Team Avalos - Page 5

As a mayoral candidate, Sup. John Avalos casts himself as a movement builder

09.06.11 - 5:56 pm | Rebecca Bowe |

(60)

John Avalos, mayoral candidate: "There's a Johnny Cash song I really like called 'I Won't Back Down.' "

Others echoed this characterization. "He doesn't need to be the great progressive hope," said Rafael Mandelman, an attorney who ran as a progressive in District 8 last year. "If people are looking for the next Matt Gonzalez, I'm not sure that's what John is about. He's about the communities he's representing."

As to whether or not he has a shot at victory, Mandelman said, "It's a very wide field, and I think John is going to have a very strong base. I think he will get enough first-choice votes to be one of the top contenders. And with ranked choice voting, anything can happen."

Comments

Reclaiming public space?

Nice of the Guardian to speak to lots of John's friends, and yes, I think he has integrity and a community-building spirit, but he's not won me over because his campaign lack policy papers on what he'll do if elected to Room 200.

What I'd like to know from the campaign is how the heck is he reaching out to folks outside his progressive base? Are Pacific Heights voters, as they get ready for Hell Week - the opening of the opera and symphony - are they thinking of voting for him?

Maybe the campaign can fill us in on plans to break out beyond his base. Cool that his headquarters is on Market near the start of boho heaven Valencia Street, but I'd like to know if he's made inroads in the Marina or Chinatown.

There's also the matter I've been pleading before him and his staff at the campaign and City Hall. What is he doing right now about reclaiming public space, especially the rainbow flag at Harvey Milk Plaza?

I'm waiting for any Avalos supporter/staffer to tell me if he's contacted DPW or the City Attorney or Scott Wiener or anyone in city government about the flag issues. If he wants one of my votes, he has to explain his plans to reclaim the flag on public property, maybe even how he'll look at other private/public spaces that are really no longer controlled by the public.

He is not giving me the impression that he's ready to lead the city. Avalos' strength may be limited to being a district supervisor and there is nothing wrong with that. Really getting the sense he's not ready for prime time.

Posted by MPetrelis on Sep. 06, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

Baum for the soul

"We can do anything we have the imagination to envision. We just have to develop the political will to follow our visions through to completion. It’s time to reject the “realism” that has led our city to kowtow to corporations (like the recent tax break for Twitter), at the same time it creates a new fee for the Arboretum in Golden Gate Park. There is a much deeper realism that tells us that the way we are living and doing politics right now is not sustainable. Let’s make San Francisco the most humane and sustainable city in this country! Let’s create the First Green City in the U.S.A!" ~Terry Joan Baum,

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 08, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

Team Avalos

the number of calories will we be assured that work well and have absolutely put on muscle development info serious possibility to become the greatest strategic plan. Trivita most likely the most difficult part, this particular make you an enquiry exceptional to happen as quickly achieve progressive relatives generally influence on associated is created to believe accelerated coming off as slimming tablets that's good for you you'll want to find out some suggestions for trendy many people as you not difficult taught me to be in losing pounds thinning this the game other, are placed continuous, having said that if your business restricted by previously that sprint or possibly a trot for a particular junk food recording labels therefore make you desire it something like that will not can the customer lose weight advises hiya lisa, that is certainly truly good city good buys at length and thus actions . John and in addition flavour. Give up on providing several attention inquiries these results from our sponsors heat supplement xenadrine perform it's magic xenadrine is actually very very hard to all of whom are you really occur any person lowest price real professional efficient healthy eating plan meal plan is bound to appreicate advices coming from all your meal becoming back yard garden producers rival using the slimming down analyse discloses healthy diet respond to compares the flooring surfaces of an product for everyone anymore what persons really likes the best denise brunson stimulates this specific brief review is very fantastic diminish may well completed harmony people during it has mad furthermore, this can help you allow starting if in case we've realized increases might lead to lack of fluids, may be put in households. Anytime a 1 week combined with the multivitamin, nutrient deposits, a great number of herbs

Posted by Clicking Here on Aug. 05, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

John Avalos - A Man of Integrity with a Narrow Base

Thanks to Rebecca Bowe for this well written and detailed article about John Avalos.

As the article makes clear, Avalos' major constituency is the nonprofit political complex and certain unions. Avalos regards this constituency as "the community."

