the Alliance, which could be a mixed blessing in that progressive district. Julian Davis still has more than $18,000 in the bank, defying the progressive groups and politicians who have pulled their endorsements and pledging to finish strong.

In District 7, both FX Crowley and Michael Garcia have posted huge fundraising numbers, each spending around $22,000 this year, but Crowley has the fiscal edge going into the final stretch with $84,443 in the bank compared to Garcia's less than $34,000. But progressive favorite Norman Yee is right in the thick of the race as well, spending $130,000 this year and having more than $63,000 in the bank.

The following is a detailed look at the numbers (we didn't do Districts 3, 9, and 11, where the incumbents aren't facing serious or well-funded challenges) for the biggest races:

 

Independent Expenditures

 

Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth PAC

The downtown-oriented group is run by notorious campaign attorney Jim Sutton. It has raised $447,500 this year, including $225,000 in this reporting period (Oct. 1 to Oct. 20).

It has spent $107,808 this period and $342,248 this reporting period. It has $243,599 in the bank and $105,334 in outstanding debt.

Donors include: Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff ($100,000), venture capitalist Ron Conway ($35,000), San Francisco Police Officers Association ($25,000), Healthplus Share Services out of Walnut Creek ($20,000), Committee on Jobs ($47,500), and Operating Engineers Local 3 ($10,000)

The Alliance has spent $143,763 this year, including $16,921 in this reporting period, supporting D1 supervisorial candidate David Lee and attacking his opponent Eric Mar; and $10,205 each in support of D5 candidates Thea Selby and London Breed.

 

Coalition for Sensible Growth (with major funding by the SF Association of Realtors)

Raised nothing this reporting period but $225,000 this year.

Spent $75,636 this period and $287,569 this year. Has $170,744 in the bank and $152,000 in outstand debts.

It has spent $101,267 supporting D1 candidate David Lee, $26,405 support of David Chiu in D3, $2,739 each supporting FX Crowley and Michael Garcia in D7, $12,837 opposing Norman Yee in D7, $29,357 backing London Breed in D5, and $20,615 promoting Prop. C (the Housing Trust Fund).

The San Francisco Labor Council Labor & Neighbor PAC has raised $84,563 for its various member unions and spent $93,539 this year on general get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Labor Council also supports three Teachers, Nurses and Neighbors groups supporting Eric Mar in D1 (raising $125,000 and spending $85,437), FX Crowley in D7 (raising $50,000 and spending $40,581), and Christina Olague in D5 (raising $15,000 and spending $15,231)

 

Supervisorial Races:

District 1

Eric Mar

Raised $18,270 this period, $135,923 this year, and got no public finances this period.

He has spend $61,499 this period, $187,409 this year, and has $24,180 in the bank with no debt.

Donors include: Sup. David Chiu ($250), board aides Judson True ($100) and Jeremy Pollock ($100), redevelopment attorney James Morales ($200), developer Jack Hu ($500), engineer Arash Guity ($500), community organizer James Tracy ($200), Lisa Feldstein ($250), Marc Salomon ($125), Petra DeJesus ($300), and Gabriel Haaland ($200).

David Lee

Raised $4,174 this period, $140,305 this year, and no public financing matches this period.

He has spent $245,647 this year and $55,838 this period. He has $5,871 in debts and $26,892 in the bank.

Donors include the building trades union ($500), property manager Andrew Hugh Smith ($500), Wells Fargo manager Alfred Pedrozo ($200), and SPO Advisory Corp. partner William Oberndorf ($500).

District 5

John Rizzo

Raised $5,304 this period (10/1-10/20), $29,860 this year, and $14,248 in public financing

He has $19,813 in the bank

Donors are mostly progressive and environmental activists: attorney Paul Melbostad $500), Hene Kelly ($100), Bernie Choden ($100), Dennis Antenore ($500), Clean Water Action's Jennifer Clary ($150), Matt Dorsey ($150), Arthur Feinstein ($350), Jane Morrison ($200), and Aaron Peskin ($150).

 

Julian Davis

Raised $8,383 this period, $38,953 YTD, and got $16,860 in public financing in this period (and $29,510 in the 7/1-9/30 period).

He has $67,530 in YTD expenses, $18,293 in the bank, and $500 in debts.

