Chiu's choice

The man who presided over the end of the Progressive Era at City Hall needs to decide whose side he's really on

|
(135)
David Chiu became the first Chinese American to represent SF's Chinatown in his "meteoric" political rise
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY KEENEY AND LAW

For 10 years — from 2000 to 2010 — progressives controlled the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It was a defining era in city politics, with the left-leaning board not only providing a check on the power of downtown-backed mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom but producing a long list of important reforms that, generally, sought to level the playing field between the haves and have-nots.

It wasn't the most harmonious decade. Battles between the legislative and executive branches of government often got nasty, particularly when the political and economic stakes were high — and after the national recession and fiscal conservativism left various constituencies fighting over shrinking public resources.

But San Francisco's modern progressive era was still a decade of unprecedented responsiveness at City Hall to the interests of workers, renters, immigrants, the poor, bicyclists, environmentalists, communities of color, and the other component groups of the city's progressive movement.

It was a decade in which San Francisco adopted one of the nation's highest minimum wages, when most employers were required to provide employee health insurance or pay into an expanded city clinic program, when it became far more difficult for landlords to evict their tenants, and when developers knew they wouldn't get their projects approved without significant concessions to the progressive constituencies.

Then suddenly, just as that decade ended and 2011 began, everything changed. And the person who presided over that change and did more to usher it in than any single individual was Board President David Chiu, who is now running for mayor.

Chiu was elected as a supervisor and then president in 2009 with progressive support, yet he now distances himself from the progressive wing and casts himself as playing the central role in a new political reality.

"Clearly, I'm at the center of the board," he told the Guardian. "My goal as president of the board is to try to figure out how to bring our colleagues together to coalesce around values that move our city forward with our shared progressive values. And I think I've done a good job at that."

Yet the left-leaning members of the board feel as if they've been pushed to the margins, particularly after Chiu created a committee structure that elevated the moderate supervisors who kept Chiu in the president's seat. To many progressives, Chiu's shift has allowed powerful interests to move forward while progressive constituencies fall behind.

"There's been a palpable shift to the middle at City Hall," said Sup. John Avalos, whose own mayoral campaign has galvanized progressives. "David has shifted to the center. He's become more comfortable representing himself as a centrist — before, he wouldn't have done that."

There's more to the story. While it is true that Chiu essentially switched sides — elected president by board progressives in 2009 and then reelected by its fiscal conservatives in 2011 — it is also true that there were other powerful players working behind the scenes to help sabotage the progressives and create a new political alignment.

But while Chiu talks constantly about representing the city's "shared progressive values," he's a very different type of politician than the activists who ran the board after the first district elections. Supervisors like Tom Ammiano, Matt Gonzalez, and Aaron Peskin saw themselves as fighters, engaged in an ongoing epic struggle to organize and protect the less powerful against the wealthy, entrenched interests that have controlled the city for decades. That's not Chiu's style or inclination; he seems much more interested in making the system work than in changing it.

Comments

I'm really glad that David's in this race. We really need someone who will actually listen to the entire population of SF. I got a chance to meet him at an event..and I think he's a great guy!

Posted by Sophie L. on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:00 pm

The Road to Room 200 runs through Parkmerced. Chiu on that, Mr. President.

Posted by Guest SaveParkmerced.org on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 10:49 am

The Road to Room 200 runs through Parkmerced. Chiu on that, Mr. President.

Posted by Guest SaveParkmerced.org on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 10:50 am

The lives of San Francisco residents are changing for the better with David Chiu on the Board and Ed Lee as Mayor. I think it's the folks at the Guardian who will need to decide whether or not they can support a growing tech community and retain jobs (versus creating conditions that are a disincentive to jobs). Chiu's style might not be what some Supervisors are used to, but hey he gets the job done.

Posted by richmondsf on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

Promoting himself?

Posted by Greg on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 8:56 pm

There appears to be fundamental disagreements about Twitter and whatnot. However Im one to believe that the majority of San Franciscans stand with David on those issues.

