Class of 2010: Jane Kim - Page 2

The young progressive from D6 talks about broadening the movement to include jobs and safe, clean streets

Jane Kim thanks supporters on election night.
Tim Daw

"Part of the problem is that small businesses aren't organized," Kim said, noting how that hurt Sup. David Chiu's ability to win support this year for his business tax reform measure that would have helped most small businesses and made some large corporations pay more taxes. "They're busy running their businesses and they don't have the time to look at the details, so they just read the briefing of the Chamber of Commerce."

Kim said she respects the leadership role Daly has played in progressive politics and that she'd "like to be part of the moral compass of the Board of Supervisors." But she also said that Daly's sometimes abrasive style unnecessarily hardened the opposition of moderates to important progressive issues.

"He made it harder to talk about affordable housing," Kim said, noting that the city's dearth of affordable housing should be an issue that's important to middle class voters, noting that it includes housing for people who earn up to 120 percent of the median income for the region. But after Daly hammered on the issue, "It was like a bad word coming out, and people would turn off to the issue."

But she thinks it's a fixable problem if she and her allies do the hard work, an ability they demonstrated this year by defeating Walker, who had been running for the seat for years and lining up all the key endorsements. "Voters do respond to campaigns that work really hard, and that bodes well for progressives," Kim said, noting that she intends to reach out to Walker's supporters. "I don't think I can be successful as a supervisor if I don't work with all the camps in the progressive community."


These comments aren't reaching out to me at all. Maybe Rincon Hill, the NIMBYs and regressive tax crowd. It doesn't sound like she's going to be a strong advocate at all or has any understanding of how tough the situation is here in terms of troubled people's needs - no empathy or compassion except for cleaner streets. She sounds like a wishy-washy Chiu clone. I think I'll look for housing in D5 or elsewhere.

Posted by Mark Barnes on Dec. 09, 2010 @ 1:03 am

I'm disappointed that Jane Kim made no mention of the huge elephant in the District 6 room: development of high rise luxury condominiums. District 6 is ground zero for this kind of development for which there is no practical need, other than to line the pockets of developers and employ construction workers for finite periods of time. With this kind of development comes the loss of space (on the ground and in the air) for building the kind of housing that is needed: truly affordable housing. In addition, it continues of massive demographic change that forces people below a certain income to leave the city. Various well-heeled groups of people have, over the decades, been salivating at the thought of these changes, as they complete what Redevelopment only began many decades ago.

Some people use an environmental argument to promote such developments, but if most people cannot afford to live in such high rises, how can they possibly prevent people from moving out to the more affordable suburbs?

How could Kim and the Bay Guardian miss a discussion on this topic -- and the impact such development will have on existing city-provided services? Did the SFBG fail to ask?

Posted by Sue on Dec. 09, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

housing that is needed?

It's great that you want it built, I think it would be great too, but who is going to finance it? Proclamations on what other people should be doing is one thing, but some details would be interesting on how building this kind of housing that we need will come about?

On the other hand we can let our cities SUV progressives buy up all sorts of land, pay taxes on it, and you can spend it on the bottomless pit.

And when is one of these "discussions" not a progressive just talking at you?

Posted by matlock on Dec. 09, 2010 @ 5:40 pm


Those new condo towers have an affordable housing mandate. So a significant number of housing units for the poor get built along with them, if not on-site, then somewhere close.

Moreover, it is ridiculous to argue that there is no demand for these condo's when they easily sell out. And each million dollar condo provides another thousand a month in property tax receipts for the city.

What this city needs is more housing, and if the rich aren't buying new condo's in SOMA, they'd be bidding up the prices of existing housing stock in the Mission or elsewhere. So paradoxically, those new condo's not only create new affordable housing, but also help to preserve that already existsing.

Kim understand that, those who voted for her understand that.

Posted by Tom on Dec. 09, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

Progressive logic says " Don't build more highways or parking -- that only invites more people to drive cars so congestion will stay the same."

So why wouldn't building more "affordable " houseing just invite more people who need "affordable" housing ?

Why the city needs is a massive increase in luxury housing so the rich will stop driving up the price on the hovels the rest of us can use.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 09, 2010 @ 7:25 pm

I wish Jane every success. She ran a damn good campaign and is quite an accomplished presence!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

Jane Kim is an annoying rich scumbag

Posted by Guest on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

Related articles

  • Class of 2010: Scott Wiener

    His top priorities in D8 are transit, jobs, and preserving entertainment and nightlife

  • Class of 2010: Malia Cohen

    Can a winner who lost the first-place vote in D10 be a bridge builder?

  • Class of 2010: Mark Farrell

    The new D2 supervisor wants to bring post-partisan "common sense" to City Hall — but he's vague on the specifics