Some donors: Aaron Peskin ($500), John Dunbar ($500), Heather Box ($100), Jim Siegel ($250), Jeremy Pollock ($200), BayView publisher Willie Ratcliff ($174), and Burning Man board member Marian Goodell ($400). Peskin and Dunbar both say they made those donations early in the campaign, before Davis was accused of groping a woman and lost most of his progressive endorsements.

 

London Breed

Raised $15,959 this period, $128,009 YTD, got $95,664 in public financing this period.

Total YTD expenditures of $150,596 and has $93,093 in the bank

Donors include: Susie Buell ($500), CCSF Board member Natalie Berg ($250), Miguel Bustos ($500), PG&E spokesperson and DCCC Chair Mary Jung ($250), SF Chamber of Commerce Vice President Jim Lazarus ($100), Realtor Matthew Lombard ($500), real estate investor Susan Lowenberg ($500), Municipal Executives Association of SF ($500), Carmen Policy ($500), SF Apartment Association ($500), SF's building trades PAC ($500), and Sam Singer ($500).

 

Christina Olague

Raised $7,339 this period, $123,474 YTD, and got $39,770 in public financing this period.

Has spent $54,558 this period, $199,419 this year, has $13,367 in the bank, and has $69,312 in outstanding debt.

Donors include: former Mayor Art Agnos ($500), California Nurses Association PAC ($500), a NUHW political committee ($500), the operating engineers ($500) and electrical workers ($500) union locals, Tenants Together attorney Dean Preston ($100), The Green Cross owner Kevin Reed ($500), SEIU-UHW PAC ($500), Alex Tourk ($500), United Educators of SF ($500), and United Taxicab Workers ($200).

Some expenses include controversial political consultant Enrique Pearce's Left Coast Communications ($15,000), which documents show is still owed another $62,899 for literature, consulting, and postage.

 

Thea Selby

Raised $5,645 this period, $45,651 YTD, and got $6,540 in public financing this period.

Spent $29,402 this period, $67,300 this year, and has $33,519 in the bank.

Donors include:

David Chiu board aide Judson True ($100), One Kings Lane VP Jim Liefer ($500), SF Chamber's Jim Lazarus ($100), Harrington's Bar owner Michael Harrington ($200), and Arthur Swanson of Lightner Property Group ($400).

 

District 7

 

Norman Yee

Raised $8,270 this period and $85,460 this year and received $65,000 in public financing.

Spent $15,651 this period, $130,005 this year, and has $63,410 in the bank and no debt.

Donors include: Realtor John Whitehurst ($500), Bank of America manager Patti Law ($500), KJ Woods Construction VP Marie Woods ($500), and Iron Work Contractors owner Florence Kong ($500).

 

FX Crowley

Raised $5,350 this period, $163,108 this year, and another $25,155 through public financing.

He spent $76,528 this period, $218,441 this year, and has $84,443 in the bank and $7,291 in unpaid debt.

Donors include: Alliance for Jobs & Sustainable Growth attorney Vince Courtney ($250), Thomas Creedon ($300) and Mariann Costello ($250) of Scoma's Restaurant, stagehands Richard Blakely ($100) and Thomas Cleary ($150), Municipal Executives Association of SF ($500), IBEW Local 1245 ($500), and SF Medical Society PAC ($350)

 

Michael Garcia

Raised $8,429 this period, $121,123 this year, and $18,140 through public financing.

He spent $45,484 this period, $222,580 this year, and has $33,936 in the bank.

Donors include: Coalition for Responsible Growth flak Zohreh Eftekhari ($500), contractor Brendan Fox ($500), consultant Sam Lauter of BMWL ($500), Stephanie Lauter ($500), consultant Sam Riordan ($500), and William Oberndorf ($500)

 

Comments

shock you that there would be a widespread desire to promote candidates who reflect a success-oriented government?

People want success, prosperity and job growth. They don't want more losers, union members and deficits.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

"So what? As SF becomes more business-oriented..."

Translation: "Business-oriented" is newspeak for conservative. But of course those that hide behind newspeak refer to conservatives as "moderates."

Peace = war
Up = down
Left = right
... and so forth.

Therefore, it should read:

"So what? As SF becomes more conservative..."

Because the reality is that all cities and towns across the world including San Francisco are "business-oriented" (from corporations to small family-owned business).