Posted by Larry on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

To allow parkmerced, without even questioning the proposition, plans, agreement, or impacts cummalative, or individually is ludicrous.

it ignores the job these people are supposed to be doing, which is protect and ensure the publics interests ALL public interests, yes that includes, families, renters, the poor, the middle, the upper class, and the disenfranchised.

students, seniors, families are most affected by this project and the overall impacts... the MAJORITY of San Franciscans should think twice about Parkmerced and where this heads SF in terms of diversity, community, and the longer term impacts of suburban sprawl... not one family, student or senior I know of on a fixed income can afford or be able to afford the Parkmerced "vision" of the future.

its all pie in the sky...

Posted by goodmaab50 on Jun. 19, 2011 @ 9:35 pm

I couldn't agree more! Maintaining a strong tech community is the key to San Francisco's economic success. Chiu's role in keeping twitter in San Francisco was huge for the city. I attended a tech event at rocketspace a few weeks back and was very impressed with Chiu's answers to some tough questions from members of the tech sphere.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 17, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

You know, I still consider Chiu a progressive. I guess he just doesn't pass the far left's litmus test.

For one thing, declaring an end to the 'progressive era' is way too premature, in my humble opinion. You're just sensationalizing.

For another - he's Board President. As soon as he was elected Board President, he represented the entire city instead of just his district. As such, he has to represent progressives as well as conservatives, democrats as well as Republicans, Greens as well as Tea Partiers. He didn't betray progressives; he accepted his responsibilities.

Sheesh. I politely recommend you get some perspective.

Posted by Frank Li on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

You know, I still consider Chiu a progressive. I guess he just doesn't pass the far left's litmus test.

For one thing, declaring an end to the 'progressive era' is way too premature, in my humble opinion. You're just sensationalizing.

For another - he's Board President. As soon as he was elected Board President, he represented the entire city instead of just his district. As such, he has to represent progressives as well as conservatives, democrats as well as Republicans, Greens as well as Tea Partiers. He didn't betray progressives; he accepted his responsibilities.

Sheesh. I politely recommend some perspective.

Posted by Frank Li on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

You know, I still consider Chiu a progressive. I guess he just doesn't pass the far left's litmus test. So naturally they consider him a turncoat backstabber who is clearly involved in dozens of conspiracies. Because unless someone does exactly what the so-called "real" progressives want, they're clearly either ignorant of the facts and history of the situation, too stupid to understand it, and/or corrupt.

Chiu is Board President. As soon as he was elected Board President, he represented the entire city instead of just his district. As such, he has to represent progressives as well as conservatives, democrats as well as Republicans, Greens as well as Tea Partiers. He didn't betray progressives; he accepted his responsibilities.

Also - declaring an end to the 'progressive era' is way too premature, in my humble opinion. You're just sensationalizing.

Posted by Alex Brant-Zawadzki on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

you posted 3 of the same comment under 2 different names. none of these people ever post on sfbg and within 10 minutes of the article going up people with multiple names are posting the same thing. Astroturf!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

You're right. I've never posted on SFBG.

I just moved to the city, dumbass.

Posted by Frank Li on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

Maybe you just moved to the city, but you still posted the same thing 3 times under two peoples names, dumbass.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 9:42 pm

This astroturf troll learns quick.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

with the ability to post on a blog? Is there something different about posting on a blog when you just moved to San Francisco? Has not one of the second name been used before to agree with Arthur Evans?

Posted by M. Worrall on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 12:37 am

LOL, i'm tired of this city being the laughingstock of the rest of the country. i didnt even care about what they were doing because all i heard was that they were just fighting all the time.

why is it a bad thing that he wants to do stuff for the city? sounds like he'd rather do stuff than fight, which will help out!!!!!!

Posted by gOnZoKiM on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

LOL, i'm tired of this city being the laughingstock of the rest of the country. i didnt even care about what they were doing because all i heard was that they were just fighting all the time.

why is it a bad thing that he wants to do stuff for the city? sounds like he'd rather do stuff than fight, which will help out!!!!!!