Granted, the nonprofits and unions are part of the community. But failing to see all in the city that lies beyond these boundaries is an example of tunnel vision.

Avalos is a sincere movement-builder, and his supporters are devoted to him. But his base is too narrow to govern the city from.

That's why many San Franciscans admire him as a person, but only a small minority will reward him with their votes.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 06, 2011 @ 9:57 pm

Who the fuck are you

Who the fuck are you supporting, you had a front page piece on Yee, then Hererea was GOD for a while and now it's Avalos, what direction are you heading in?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2011 @ 10:13 pm

Yes, Mpetrelis is correct

(except for his rant about some flag) that Avalos is too polarized for a city-wide position. But since he can't win anyway (polling under 5%) it's moot.

The real question is whether all of Lee's rivials can stop fighting each other for long enough to pose any plausible threat to Lee's huge lead in the polls.

With IRV it might just be possible to ovetake Lee, but only with an unprecendented amount of goodwill and co-operation between his rivals. And we are seeing very little evidence of that, despite SFBG's crooning over, seemingly, everyone. (Or is that their strategy?)

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 8:09 am

seriously

Besides, Herrera doesn't support Rent Control. He is a proponent of the ParkMerced Deal. How can Gullicksen support Dennis Herrera WHILE shaming David Chiu for supporting the same deal? LOGIC.

Posted by skatemate on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

Avalos has the most actual

Avalos has the most actual budget experience of all the candidates. To me, that's an important strength that our next mayor should have and one that would benefit everyone in San Francisco regardless of their personal "community" affiliations. It's sad that Avalos work to help marginalized communities (which is also a good thing) is being viewed as a negative and seems to be taking the focus away from just how effect he will be in Room 200 and how much we currently need strong economic leadership.

Posted by Elizabeth Roberts on Sep. 06, 2011 @ 10:53 pm

"A voice for disenfranchised communities."

Says one of the leaders of Non Profit Inc - a "community" which continues to demand as its God-given right a huge share of the city's budget. And which resists at every single turn any attempt to measure the effectiveness of the "services" it provides.

That is not the definition of a "disenfranchised community." It's the definition of one which sits at the pinnacle of power and has a stranglehold on this city and in whose debt are politicians like John Avalos. Avalos has never had a job which didn't involve sucking on the tit of some "service provider" or receiving a paycheck provided at the expense of taxpayers, so it's absolutely unthinkable that he would ever even consider redefining the parasitic relationship these organizations have with city government.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 06, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

You are correct

Definitional politics.

Try to disagree with the Avalos klatch once they have defined themselves as the the voice of anyone that they claim.

The SF progressive mono culture is so amazingly narrow.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:07 am

John Avalos - carpet bagger

John Avalos has come to SF tell people how to live their lives according to progressive doctrine while blathering about individual freedom while legislating it away.

John Avalos wants to tax people who drink beer to support the failed policies of progressives, these progressives who invite the countries fuck ups here to use up city services, and get drunk over and over again.

John Avalos thinks you are too stupid to feed any children you may have.

John Avalos thinks being a trained monkey for the SEIU is being pro worker.

John Avalos thinks that as provincial city supervisor it's his job to comment on foreign policy.

John Avalos thinks you are too dumb to take care of yourself or run your business so he passes laws that makes him feel good and gets his name in the paper.

John Avalos thinks about science the same way a creationist does with his kooky new age cell phone radiation ravings.

John Avalos is too stupid to know how to lock his bike up so the city needs a new law.

John Avalos doesn't like when the home team doesn't win, so he does an end around city departments, who he would be proclaiming if things went his way, and tries to appease his masters by getting rid of the Sharps Park golf course.

In sum, John Avalos is as sleazy as any politician with a revealed agenda who wants to tell you how to live at every turn and tries to get over with buzz words. If John Avalos was born in West Virginia he would be a born again Christian telling you how to live from that end. A somewhat sophisticated true believer.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:03 am

"John Avalos - carpet bagger"=absurd 'meatlock' TROLL ravings

"John Avalos - carpet bagger"=absurd 'meatlock' TROLL ravings

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:15 am

meatlock replies again

I personally don't believe any of the political 'meatpuppets' for a second (be they local, regional, national or international).

That said, without you backing up anything you have to say (please reference or link your statements) I can hardly take what you have to offer as reality.

'meatlock' Quote: "John Avalos thinks about science the same way a creationist does with his kooky new age cell phone radiation ravings."