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

a successful jobs-oriented government and not a left-wing nirvana for losers and parasites. Why would that surprise you?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 11:07 pm

"Can't remember" approving wholly fraudulent technology contractor GCSI on Willie Brown's say-so back in the day, either. What a piece of work. That bit alone cost us *millions*.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/02/06/conflicted-chron-buries-lead-cit...

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 12:13 am

You are correct, it was that few fraudulent votes that made the difference. God, you are so great!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 7:17 am

Overall Lee beat Avalos 1.6 to 1.0 in first place votes, a landslide by any realistic measurement. If you take out every Chinatown vote for Lee the margin is 1.5 to 1. So Lee achieved a landslide result without counting a single vote from Chinatown.

And he knew that. The kids doing the stencil thing were obviously doing something dumb but at least they give the lilli's of the world something to cling to in their desperate need to deny reality.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 7:55 am

Of course, this is a claim coming from Troll and his ilk, so little wonder it is patently false; a bold lie just like all the others.

Even nowadays, the term "landslide" means *more* than 60% of the votes -- which Lee did NOT achieve despite wholesale voting rigging and illegal campaign cash -- but traditionally it meant just about ALL the votes; as in "electoral landslide."

For further clarification of what landslide means look at its etymology: what happens in a non-metaphorical landslide? Just about everything gets swept downward.

But of course the point is that as a city-wide elected officer, Ed Lee has *no* business acting as the sheriff's boss. They are properly colleagues -- aside from Ed Lee's medacity, intrasigence, maliciousness, and anti-social leanings; character flaws that Ross Mirkarimi is trying heroically to work around.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 8:16 am

Hello This was an excellent post for such a hard subject to speak about. I look forward to seeing many much more excellent posts like this one. Thanks Cipto Junaedy Bank Mandiri Bank Terbaik di Indonesia

Posted by ferbabdoza on Feb. 01, 2013 @ 2:00 am

I just recently found this blog on the internet, and while I was surfing around your different posts and articles then suddenly I came to this specific post which i really enjoyed it. I think you have some good information on the subjects you write about.

http://binaereoptionen.wordpressy.pl/

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

"for losers and parasites"

Like yourself.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

Such mean words dont belong here!

Übersetzung Spanisch Deutsch

Posted by Shocked one on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 2:52 am

I didn't say anything about Lee. I was making a general statement. You really do reinforce the word "ass" in assumption.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

So the incumbent won and from this, you think all of sudden you're living in Texas or something???

Come visit the planet, "reality," again one of these days.

And with so many ppl running for mayor, the odds of the incumbent losing - no matter who he or she is - in such a situation was miniscule.

But don't let the facts matter to ya. I'm sure you'll do your best to keep trying to spread your rightwing propaganda.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

Perhaps Avalos might have done better in the Richmond and Sunset (where he lost more than 2 to 1), if he had ever bothered to have even one campaign stop west of Stanyan...That speaks volumes about the man.

Posted by Richmondman on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 5:44 am

Avalos' political cohort is more interested in making sure that the campaign team looks like their vision of San Francisco rather than doing what is required to win because that would mean operating out of their comfort zone amidst those not dependent on social services and their campaign had no place for "the rich."

Posted by marcos on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 6:42 am

I agree with the reply of Guest,

SF go know to business model view and it's normal. I think everybody want to earn little money il this world no ?

Posted by Evesnstrood on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 6:06 am

Why then could she be "in trouble" but he's positioned to "finish strong?" Debts don't matter - every consultant knows they'll get paid in the end.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

The SF Alliance for jobs includes as its founders, some of the most progressive. pro-local hire, community-based trades unions in town. The Labor membership accounts for well over 100,000 working people.

Posted by SF Labor Rep. on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

You mean all of those guys with igloos that commute here on BART to build homes that they can't afford to live in, and office buildings in which they will never work? Yeah, the ones with no ongoing interest in the well being of San Franciscans.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 7:29 pm
no

the alliance does not represent 100,000 workers. the labor council does which has endorsed eric mar.

name the unions that represent alliance. it is mainly big buisiness with a small portion of building trades unions

Posted by reality check on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

Chickens coming home to roost. The Mirikarimi mess could tip the balance and it's not like it was a surprise. It split progressives and it's now divide & conquer. And Ross and his great big ego can take special pride that his self interest came before the cause he claims to support- ie a progressive majority.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

Progressives are on the ropes because a multi-year well resourced campaign at cooptation, repression and out-organizing has been successful.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 8:22 pm

Their policies don't resonate with SF residents and their personal behavior has been very poor.