Posted by gOnZoKiM on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

This piece is the kind of noise that we are used to from SF progressives, who impose an absurd and dogmatic standard for ideological purity. I would ignore them. There is a reason they are not in power. They elevate ideology over what is good for our city.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:35 pm

Chiu's approach to politics has earned him working relationships with not only the typical "progressive" community but the business community and job creators.

Look - SF has been in a serious deficit rut...bridging a $380 million or so shortfall is not easy... and we're cutting services left and right. The only way we can save those essential services is to find new sources of revenue, which critics of Chiu don't seem to offer. While Chiu offers solutions, his critics don't. There's been hell raised by critics of Twitter, but if Twitter left the city we would have lost the 2500+ jobs they wouldve created, and 9+ million in tax revenue... there was also hell raised against the Parkmerced project, but City Controller said it will grow the SF economy by $400! Sounds pretty progressive to me. I got to give him credit also on the 16 pages of amendments he worked on to protect tenants rights. I feel that these groups, as much as I've respected them in the past, wouldve opposed the deal no matter what Chiu did.

Ive respected Daly for being a progressive whip on the BOS, but I will respectfully disagree with his opinion on Chiu's chances. The latest poll shows Leland Yee with 17% of first place votes, followed by Chiu with 13% and Herrera with 12%.

There are tough issues to face for the next mayor including pensions, MUNI and affordable housing. The next mayor needs to show he can have working relationships with all groups. I'd love to see Chiu get along with all Supervisors, but I'd rather see him get shi* done than make peace.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

Oh, yeah. David Chiu.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

of paying for a poll that doesnt tell you the true numbers is...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 10:53 pm

Fact is, internal polls are almost always biased for the candidate who paid for it. Any political observer with half a brain can figure that out. Maybe the pollster is telling the candidate what they want to hear, maybe campaigns just don't release bad numbers, maybe a bit of both, but fact is that this is just the way it seems to be. The fact that David Chiu would even want to release a poll that shows him losing -the fact that they think this is actually good news -says a lot.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 11:20 pm

I don't get it...if it was "biased", wouldn't it have made Chiu #1? YOu can't say it's biased and then say that it says he's losing...

Posted by Sophie L. on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 11:46 pm

To Sophie above (and others who would argue that this poll can't be biased because it shows David Chiu in second place):You're assuming that bias necessarily means that numbers are pulled out of thin air. In that case, you might be right.

Usually, it's much more complex than that. Usually, it's a combination of flawed methodology, the pollster having one eye toward their client and telling them what they want to hear, only releasing polls favorable to their client, asking questions in a way favorable to their client, etc.

Even once the questions are set, the pollster doesn't just ask the first 500 people they randomly call. There's a complex brew of adjustment, and each pollster has their own. Ever wonder why Rasmussen produces consistently more favorable results for Republicans than other pollsters? It's not because he's "lying" per se. It's in the formula he uses. But it's even sneakier than that. Pollsters don't like to be proven "wrong." It's bad for their careers. So as the election draws closer, you'll see pollsters like Rasmussen go from "narrative setting mode" back into reality, and they adjust their formulas so that their last numbers will usually be much closer in line with the other pollsters.

One big way that pollsters will produce better numbers than reality is by adjusting the demographic/ideological/party/age/gender/turnout formula in a way favorable to their client. To name just one example, let's say you're getting disproportionately favorable numbers for your client among homeowners in your sample. You know that homeowners are 35% of the San Francisco population, and maybe they were 33% of your sample. Ah, but you say that... homeowners will turn out at greater rates than the general population. How much better is anyone's guess. So you weigh homeowners at 60%. If someone were to look at your formula, they might say that's bullshit. Their guess might be 40%. Ah, but the formula is "proprietary." You as the pollster may only release your topline numbers, not the raw data. So nobody sees how you got there.