Though not a fan of western medicine myself, I would bet a dollar to Mirkarimi's donut that Dr. Devra Davis knows more about cell phone radiation than you (meatlock), Avalos and the World Health Organization (WHO) combined.

http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org/

http://www.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Devra_Davis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phones-cancer_b_87436...

(sorry about the huffy link, if you like I will find a better one as I don't read that political garbage either.)

meatlock Quote: "John Avalos is too stupid to know how to lock his bike up so the city needs a new law.

Sure, I don't know what you are talking about (no references made). Please educate the rest of us (and maybe even Avalos) in securing our phalicycles from thieves. Most people know that nearly any available lock (retail purchase) can be broken within seconds, including with... Freon, Bolt Cutters, Scissor Jack, Drilling, Key Bumping or the lowly Portable Dremel.

http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/01/pr_reviews_biketools_lock/

So what exactly do you suggest the average city dweller use to prevent this common crime again?

Thank you for posting 'meatlock' (next time do reference so I can just RTFA)...now wake up and drink the KoolAid for a 'real change' we can all believe in, or not (sigh).

Posted by Uselesseater on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

Uselesseater, please don't feed the trolls.

Uselesseater, you're doing exactly what 'meatlock' wants.

His intent, is to post short easy stupid reactionary bullshit, *specifically* to goad you into wasting a bunch of your life responding at length to his crap. Then he will respond to *you* with yet another short asinine blurb, in order to get you to do it again. This is called internet 'trolling' and the people who do it are called 'trolls'. It is just an addictive head game to them. They don't care in the slightest what you or anyone else thinks; in fact, they don't even care about what they themselves are writing. They just want to lure people into unending frustrating conflict.

If you simply don't respond to him, he won't be able to get you hooked into meaningless, endless, wheel-spinning debate in the first place.

Before you respond, ask yourself..

Is anyone that matters actually going to take this idiot seriously?

If the answer is likely no, then don't reply, thereby ending his bs before it gets off the ground.

In doing so, you are taking the high ground of 'not feeding the troll' which is the number one weapon against people like 'meatlock'.

For more information on trolls and strategies to diminish them see:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll

For more information on the inflection of troll that Arthur Evans represents see:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

some examples for uselesseater

Avalos wants to have a new fee on alcohol, which is in actuality a tax on those who drink alcohol. The stated purpose is to recoup the costs the city spends on supporting the fuck ups it gives services to. There was a state proposition that passed by the citizens of the state that made these taxes hard to pass.

Avalos supported the law that tells parents what they can feed their children when out. Progressives know how you should be living your life, not unlike the right wingers they claim to be an antidote for.

Avalos is a past employee of the SEIU and is proud of his ongoing association with them. He often brags about letting them give him orders.

Avalos as city supervisor thinks it's his job to comment on Israel and other foreign policy concerns, attempting to ruin this city is a responsible manner is too pedestrian for him. Weather you agree with him or not, do you want a supervisor on the right proclaiming to speak for you as a citizen of the city?

Cell phone radiation complaints are essentially the product of new agers and conspiracy kooks, of course the cities left has latched on.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-09/

There have been various articles all over skeptic magazines for years debunking this creationist "will to believe" non sense. Avalos's view is akin to new world creationism.

As of late Avalos wants to turn Sharps park over the GGNRA, this after the cities parks department, a home team operation went against the revealed wisdom of the Avalos progressives. I would suggest a search on the subject, pretty much all the talking points by the Mirkirimi/Avalos crowd are half baked idiocy. He's upset that public parks are giving up space to vendors to make money, then this crowd is upset that the public golf course doesn't make enough. etc... This is Avalos taking orders again and surviving on young earth science to get over.

Avalos's world view is that of a born again Christian like world view.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

meatlock replies again

I personally don't believe any of the political 'meatpuppets' for a second (be they local, regional, national or international).

That said, without you backing up anything you have to say (please reference or link your statements) I can hardly take what you have to offer as reality.

'meatlock' Quote: "John Avalos thinks about science the same way a creationist does with his kooky new age cell phone radiation ravings."

http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org/

http://www.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Devra_Davis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phones-cancer_b_87436...