Most SF'ers want moderate, centrist policies, and not socialism. There is no vast right-wing conspiracy -progressives invented that to cover their own failings.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

Progressives are on the ropes because they've not been able to out organize their opponents who have engaged in a well resources multi-year campaign to out organize them. Thus, they've taken the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach only to find that the only doors open to them lead to the political wilderness.

San Franciscans like socialism, this is not a Fox News red state, they just want to be the beneficiaries of socialism instead of having to pay for socialism for the handful of the 1% and a handful of the very poor while being left to fend for themselves.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 7:14 am

I'm actually in agreement with marcos. Go figure.

Posted by Snoozers on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 12:12 am

Progressives are on the ropes because....

So-called self-appointed activists such as yourself, brooksey, lilli, h., and a few similarly obsessed "progressive" posters on sfgate don't have self-awareness or enough intelligence to figure out that your tactics, methods, tone, arguments, and general obsessiveness suck the life from most people and organizations.

Family members might have to endure bad behavior from their close relatives, but most people in the work and volunteer world are not going to waste their precious life force trying to get along with people who have poor interpersonal skills or who appear to be seething with anger beneath their mostly controlled surface. There's nothing more charming and empowering than being lectured by people who haven't looked in a mirror in a long, long time.

I'm sure the local Green Party was once a lovely place, where Ross could browbeat and lecture everyone with his manly, demeaning rhetoric, and where unworthy followers would hang on every word uttered by the vanguard intelligensia of Marc Solomon, Erik Brooks, Susan King, Christina Olague, and Ross Mirkarimi.

In case your friends haven't mentioned it to you before, there's nothing that says ineffectual loser more than posting under one's own name while criticizing people and organizations respected by many of us. Fair and measured feedback and critiques are always welcomed by any healthy person or organization, in appropriate venues at appropriate times. But when people start using public spaces like parties, or streetcorners, or chatboards to trash mostly good people and good organizations, then they're playing for the other side. As an impartial observer I've always assumed you're playing for the other side - the wealthy landlords, developers and banking class - and that your main goal is dragging down the progressive movement for whatever reason. If your post above is secretly congratulating yourself on doing such a good job of tearing down good people and well-meaning organziations, I'll second that toast.

Oops, there goes another 20 minutes of wasted energy responding to the least well-balanced among us. Congrats - you did it again!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 8:13 am

By the numbers, the "people and organizations respected by many of us" continue to get paid and to function while the circumstances of those they claim to be acting for deteriorate.

And unable to take stock of this record of failure, they continue to double down on the record of failure by lecturing us on each and every outrage and crisis to come down the pike.

None of it moves an agenda to speak of, just allows the progressive political class to get into the usual circular applause squad where they get to pat one another on the head repeating to one another how awesome it is that they've sacrificed so to help the most vulnerable.

These organizations and individuals resist any efforts at accountability, because it is all about the well being of the individuals and organizations rather than the San Franciscans they claim to represent and their need to make nice-nice with corporate and government power.

You all spend more time attacking those trying to root out corruption from the progressive side due to the accommodations made with power by those with claims on the general fund than you do in fighting corporate and conservative interests for the win.

Prop 32 is a prime example. It seems the only reason why Prop 32 should fail is so that labor has more money in the future to fight the next Prop 32. Advancing the cause for working Californians, organized or not, is never on the agenda, the agenda is always a defensive one.

Nope, like the national Democrats, we've got to lance this boil, drain the infection and dress the wound in order for the healing to begin and for our side to regain strength. Otherwise sepsis consumes us.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 8:35 am

but do you suppose you could make up a distinct sobriquet so that we all may keep track of you?

I suggest "Normative Metanarrative."

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 8:38 am

They think that it is more of a faux pas to hurt a seasoned activist's feelings by noting that they do not succeed at the tasks they set out for themselves than it is for the actual harm endured by those third parties who are set back when those seasoned activists set out tasks for themselves and do not succeed.

