Editor's Notes

How important is long-time residence to a candidate for district supervisor - and how long is long enough?
|
(4)

Tredmond@sfbg.com

We've been doing a lot of reporting on Steve Moss, a candidate for supervisor in District 10 who lived in District 8 when he filed his initial election papers and launched his campaign. Moss, who owns a residential building on Liberty Street near Dolores Park, insists he is now a full-time resident of Potrero Hill, renting a nice place at 18th and Vermont — and that he moved in long before the legal deadline for declaring an official candidacy.

It's actually not a high standard — city law says you only have to live in a district for 30 days prior to the filing deadline. And since Moss is hardly the only candidate to make a relatively recent relocation, it's worth asking the question: how important is long-time residence to a candidate for district supervisor — and how long is long enough?

I've always supported district elections, in part — and this is critically important — because you can win in a district without raising a huge amount of money. When the universe of voters you're trying to reach numbers around 30,000, you don't need $500,000. You can knock on doors, go to neighborhood forums, mobilize volunteers for a get-out-the-vote operation, and get elected with the kind of money you can raise in a real grassroots campaign. That means downtown, the landlords, the developers, and big business interests don't carry the day, the way they did when the board was elected at-large.

But the other goal of district elections was to ensure that every part of town got represented on the board — and to bring legitimate activists with roots in a community to the table. That means people who have more than a passing interest in where they live.

The first few times around, it wasn't much of an issue — with the obvious exception of Ed Jew, and the possible exception of Michela Alioto-Pier, everyone who has been elected so far under the district system ran from a neighborhood where he or she had be living, and doing community work, for years.

But this time, people have been venue-shopping. I heard a lot of potential candidates over the past year talk about moving into one district or another to run, and I think we'll see more of it in the future. It can get tricky; Moss, for example, owns the Potrero View newspaper and lived in D-10 for years, then moved out and bought a place near Dolores Park. When he decided to run for supervisor, he moved back. At least he has some history and ties to the community — but I don't think there's a lot of dispute over the fact that he moved back to run for office, and that if he hadn't decided to run, he'd still be living on Liberty Street.

Jane Kim, president of the School Board, moved into District 6 about a year and a half ago — about the same time she started talking about running for supervisor from that district. Again: perfectly legal — although her ties to the neighborhood and to neighborhood activism aren't anywhere near as strong as some of the other candidates in the race.

We're going to have to watch this, carefully — and the 30-day requirement is clearly too weak. You should have to live in a district for at least a year before you can file even exploratory papers — and every neighborhood questionnaire should ask candidates to list every address they've lived in for the past five years. That might slow down the shopping a bit.

Comments

Tim/

I think you are right but here's the key issue, what constitutes living and residing?

A lot of the candidates, Moss for one, have a lot of money. He owns at least two properties, one in D10 and one in D8 and what fulfills the residency requirement. Is it 50% of the recreational time in one abode when any candidate has multiple abodes?

Stupid example but work 80 hour weeks, travel and work in Silicon Valley. My home address is D10, might as well be Silicon Valley!

Is the residency requirement that you have your cars registered, CDL listed at that address, but how much do you have to be physically present?

The one year requirement is a good idea, but devil is in the details!

Posted by I Know on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 8:55 am

leaving aside moss' ethical problem with the self-dealing, his residency is the least of my concerns. the fact is that over the past 10 years he's spent more time in the district that jackson, smith, cohen, enea, lacey, and possibly sweet (who was reportedly renting out her house and living somewhere else).

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 10:52 am

Enea has been living in and volunteering on multiple BVHP redevelopment CAC's and PAC's since she bought her house in India Basin in 2006, so don't go calling her a carpetbagger. Smith moved in a little more than a year ago, but his wife's family has deep roots and he's done some worthwhile things in D10 in the past few years, both of which gives him cred in this regard. Jackson's grandparents lived a long time in the Bayview, and although it's unclear when he moved back, he's only 27, so the fact that he decided to move to the Bayview tells me it means a lot to him to be here. Cohen's family goes back four generations in the Bayview, and it seems she only moved away to attend school, while Sweet grew up in the Bayview as well, so both their D10 ties are tight.

As far as I can tell, all of the candidates have some, if not a lot, of cred when it comes to D10 ties. This whole non-issue needs to be put to rest, and the SFBG needs to stop with the 'endorsement interviews' and just tell us whom they're backing, cuz they've obviously made up their minds and it is sure as heck isn't Moss or any pragmatists. The SFBG reporters also need to get to the issues and stop distractions like this from wasting readers' time.

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

I bought my house in Feb 2005, and had barely unpacked before my neighbor asked me, "Don't you go to the meetings? They're going to tear down our houses to widen the street." I'm thinking, great, I finally own a home of my own where I never have to leave, and I'm going to get removed through eminent domain? I can't even imagine how families removed from The Fillmore felt watching their homes get bulldozed, then getting sent to Bayview only to seeing Redevelopment come marching through again a few decades later.

This is why I'm running, to make sure that development and Redevelopment serve the people who are already here.

Someone asked me the other day what was "land use" anyway, and why is it important. The reality is that who owns the land and decides what is allowed to be built on it will determine the fate of our district and our City for the next hundred years. District 10 has all the undeveloped land left in San Francisco. If it all gets filled up with housing, we're not going to have much of a community. In the words of one of my fellow Bayview PAC members, "We ain't your suburb."

I would love to see a discussion of how to make sure all the development coming our way results in livable neighborhoods. How much housing do we need, who needs it, and how should we pay for it? In my opinion, what a low-income community needs most is income, so we should be investing a far greater percentage of our public dollars in economic development, education, and the creation of public spaces and civic amenities. I'm interested in hearing from everyone else though. I don't claim to have all the answers but I believe these are the right questions.

Posted by Kristine Enea on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 3:19 pm