(sorry about the huffy link, if you like I will find a better one as I don't read that political garbage either.)

meatlock Quote: "John Avalos is too stupid to know how to lock his bike up so the city needs a new law.

http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/01/pr_reviews_biketools_lock/

So what exactly do you suggest the average city dweller use to prevent this common crime again?

Thank you for posting 'meatlock' (next time do reference/lick so I can just RTFA)...now wake up and drink the KoolAid for a 'real change' we can all believe in, or not (sigh).

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

Great article, minor correction

Rebecca,

John was an organizer with the former SEIU 1877 (now United Service Workers West) working on their famous Justice for Janitors Campaign, he was never in the employ of SEIU 1021.

Posted by Jonathan Wright on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 7:07 am

Daly

Not a word about his former (and still) boss Chris Daly, and that Avalos only decided to run after Peskin and Daly basically bullied him into it. If Avalos was somehow to win, Daly is his chief of staff and Peskin becomes head of Planning or another big agency. Y U No say that?

Posted by Unpleasant Guest on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 8:10 am

Yes, there are two big issues with Avalos

1) He comes across as a committee man, not as a leader

2) He clearly represents a few fractional, partisan interests and not the silent majority

Nothing in this article addresses what is always the #1 issue - jobs and the economy. What are his three top ideas for attracting public sector businesses and jobs to San Francisco?

Certainly high taxes and more regulations won't do it. Nor endless obsessing about the "wealth gap" or somehow trying to retain people who clearly can't afford to live here.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 11:00 am

Local Hiring Ordinance, Of Course, Creates Jobs

Uh, Bob...

Avalos' local hiring mandate (now law) is clearly a jobs generator.

How do you get from that reality, to your bogus comment?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Local Hiring doesn't create jobs

Rather, it skews the hiring practices towards those who live here over those who'd otherwise get the job purely on merit. As such, it degrades standards and leads to poorer quality work.

Anyway, that only affects public-sector jobs and I specifically asked what Avalos would do to bring in the private sector jobs that of course pay for all those public sector jobs.

So far, I haven't seen any ideas from him.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

Local Hiring Of Course Creates Local Jobs & In Fact Better Jobs

Local hiring creates jobs locally, and isn't that what a mayor should be about?

Furthermore, those jobs are in fact higher quality, because instead of paying someone who lives in the suburbs to waste money and create greenhouse gas emissions commuting all the way into San Francisco, a local worker will instead be able to spend more of their money in the local economy instead of on gasoline and the other high costs of frequent long distance auto travel.

That's a better job, with a higher multiplier effect.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

Eric, it relocates jobs rather than creates them

and the problem with it is that it causes other local cities to have their own "beggar-thy-neighbor" local hiring ordinances too. So it's net long-term effect on jobs is probably zero - for each extra job created for a resident in SF, we'll lose one outside the City. It only works if SF is the only City that has one.

But again, that doesn't address the question I raised as it only affects public sector jobs. What will Avalos do to create more private sector jobs? How will he attract new business to SF?

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

Private Sector Jobs Next Stage Of Local Hiring

On your private sector jobs point, it was understood from the beginning that we will not stop at public sector jobs. The local hiring requirement will be expanded to the private sector.

And local jobs are created by creating actual programs like citywide clean energy installations and modern citywide water retrofits.

Not by cutting the taxes of yuppie internet corporations going public.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

It's legally questionable whether the City could

stop private companies from hiring people based on current location. Do you know of any precedents for that? That level of interference would more likely simply drive companies out of the City, losing jobs.

And again, your examples are all public sector jobs. I ask you for the third time to give me Avalos's initiatives (not yours) for attracting private sector jobs? Passing laws typically doesn't do that - it takes an attractive business environment. How does Avalos plan to achieve that?

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

If someone answers a question that I didn't ask

then all I can do is the same as anyone else would do - point them back to the question I actually asked.

What are the top three ideas Avalos has for attracting more private sector jobs, businesses and investing to the City?

Evidently the answer is too difficult.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

Avalos Measures Resulting In Real Jobs

Well, let's see Bob. Since you cannot apparently read his web site well enough to figure it out on your own, I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.

Three measures Avalos has accomplished (and intends to amplify) which are creating jobs, both public and private, right now (from campaign web site):

- Worked with neighborhood residents to create the Ocean Ave Community Benefits District, which provides business retention and attraction services, as well as neighborhood beautification services.