When they signal that they fear hurt feelings and they reject all forms of feedback, then hurt feelings is what they shall receive, in abundance. We are expected to be grateful for the fact that these seasoned activists have foregone riches in the private sector and graciously accept their offerings without comment as that would hurt their feelings.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 10:23 am

Progressives are on the ropes because..
1. They are cannibals. Look at the D5 race, and the vitriol being spewed by and about people who are politically virtually identical. Simlarly, in the last mayors race it was Ed Lee vs 20 other guys. Not since Matt Gonzalez has a progressive candidate made much noise in an important city-wide election (I don't count Sheriff, which included Ross and no one else you ever heard of), but he wasn't running against 5 others with the same political agenda.
2. They are anarchists. Well, not all of them, but the way they manage their political campaigns and general day to day at city hall leaves that impression.

Posted by Richmondman on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 6:01 am

Progressives are on the ropes because..
1. They are cannibals. Look at the D5 race, and the vitriol being spewed by and about people who are politically virtually identical. Simlarly, in the last mayors race it was Ed Lee vs 20 other guys. Not since Matt Gonzalez has a progressive candidate made much noise in an important city-wide election (I don't count Sheriff, which included Ross and no one else you ever heard of), but he wasn't running against 5 others with the same political agenda.
2. They are anarchists. Well, not all of them, but the way they manage their political campaigns and general day to day at city hall leaves that impression.

Posted by Richmondman on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 6:05 am

@Marcos & @reality check
Alliance members in labor organizations (especially the lowest paid workers in SEIU UHW, the Laborers, and Carpenters,) reside (rent,) in SF and do not have to take Bart. All of the labor organizations (except UHW who was kicked out by the progressives,) that are members are affiliated with the SF Labor Council not always "represented" by it as you suggest (see unfortunate Resolution in support of Cop Killers being discussed in D-1, and most recent Mirkarmi Resolution passed by Labor Council, not for the affilitated Deputy Sheriff's Association, but rather for ideological progressive alliances of their own.).

Posted by SF Labor Rep on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

As do the carpenters.

Labor council represents 100,000 workers and is funded by membership. Alliance represents small portion of labor and is funded by big business.

Posted by Reality check on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 11:22 pm

What do you mean "flip" the Board of Supervisors? 2003 is calling and telling you that in 2012 it is not 2003 anymore.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 7:52 am

Golden State Leadership PAC???

Wow, somehow you missed the Golden State Leadership PAC, who is spending a healthy chunk of change on Libertarian Big Business water boy Mike Garcia. He makes Sean Elsbernd look like a man of the people.

Dirty money for the dirtiest candidate candidate (as ANY candidate in D7 will tell you). Even the SF Weekly has noticed this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 10:12 am

Yep, foghorn leghorn is a piece of work who actual, real, documented appointment-related committed official misconduct by revealing the contents of privileged close session Ethics Commission deliberations in open session before the Rules Committee without an affirmative vote of the EC to disclose.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 10:25 am

Hello, I am New.
Thank you for your forum, I will do my best to participate here but know that I'm shy.

Posted by Broottuby on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

Yes i'm agree with you. Its an article very interesting. Im sorry for my english, im french ^^

Posted by Guillaume on Dec. 27, 2012 @ 1:55 am

Hello, I am New.
Thank you for your forum, I will do my best to participate here but know that I'm shy.

Posted by Broottuby on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

Mar lost this not due to business, but due to his claiming kids would switch mid year if Prop H, which got 60% in the Richmond, passed. Few people believe Mar actually believed this, but it made H lose by 153 votes. Many would have voted for it if they didn't believe this, and most looking at it after believe this caused it to fail. Many have volunteered for Lee due to this and put in many hours, and many have had friends move or suffer. I have a neighbor who drove to Feinstein in the outer Sunset for 4 years. She knows Mar did this to her. She finally got her kids into Lafayette but thousands of dollars lost in time, gas. Mar burned a lot of bridges when he claimed kids would switch mid year, and if he hadn't done that, it would have passed. This is the reason Mar will lose, grass roots as you can get, and a green issue as it causes more commuting. He's focused on cigarette smoke. More damage to our lungs come from all the extra driving to schools far away. I knew a family who had to send a kid to live with grandparents for 6th grade because they lived 4 blocks from Presidio, were sent to Visitation Valley, and had another in preschool in the Richmond, it was literally impossible to get both to school safely and on time and show up at work. We need to work to attract middle class families, not offer them less and see them lead. We need to attract those whose kids test well and who donate to PTSA. We are losing these type of parents now, the upper middle class. Mar will lose, due to a grass roots effort.