You see this all the time, and the candidate bias effect is a lot more evident when there are public polls to compare it with -the campaign internals always seem to show better numbers for their candidate than either public polls or opposing campaigns' polls.

You could see the effect pretty clearly in the Newsom-Hahn race, for example. Newsom would come out with a poll showing him winning by a blowout, and Hahn would come out with a poll that said 'oh no, look, I'm within a 4 point striking distance.' It's spin. It's an attempt to control the narrative. You assume that the truth is somewhere in between, and it was.

You saw it in the 2006 D6 supe race. Rob Black's people released a poll saying that Chris Daly was in the low 30s and Black was just about at parity. Chris Daly later comissioned a poll showing him winning by 20 points. If you averaged the two, you got something close to the final outcome.

Are any of those pollsters lying? Not exactly. They're just fudging things favorably for the campaign that paid for the poll. That's just two examples, but it happens in so many races.

Obviously in a situation like the SF mayor's race, other polls are scant at this early stage, but we can safely assume that the campaign's poll is better for their candidate than the reality. Especially now, when pollsters hired by the campaign are basically propagandists in narrative-setting mode.* Statistician Nate Silver has discussed this effect numerous times on his blog.

*Again though, this is qualified. They are propagandists in narrative-setting mode for the general public. For the campaign, if they're honest, they may be in pollster mode, but only within the campaign. They may even have several different results from the same data depending on various models, and they may even show those results internally to the candidate and his top one or two advisors. But guess which ones they're going to release publically? You got it, and fat chance that you'll ever see the internals.

What's really noteworthy about this particular poll is that David Chiu comes in *second* in David Chiu's own released poll. Again, when a campaign releases a poll, they do it for one reason only. And that's to set the narrative. Ideally, when a campaign releases a poll, they want their candidate to be first. So when they release a poll in which they're second, that's a really, REALLY bad sign.

That happens basically in one situation. When the campaign is in big trouble, and they want to show that they're LESS in trouble than conventional wisdom would say they are.

The conventional wisdom right now is that David Chiu is flushing his campaign down the toilet. So their campaign releases a poll to counter that media narrative and set their own.

Again, remember, they'll rarely actually outright LIE and pull numbers out of thin air. That's the kind of stuff that ruins careers (Nate Silver has already put two pollsters out of business by brilliantly crunching numbers and proving that they cook the books). So they won't do *that*... usually. But they can still make things more or less favorable to their client, particularly in public polls.

But when under the very best conditions -after picking your questions, adjusting your demographic formulas, tweaking your models -if the best that you can come up with (without totally lying), is that your candidate is in second place, then you can safely assume that the campaign is in big, big trouble.

Bottom line, if you remember the following basic fact, you'll be an infinitely more saavy consumer of polling data than most of the general public:
Pollsters hired by a CAMPAIGN do not work for the general public. They work for the CAMPAIGN.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 7:03 am

Chiu's approach to politics has earned him working relationships with not only the typical "progressive" community but the business community and job creators.

Look - SF has been in a serious deficit rut...bridging a $380 million or so shortfall is not easy... and we're cutting services left and right. The only way we can save those essential services is to find new sources of revenue, which critics of Chiu don't seem to offer. While Chiu offers solutions, his critics don't. There's been hell raised by critics of Twitter, but if Twitter left the city we would have lost the 2500+ jobs they wouldve created, and 9+ million in tax revenue... there was also hell raised against the Parkmerced project, but City Controller said it will grow the SF economy by $400! Sounds pretty progressive to me. I got to give him credit also on the 16 pages of amendments he worked on to protect tenants rights. I feel that these groups, as much as I've respected them in the past, wouldve opposed the deal no matter what Chiu did.

Ive respected Daly for being a progressive whip on the BOS, but I will respectfully disagree with his opinion on Chiu's chances. The latest poll shows Leland Yee with 17% of first place votes, followed by Chiu with 13% and Herrera with 12%.