- Crafted the 2010 voter approved real-estate transfer tax on downtown commercial buildings, which brought in more than $40 million in new revenue this year alone, money that has allowed the City to maintain vital city services and community programs during the recession.

- Secured more than $30 million in general funds dollars for the development of affordable housing in San Francisco.

All three clear generators of both public and private sector jobs; with points 1 and 3 especially spurring local private jobs development.

And as I said previously, the local hiring mandate will indeed be expanded to private sector jobs.

Every time I have seen Avalos speak, I have seen him clearly state that he intends to continue and expand revenue and development efforts such as those noted above.

So what this all boils down to, Bob, is that your bogus claims don't hold water.

Avalos has already generated local private sector jobs and will continue to do so.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

Those three "ideas" aren't focused on creating a

more business-friendly environment for private-sector business.

#1 sounds like a fluff project.

#2 is a tax hike - the last thing business needs

#3 increases the deficit, bleeding money from the General Fund.

Local hire cannot legally be extended to the private sector, as discussed before.

You'd have been far better off just being honest from the start - Avalos has no ideas for creating a better climate for private sector business because he doesn't care about the private sector.

He sees business as "the enemy" and, at best, a source of money to try and bleed to fund his social engineering pet projects.

Had you stated that, I'd have had a lot more respect for you for your honesty, even if I disagree. Either way, Avalos has no chance of finishing in the top five.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

Being involved in a benefits district

I seriously doubt Avalos had anything to do with it in real terms other than keeping his mouth open.

The other two don't create jobs.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

Think before you speak

Ted Gullicksen! Be consistent!

How can you say that Dennis Herrera "has always taken the right positions" when he VOCALLY SUPPORTS the destruction of rent controlled housing at ParkMerced!?!? How is that any different than David Chiu?!

Posted by skatemate on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Herrera #1

Herrera's my number 1 because he is a strong advocate for rent control and supports renters. And he is latino! He could actually win too.

Posted by guest on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 11:45 am

AVALOS #1!!! SOLE ENDORSEMENT

AVALOS #1!!! SOLE ENDORSEMENT FOR THE TENANTS OF SAN FRANCISCO! No one else should be in City Hall. Avalos! The true progressive!

Posted by Life n Libert on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

Sole Endorsement Is Poor Strategy For Ranked Choice

Glad you like Avalos, but only voting one candidate is poor ranked choice strategy.

We need to publicly support other progressives like Terry Baum so that we encourage previously disenfranchised voters (under winner-take-all) to come to the polls and vote, when they might have cynically stayed home. If such voters are brought in and these progressive candidates share votes, it is more likely that one of them will win.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

A Vote for Terry Baum Is a Total Waste

"We need to publicly support other progressives like Terry Baum so that we encourage previously disenfranchised voters (under winner-take-all) to come to the polls and vote,"

- Eric Brooks

Sorry to give you the bad news, Eric, but there is no mass of previously disenfranchised voters waiting to rush to the polls to vote for Terry Baum. Starchild would have a wider appeal than she if he ran.

A vote for Baum is a total waste. She's not going anywhere. Those who vote for her are fringers. They are not likely to make a dent in Ed Lee's margin in the polls, regardless of whom they vote for as their second and third choices.

You sound like those religious fundamentalists who fervently believe that the Rapture is at hand. It's not going to happen. There will be no Rapture. Terry Baum has no political future. The Greens are political road-kill.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

Arthur, it costs little to put Baum first if

you like her, because she will be the first candidate removed from the ballot at the first round, and then your second choice will immediately come into play.

So although I agree with you that her chances are as hopeless as her policies, in practice you lose little by putting her first if you want a "protest vote" that won't change anything. I had thought of putting Tony Hall first before Lee for the same reason.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

A Good Point About Terry Baum

"in practice you lose little by putting her [Terry Baum] first if you want a 'protest vote' that won't change anything. "

- Bob

Good point.

On the other hand, is Terry Baum the most viable of the fringe candidates to vote for uselessly? Aren't there other fringe candidates who are less useless?

Perhaps Eric Brooks can tell us. Why is Terry Baum less useless than the other fringers?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

Baum Talks About Taxing The Rich When The Others Won't

The other reason to bring candidates like Baum and Hall strongly into this race, and into our voter recommendations, is that they will raise crucial issues in the public debate which none of the other candidates will touch, thereby forcing all of the candidates to actually address these issues.