Posted by Fact Check on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 11:49 pm

Mar lost this not due to business, but due to his claiming kids would switch mid year if Prop H, which got 60% in the Richmond, passed. Few people believe Mar actually believed this, but it made H lose by 153 votes. Many would have voted for it if they didn't believe this, and most looking at it after believe this caused it to fail. Many have volunteered for Lee due to this and put in many hours, and many have had friends move or suffer. I have a neighbor who drove to Feinstein in the outer Sunset for 4 years. She knows Mar did this to her. She finally got her kids into Lafayette but thousands of dollars lost in time, gas. Mar burned a lot of bridges when he claimed kids would switch mid year, and if he hadn't done that, it would have passed. This is the reason Mar will lose, grass roots as you can get, and a green issue as it causes more commuting. I know another single mom who couldn't get one kid into Presidio despite living 4 blocks away, was sent to VV, and couldn't send a kid to Visitation Valley and another to an elementary school here so had to send her daughter to live with grandparents for a year. Come on! We are losing the upper middle class families whose kids will be future City leaders, whose parents donate to PTAs and who volunteer and the kids who test well. Every family like this who leaves hurts San Francisco, they are a net positive to our City. It's ridiculous. You don't get more grass roots than that, you hurt children in your own neighborhood, you lose votes. I don't want to see this become another Marina. We want children and families.

Posted by Fred Dobbs on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

Mar lost this not due to business, but due to his claiming kids would switch mid year if Prop H, which got 60% in the Richmond, passed. Few people believe Mar actually believed this, but it made H lose by 153 votes. Many would have voted for it if they didn't believe this, and most looking at it after believe this caused it to fail. Many have volunteered for Lee due to this and put in many hours, and many have had friends move or suffer. I have a neighbor who drove to Feinstein in the outer Sunset for 4 years. She knows Mar did this to her. She finally got her kids into Lafayette but thousands of dollars lost in time, gas. Mar burned a lot of bridges when he claimed kids would switch mid year, and if he hadn't done that, it would have passed. This is the reason Mar will lose, grass roots as you can get, and a green issue as it causes more commuting. I had another friend, a single mom who had to send a child to live with grandparents as she couldn't get one kid to preschool and another to middle school far away, lived 4 blocks from Presidio and was rejected. We're losing upper middle class families who donate and whose kids test well, who could be future leaders for our city. We want families here. Democracy is meaningless if you lie to defeat a ballot measure.

Posted by Fred Dobbs on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 11:57 pm

Mar lost this not due to business, but due to his claiming kids would switch mid year if Prop H, which got 60% in the Richmond, passed. Few people believe Mar actually believed this, but it made H lose by 153 votes. Many would have voted for it if they didn't believe this, and most looking at it after believe this caused it to fail. Many have volunteered for Lee due to this and put in many hours, and many have had friends move or suffer. I have a neighbor who drove to Feinstein in the outer Sunset for 4 years. She knows Mar did this to her. She finally got her kids into Lafayette but thousands of dollars lost in time, gas. Mar burned a lot of bridges when he claimed kids would switch mid year, and if he hadn't done that, it would have passed. This is the reason Mar will lose, grass roots as you can get, and a green issue as it causes more commuting. I had another friend, a single mom who had to send a child to live with grandparents as she couldn't get one kid to preschool and another to middle school far away, lived 4 blocks from Presidio and was rejected. We're losing upper middle class families who donate and whose kids test well, who could be future leaders for our city. We want families here. Democracy is meaningless if you lie to defeat a ballot measure.

Posted by Fact Check on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 11:58 pm

Measure H was a nonbinding 'policy statement.' Are you serious?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 10:19 am

Yes, because Mar was one of the school board members who put the lottery in place. Before the late '90s, they bused some African American and Latino kids into the avenues and their percentage was much higher. Then they put in a diversity index lottery and then a new lottery, which Mar was a part of. Before, if you lived in the Avenues you were guaranteed you could go to a school in the avenues, so people bought houses or moved in and had certainty. Now you could get sent across town.