There are tough issues to face for the next mayor including pensions, MUNI and affordable housing. The next mayor needs to show he can have working relationships with all groups. I'd love to see Chiu get along with all Supervisors, but I'd rather see him get shi* done than make peace.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

This should be fun. Once I saw my mistake, I knew this was coming.

1) Did you see the part where I said I f#cked up with trying to copy part of that guy's comment?

2) Wow, you're right, I haven't commented here. Pretty unbelievable - in several senses of the word, esp. considering how I've felt about a lot of SFBG articles.
I really thought I had posted comments at some point, but, like you, I can't find any either. And I've done investigative reporting (never on myself, though). Maybe I just posted as Alex.

I've written news stories busting conservative astro-turfing before, so I've got a pretty good idea of how this is going to go down.

So attack away. Accuse me. I get it. it's perfectly justified. People can either believe me not, I understand either way.

But it IS kind of funny for someone to attack my integrity and identity when they're posting as 'Guest'

Posted by Alex Brant-Zawadzki on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 7:20 pm

LOL, he got you on the posting as guest thang. LOLOLOL

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

LOL got PW3ND!!! ROFLMAO!!!

Posted by Guest99 on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 12:22 am

to copy part of that guy's comment?

Yes, I did. Where is it? Odd that all three comments say the same thing with only a few word changes. Where does "that guy's" ends and yours start?

Posted by M. Worrall on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 12:52 am

It deeply misses the days of Chris Daly's rants and Aaron "Tiny" Peskin's drunken late night phone threats. Ahhhhh - those were the days.

However no one else misses those days. The board under Chiu is actually getting things done. It's standing for results and not for ideology.

And that really threatens The Guardian - whose whole raison d'etre is ideology.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 7:20 pm

Yes, Chiu gets things done.. bad things..

- Downtown control of the mayor's office

- Conservatives controlling Board committees

- Hunters Point Candlestick toxic gentrification

- Treasure Island

- Parkmerced

- Twitter tax break

- Tax holiday for IPOs

If put in the mayor's office, Chiu would drive a developer/corporate stake into the heart of this city, finally finishing the cynical community demolition job that Dianne Feinstein began.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 8:31 am

Attracting Twitter and start ups to the city by removing the payroll tax (which is the only one of its kind in the state) for 6 years was a definite positive. I see it as a tax credit to create jobs. Seriously, the city is better off... If Twitter and these other tech companies followed in the footsteps of other companies and left for the peninsula, south bay, or Brisbane, where there is no such tax... the city would have received no revenue at all.

Parkmerced was falling apart and it was a matter of time before they needed to be replacd. The tenants were adamantly against the deal from the start. We all sympathize with the rights of tenants and the longtime residents of the area. But I watched the board vote, and learned the City Attorney's analysis (Herrera) showed the rent control protections put in place were stronger than the Trinity project, which was pushed fwd by no other than *drumroll* progressive king Daly.

Here is an interesting Parkmerced amendment on Chiu's site "if any owner tries to challenge the rent control protections even decades from now. In the small chance that happens, the owner would have to pay the difference between the value of the units with and without rent control, plus 20 percent. This fund would be used to make sure tenants’ current rent-control levels are protected. The amount of this remedy is now close to $200 million – an enormous disincentive for any Parkmerced owner to challenge rent control."

Posted by c ado on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 10:07 am

The problem with the Chiu amendments is that if a court invalidates the rent control provisions they will likely invalidate everything else according to the experts.

David Chiu the harvard attorney knows this full well but his willfully ignorant staffers and volunteers couldn't care less. They probably think it is another brilliant machiavellian maneuver on his part.

The amendments are weak and unlikely to withstand a court challenge.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 11:01 am
1up

So Chiu and his team are machiavellian if they put in place lifetime protections for tenants which are STRONGER than daly's?

Posted by c ado on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 1:06 pm

Nooooo..

As has been mentioned many times the tenant protections were invalidated by recent court decisions as a recent grand jury pointed out.