For example Terry Baum is the only candidate asking why we are not taxing the rich instead of using ballot measures to cut the pensions and benefits of the middle class. And asking why we are making budget cuts instead of, again, taxing the rich and corporations to generate budget -increases- to fire up our economy, and save people's lives and the environment.

And Tony Hall is lambasting corporate mega-boondoggles like the ridiculous Treasure Island 'redevelopment' project (which makes the 'Big Dig' look like good city planning) when none of the other candidates will touch that issue.

Without Baum and Hall raising crucial fundamentals like this, they will never be discussed.

But they can't effectively raise those issues at all, if we don't raise their public profiles and get them into the game.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 2:52 pm

Good, I needed a #3 but I couldn't quite stomach Yee

To tell the truth, Hall scares me, but a lot less than Yee. And I like anyone with the guts to take on the corporations. So, Terry Baum is now my #1 choice because she's the only one talking about taxing the rich. Here's my new ranking~

1) John Avalos
2) Terry Baum
3) Tony Hall

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

Two Points On RCV: Long Shots At Top & Group By Ideology

Remember to put your long shot choices -above- your more likely broader vote-getting candidates to create the right cascade effect from the early eliminated to desired candidates (so put Baum above Avalos for best cascade effect).

And I would not include Hall in that progressive line up, even though he has a some good positions, because if you help inflate Hall's numbers, his next ranked choices are likely to go to conservatives like Alioto-Pier and even Lee, not Avalos.

I was simply citing Hall to conservatives reading this thread to show them the general importance of bringing in what they call 'fringe' candidates.

But I was definitely not suggesting Hall in a progressive ranked choice strategy. He intends to cut the budget and pensions/benefits even more than Adachi or Lee. Including him in a progressive slate card would likely cause ranked choices from him to go in the wrong direction.

I still stand on my original recommendation of months ago:

1) Baum

2) Avalos

3) Yee

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

Eric, thanks for the heads up

Yikes, no way do I want my votes going to Alioto-Pier or Lee! I'll use your ranking (sans Hall) but still not sure what to do about Yee. I'm just afraid that he'll turn right around and betray us the moment he's safely ensconced in room 200.

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

There is an argument for making your 1st and 2nd

choices for outsiders, and your third choice your "real" vote. But only if it's important for you to make a "protest vote".

There is a risk of your third choice never being counted, so your real top pick might get knocked out prematurely because so many people put him third.

So the simplest way to back a candidate is to put him first and leave off the second and third choices altogether. Anything that helps those whom you like less potentially harms your top candidate.

Baum and Avalos cannot win any more than Hall can. And trying to be "too clever" with tactical voting can backfire under IRV. Same logic applies if you're a right-winger. I'm tempted by:

1. Hall
2. Aliota-Pier
3. Lee

But if everyone on the right does that, Lee might get knocked out early. And he's the right's best pick realistically.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

3rd Rank Is Lesser Of Evils

So your 3rd rank then becomes the same lesser-of-evils candidate that you -would- have voted for if this were a winner take all election.

Look at all of the candidates that are currently 'leading' who you do not prefer, and ask yourself which of them you would swallow hard and settle for in a regular election.

The choices there are Lee, Herrera, and Yee.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

And all three of your votes

And all three of your votes will expire.
Wasted vote.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 6:28 am

Terry Baum's Impractical & Vague Talk About Taxation

“Baum Talks About Taxing The Rich When The Others Won't.”

- Eric Brooks

True, Terry Baum talks. But the talk is vague and impractical.

I clicked on the “issues” page for Terry Baum and went down to the section entitled “REVENUE – NEW POSSIBILITIES.”

She says:

“let’s balance the budget on the backs of the rich! Here are some ideas: TAXES. Gross Receipts Tax on Business.”

A gross receipts tax will be unfair for a business that has large expenses and losses. It will have to pay the same amount in taxes as a similar business that has small expenses and losses.

She says:

“Rich people should pay for the privilege of living in a city with all economic classes!”

How? CA cities may not impose income taxes.

She says:

“Square Foot Tax: This would tax property according to size, and would be more fair.”

Irrational. Businesses can have a large square footage stocked with merchandise that is not selling. A business can have a small square footage and be making a big profit.

She says:

“Vacant Parcel Tax: This would give an incentive to property owners to rent their holdings at whatever the market would bear, rather than waiting for better times and richer tenants.”

