Cash not care - Page 3

Downtown groups are spending big money and making telling alliances in this election

|
(5)
Downtown's money has filled local mailboxes with reams of campaign propaganda
PHOTO BY BEN HOPFER


Coates' donations raise questions about his preferred slate's views on tenant and landlord rights. A principal in Jackson Square Properties, which specializes in apartments and mobile homes, Coates is the founding partner of Arroya & Coates, a commercial real estate firm whose clients include Walgreens, Circuit City, and J.P. Morgan Investment Management. In 2008, when he backed Prop. 98, Coates told the San Francisco Chronicle that rent control "doesn't work."

Ted Gullicksen, director of the SF Tenants Union (SFTU), which has collectively spent $30,000 opposing Sparks, Wiener, and Moss, is disturbed that Coates spent so much in support of this trio.

"Coates was the main funder of Prop. 98," Gullicksen explained. "His property is in Southern California. He's pumping a lot of money into supervisors. And he clearly has an agenda that we fear Moss, Sparks, and Wiener share — which is to make the existence of rent control an issue they will take up in the future if elected to the board."

That threat got progressive and labor groups to organize an Oct. 26 protest outside Coates' San Francisco law office, with invitations to the event warning, "Be there or be evicted!"

Sparks, Moss, and Wiener all claim to support rent control, despite their support by someone who seeks to abolish it. "I answered such on my questionnaire to the SFTU, which chose to ignore it," Sparks told the Guardian via text message. "In addition, I've been put out of apartments twice in SF, once due to the Ellis Act. They ignore that fact as well."

Records show that in May 2009, Moss — who bought a rent-controlled apartment building near Dolores Park in D8 for $1.6 million and he lived there from the end of 2007 to the 2010, when he decided to run for office in D10 — served a "notice to quit or cure" on a tenant who complained about the noise from Moss' apartment. Ultimately, Moss settled without actually evicting his tenant.

"I read about Coats' [sic] contribution in Bay Citizen," Moss wrote in an e-mail to the Guardian. "This donation was made to an independent expenditure committee over which I have no control and almost no knowledge. I have stated throughout the campaign, and directly to the Tenants Union, that I believe current rent control policy should remain unmolested."

But Moss is with downtown on other key issues. He supports Newsom's sit-lie legislation and the rabidly anti-tenant Small Property Owners Association, whose endorsement he previously called a "mistake."

Comments

Because city workers have already agreed to pay their own retirement contributions in full, commencing July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now], 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 attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying must come from the lesser emphasized "healthcare" component.

in exchange for continued PREVENTIVE 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 and billionaire backers of this divisive proposition have opted to use this "hidden" aspect of HEALTHCARE CUTS 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 PREVENTIVE healthcare but to also undermine the overall universal healthcare concept, which most San Franciscans recognize as smart and cost effective.

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 REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry's skyrocketing rates and exorbitant costs and fees are factored in as the only remaining viable options for those no longer able to afford or qualify for any other type of reasonably priced medical coverage!  
please vote NO on B.

Posted by CJFIowers on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

Because city workers have already agreed to pay their own retirement contributions in full, commencing July 01, 2011 [eight (8) months from now], 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 attempting to pass this poorly thought out piece of written scapegoating and bullying must come from the lesser emphasized "healthcare" component.

in exchange for continued PREVENTIVE 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 and 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 PREVENTIVE healthcare but to also undermine the overall universal healthcare concept, which most San Franciscans recognize as smart and cost effective.

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 REACTIVE healthcare like urgent care and emergency room services at the medical industry's skyrocketing rates and exorbitant 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 CJFIowers on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

This information is 2 years out of date, I think it applies to the 2008 election.(it's 2010)

Posted by ! Facts on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:19 am

Which information are you referring to, ! Facts? The information in our article is for 2010.

Posted by sarah on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:35 am
LOL

It's the same old song but The Guardian never gets tired of singing it. Proudly voicing the exact same rhetoric for going on 45 years now.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 4:17 pm