It is so childish to think progressives support when Daly moves in big projects but doesn't support when Chiu does. Its disingenuous. But when you have a disingenuous candidate it comes from the top.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 17, 2011 @ 8:32 am

200 Million is NOT an enormous disincentive to a billion dollar company. In fact many companies right now are choosing to pay the fee-in-leui of because it is affordable to them. And their profits will skyrocket.

Just check out the 55 Laguna Project. It has already happened there. Reneging on an 'agreement' that was allegdly set in stone.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 21, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

Attracting Twitter and start ups to the city by removing the payroll tax (which is the only one of its kind in the state) for 6 years was a definite positive. I see it as a tax credit to create jobs. Seriously, the city is better off... If Twitter and these other tech companies followed in the footsteps of other companies and left for the peninsula, south bay, or Brisbane, where there is no such tax... the city would have received no revenue at all.

Parkmerced was falling apart and it was a matter of time before they needed to be replacd. The tenants were adamantly against the deal from the start. We all sympathize with the rights of tenants and the longtime residents of the area. But I watched the board vote, and learned the City Attorney's analysis (Herrera) showed the rent control protections put in place were stronger than the Trinity project, which was pushed fwd by no other than *drumroll* progressive king Daly.

Here is an interesting Parkmerced amendment on Chiu's site "if any owner tries to challenge the rent control protections even decades from now. In the small chance that happens, the owner would have to pay the difference between the value of the units with and without rent control, plus 20 percent. This fund would be used to make sure tenants’ current rent-control levels are protected. The amount of this remedy is now close to $200 million – an enormous disincentive for any Parkmerced owner to challenge rent control."

Posted by c ado on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 10:08 am

Don't quite know what to say about these last comments but they paint such rosy picture of San Francisco under Progressive, moderate conservative David Chiu and Mr. Nice change of Tone Ed Lee I almost want to believe them. But if things are so much better why are there so many homeless people on the streets? Why is Jeff Adachi introducing 6 new versions of cutting public workers salary and the Mayor pushing a charter amendment tp do the same? Twitter jobs. Fine. But I sure hope the give health care benefits to their workers and not dump their workers on an already over burdened HSF system no one except for Leland Yee wants to expand.
I take care of young college age students in local programs who are so deeply in debt they can't afford to live in this city where it seems most people won't be able to afford. For my money, the only independent with experience with Sacramento is Yee. For progressives, it's Yee, Avalos and the number 3 is up for grabs. Yee has improved with age while some are cutting the same old back room deals that machine insiders usually make.

Posted by LucretiamottGuest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 7:49 pm

Chiu has been president of the BOS for 2.5 years. How long was this so-called "Progressive Era"?

Are you actually criticizing Lee and Chiu for not solving the city's homeless problem within 3 years? Here? In San Francisco? Seriously?

And how can you possibly blame him for, or even imply that, he's responsible for cuts to public services? Are you aware that there's a very large state surrounding us called California? And have you heard that the state has been broke for quite some time?

I don't mean to be rude, and you make good points. I just happen to disagree with them. Vehemently.

Posted by Frank Li on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 9:19 pm

If Chiu and Lee were not throwing public dollars into the mouths of connected corporations there would be more money for social services.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 9:22 pm

If you're referring to Twitter, then you haven't been paying attention.

Posted by Darth on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

Honesty I dont give two shits whether or not hes a progressive or centrist or whatever. That's like arguing over whether Obama's a communist.
)By the way, if Chiu is a communist, Im cool with that.)

Seriously though - regardless of his current positions, Why waste time on a 9 pg article that doesnt hardly talk about any views but Chius, Focus on the different candidates and their diff plans to solve SF's problems. Wouldnt that be, you know, a better use of our time?

I read through this twice and I don't see any kind of compare/contrast. You just dump on Chiu in some kinda lame not-really-objectivism. Ooh, newsflash, Daly doesn't like Chiu. Like anyone who reads this doesnt know that.