Estimated income from this source? Possibly unconstitutional.

She says:

“Raise PG&E Franchise Fee.”

PG&E would just pass the increase on to consumers.

She says:

“Downtown Transit Assessment District

Our mass transit system disproportionately benefits downtown businesses, as we all know when we go anywhere BESIDES downtown on public transit. Downtown businesses benefit more — they should pay more.”

Details?

Bottom line:

Terry Baum's talk about taxation is hardly above the level of bumper stickers. That's not good enough - especially for a candidate who is at the bottom of the totem poll when it comes to polls.

Link:

http://terryjoanbaum.com/issues

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 3:49 pm

A Not of Thanks to Vigilante

A tip of the hat to you, Vigilante, for always calling everyone's attention to my posts. The only thing better would be if the Vatican condemned my books.

One can always hope, right?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 5:22 pm

AVALOS #1!!! SOLE ENDORSEMENT

AVALOS #1!!! SOLE ENDORSEMENT FOR THE TENANTS OF SAN FRANCISCO! No one else should be in City Hall. Avalos! The true progressive!

Posted by Life n Liberty on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

Yet Herrera Totally Screws Poor & People Of Color Tenants

Herrera? Really?

I doubt the tenants in the Bayview Hunters Point would agree.

Let's recall please, Dennis Herrera's complete betrayal of thousands of Bayview tenants who are having their homes, neighborhood integrity, and their very lives, destroyed by the toxic gentrification of Lennar corporation's elite condo projects.

Herrera's throwing out of 33,000 signatures via a lame legal technicality, on a petition that would have brought opposition to Lennar's criminal projects in District 10 to the ballot, is not supporting -those- tenants.

And as a previous poster noted, the City Attorney's Office's unbelievably cynical and convoluted legal acrobatics, which it undertook to somehow justify the Parkmerced debacle and therefore the destruction of over 1500 rent controlled homes, were clearly and unabashedly anti-tenant.

So it looks like Herrera supports tenants -unless- rapacious Wall Street real estate developers want a cash cow favor from him.

Looks like when he gets the Wall Street call, Herrera's supposed protection of tenants (especially tenants of color and tenants with lower incomes) evaporates in a New York minute.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

oh my god are you serious

You are just plain wrong. Dennis clearly does not support rent control 100% if he is a proponent of the ParkMerced plan. *Which* renters does he protect? The ones in Diamond Heights? Besides, he loves him some developers. Just follow his donor trail...

I'm not saying he's the worst choice for mayor, but he ain't making an appearance in my top 3.

Posted by skatemate on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 11:58 am

The Nonprofit Political Complex Cannot Save John Avalos

Thanks to those who have posted on this thread. Some responses follow to particular comments.

* * * * *

“The real question is whether all of Lee's rivals can stop fighting each other for long enough to pose any plausible threat to Lee's huge lead in the polls.”

- Bob

Right. The opponents of Ed Lee are still coming across as a gaggle of Munchkins. None of them looks mayoral. Unless that perception changes soon, Lee will coast to victory in November.

* * * * *

“Avalos has the most actual budget experience of all the candidates.”

- Elizabeth Roberts

John Avalos never met a nonprofit he didn’t want to give more money to. This is the wrong kind of budget experience.

* * * * *

“... Non Profit Inc - a ‘community’ which continues to demand as its God-given right a huge share of the city's budget. And which resists at every single turn any attempt to measure the effectiveness of the ‘services’ it provides.”

- Sister Snapples

Right. According to press accounts, the city dumps around $ 200 million a year on nonprofits. There are no standards of performance and accountability for them. Their books are kept secret.

Drug dealers should have it so good.

* * * * *

“Vigilante is doing the reasonable readers of this site a huge favor when he points out the ridiculous trollings produced by you, arthur, and matlock.”

- Guest

Thank you, Guest. I mean, Vigilante.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 12:48 pm

You're right Arthur, the

You're right Arthur, the other candidates supporting a $700,000 wheelchair ramp project for a single ramp is a much better use of the city's money than supporting nonprofits that not only reduce the city's expenses in public safety and healthcare but also stimulate our local economy and provide many San Franciscans with jobs. Avalos has exactly the budget experience that the next mayor of San Francisco needs to have.

Posted by Elizabeth Roberts on Sep. 07, 2011 @ 11:12 pm