What also lost Mar a lot of respect was the lie. Now you say above it was a non-binding policy statement, but Mar was so obsessed with defending the lottery that he, along with the board and Jane Kim, who had been there, signed his name to an argument which claimed a judge would likely force kids to switch schools, get this, mid year, in January. Now Prop H lost by 153 votes, which means 77 votes switch the result, out of 180,000. I've met 10 people personally who said they are for neighborhood schools and a guarantee for residents here, but voted against it because they didn't want chaos mid year and trusted the board to do it in their own way. They still haven't, this year kids a block from Washington were sent to Galileo, Mission, etc. while kids across town came here, and kids a block from Alamo couldn't get into a school here. Some appeal, some give up, so it makes it so we can never increase the number of middle class families in the area. Many go private or move. People with choices will go to Burlingame.

The thing about the lie is that he knew it wasn't true when he signed his name to it. I've met several people who agree wit the lottery and are far left and are voting against him because if public officials sign their name to arguments they know are not true, it undermines democracy. It's like when oil companies create a bogus organization called Citizens For a Future of Clean Air, to comb through a measure to reduce pollution that the oil companies oppose and find something they can argue, I would have been for it 99% of the time, but this specific thing renders this whole measure bad somehow.

I don't know what will happen. It's like they say Watergate was about the cover up, Monicagate was about the lie. In Eric Mar's case, if he would have been honest and made an honest argument, Prop H would have won, but David Lee would not be mounting such a strong challenge. He lost a lot of trust. I don't know anyone who believes he honestly feels kids would have switched mid year if Prop H passed. As you say, it was non-binding. We feared they may ignore it for years. To argue it would force a mid-year switch, it wouldn't have even made a 2d grader not go to 3d grade, it would have taken years and debates to change anything, as you admit. To argue that showed a basic lack of morals and integrity and undermined our initiative process. I've asked him and he opposes letting the voters decide the same measure but with an added clause that no one will switch mid year or even between years, that it only would apply to new admissions.

Posted by Fact Check on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 11:30 am

Interesting perspective that I haven't heard much about. Thanks.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

Fred Dobbs/Fact Check is infecting this place by way of the Richmond Blog, which seems to be a small group of people who are mainly obsessed with school assignment policy.

I actually tried to reason with them for a while, because
1. supervisors have no say in school assignment policy
2. Eric was one of seven unanimous votes on this, including conservatives like Jill Wynns
3. nobody on the current school board either (again, including conservatives) were for Prop H... probably because what these people are asking for is impossible and wouldn't get through the courts
4. Did I mention that supervisors have no say in school assignment policy?

It soon became apparent, however, that I was debating with single-minded fanatics rather than reasonable people. They kept harping on two things, neither of which had to do with the job Supervisor Mar has done- the school assignment policy, and oddly, Eric's divorce. Some of the comments were straight out of the 50s.

In the end, a few of them finally conceded that they're just voting for Eric out of spite because of his opposition to their preferred vision of neighborhood schools. Incidentally, Eric actually did try to incorporate their concerns by giving more weight to geographic preference in the lottery. But talking to some of these folks, one quickly realizes that compromise is impossible. You're dealing with the same mindset as the tea party. I figured my time was better spent elsewhere... like talking to real voters.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

I ken that it is not made on an honest, but rather deceptively; as a means to appeal to those who lack the capacity to understand the senseless of it, but nonetheless are swayed by such "victimhood" stories.

"Fact Check"; that which is most clearly stated to be true is most purely false.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

When I said "voting for Eric" I meant to say these folks are "voting against Eric" out of spite. I think that was evident based on context, but just in case...

And in answer to you, Lilli, the scary part is that I actually do think they're "honest" about what they believe. Look on the Richmond blog. These folks are driven. Nevertheless, I think it's important to counter these points, because there are a lot of people who aren't so obsessed, but may be pursuaded by these arguments, if no one presents the other side.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 8:27 pm

I expect that my own error of writing "honest" when I meant "honest basis" was similarly self-evident.

G., perhaps you are right with regard to those who make these crazy arguments; if such is the case, I'd assert it is just as important to avoid inadvertently giving them undeserved respect as I think you do by simply delivering deadpan refutations. I recommend adding a bit of ridicule for balance if you don't simply attack them based on the likely motivation.

(Notice that of all the kids in the "Mar is from Mars" ad, that all had skin color within a certain range?)

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 28, 2012 @ 11:33 pm