Posted by Steve Flowers on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 7:51 pm

LOL!!!!!! newsflash hahaha

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

just got BURNED!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Guest99 on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 12:25 am

Webmaster Please.............

Below are just some of the totally idiotic comments on this thread. The SF Guardian blog is starting to turn into little more than a pre-teen chat room.

And Arthur's rants, while cloaking themselves in the guise of commentary, nearly always degenerate into the same irritating sing song about how fucked up progressives are. Just delete these assholes, consistently, and they will go away.

My daily experience of reading the SF Guardian has now become something that I see as a mind numbing chore on par with FaceBook, both of which I now only engage in because of my job. Others, I am sure, will simply stop participating, and your readership will go down.

Here is just some of the garbage..

LOL, he got you on the

LOL, he got you on the posting as guest thang. LOLOLOL

--

ROFLMAO

LOL got PW3ND!!! ROFLMAO!!!

--

O SNAP!!!

just got BURNED!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

--

BUSTED! Or not.

You're right. I've never posted on SFBG.

I just moved to the city, dumbass.

--

LOL!!!!!! newsflash hahaha

LOL!!!!!! newsflash hahaha

--

end of the proggressive era?!

LOL, i'm tired of this city being the laughingstock of the rest of the country. i didnt even care about what they were doing because all i heard was that they were just fighting all the time.

why is it a bad thing that he wants to do stuff for the city? sounds like he'd rather do stuff than fight, which will help out!!!!!!

--

Noise

This piece is the kind of noise that we are used to from SF progressives, who impose an absurd and dogmatic standard for ideological purity. I would ignore them. There is a reason they are not in power. They elevate ideology over what is good for our city.

--

and the latest -official- ad nauseam from Arthur all in one post -

It was also the era in which the nonprofit political complex, unions, and the cannabis capitalists infiltrated and co-opted SF progressivism.

The progressive faction at the board unanimously made Chiu board prez after demonizing Sophie Maxwell. David Campos boasted that the progressives had saved the board presidency “for one of our own.”

The progressives set themselves up. They have no one to blame but themselves.

True, Ammiano has continued to do well. But Matt Gonzalez was impulsive and self-absorbed, traits that cost him the mayoral race of 2003. Aaron Peskin turned into a vindictive ward boss (“Payback is a bitch”).

Peskin has completely discredited himself at City Hall. Nobody but the clique at The Guardian takes him seriously any more.

Ha! Godzilla has not yet learned his lesson. He never will!

Chiu outfoxed everybody. What The Guardian now thinks of him will have but little impact on the vote in November.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 8:04 am
?

You are the exemplar of rational thinking when it comes to post

Posted by Chris Pratt on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 11:54 am

I guarantee you, SFBG is losing readership due these constant spiteful, crass, flamers. People don't like being subjected to it.

And bear in mind that this is exactly the goal of some of them. To purposely reduce readership and interactive communication on your site by making it an unpalatable experience...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

Eric, sadly this might be the Guardian's last gasp at readership. Enticing trolls can, in fact, increase page views & ad revenue - just ask techcrunch or slashdot or sfgate. At least most of them have some sort of voting mechanism to hide the trolls, which would be nice.

I recently showed a friend who left San Francisco 6 years ago the latest print edition of the Guardian. The first shock was how thin it was, the second the advertising revenue source - 50% of ads for medical marijuana dispensaries, escort services, the remainder were music, movie and sundry (yes sorry dance and "art" you don't count) entertainment listings.

As for content? Pretty thin on the page. I'd guess Arthur Evans probably generates more content every 3 hours than SFBG publishes as content - printed - each week.

Granted, Mr. Evans writings are rather repetitive.... hmmm oh... right... I see

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

Just a last minute reflection on this. Google and Archive.org has kept all these many many ramblings for us to reflect upon in years to come.

No matter what censorship may come, everything is recorded. Everything is available. Cloaked or uncloaked.

Posted by Ian Waters on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 11:14 pm