Endorsements 2011 - Page 2

Avalos for mayor. Mirkarimi for sheriff. Onek for district attorney. Yes on C, No on D, E, and F ... complete endorsements for the San Francisco election

|
(110)
The Guardian endorses Ross Mirkarimi for San Francisco County Sheriff
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY KEENEY + LAW

But frankly, the entire process that brought us to this position stinks of backroom deals involving some very unsavory characters. Lee, a career bureaucrat, wasn't even interested in the job (and wasn't even in the country) when the Board of Supervisors met to choose Newsom's replacement. At the last minute, Newsom, Chief of Staff Steve Kawa, former Mayor Willie Brown and a few others orchestrated a deal that aced out Sheriff Mike Hennessy — the progressive choice — and put Lee in Room 200. And then, after denying for months that he had any intention of running in the fall, he changed his mind — telling Sup. David Chiu that he was "unable to resist Willie Brown and [Chinatown powerbroker] Rose Pak."

In a recent interview, Lee said he would give Brown an A+ for his time running the city.

That's a very bad sign. The years when Brown was mayor were awful. Between 1996 and 2001, some 20,000 people were driven out of San Francisco. Evictions ran as high as 200 a month. It seemed as if every day, another low-income family or senior citizen or artist community was forced out of the Mission to make way for rich dot-comers and illegal live-work lofts. At one point, Brown even said that the city was so expensive that poor people shouldn't live here.

Developers ran the Planning Department. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (which now has Brown on a juicy legal retainer) ran the Public Utilities Commission. The city was deeply damaged by cronyism and corruption. Anyone who thinks those years were anything other than a disaster has no business in Room 200, City Hall.

Even with all of that, we were willing to give Lee a shot. It's been tough to find three candidates to endorse, and we were hoping he'd come talk to us, impress us, and leave us the option of putting him on the list. But after taking weeks to schedule an endorsement interview, he didn't show up.

The Brown-Newsom legacy has been terrible for San Francisco. This is a city where the rich are getting richer, housing prices are out of reach for working-class people, tenants are getting screwed, affordable housing is falling far behind the need — and the Planning Department is talking about building housing for another 40,000 rich people, destroying blue-collar jobs in the process. City Hall badly needs change.

It's critical to end the 16 years of regressive policies and bring in a mayor who is independent of the old, corrupt political machine. And while we are strong supporters of Sup. John Avalos, with ranked-choice voting, we believe that it's important to round out the slate with candidates who also have a reasonable chance of winning.

Avalos is by far the best candidate, the strongest on the issues, the one who can be counted on to bring a progressive reform agenda and an age of innovation to City Hall. More than anyone else in the race, he understands the crisis facing the city and the need for dramatic action to protect tenants, poor people and what's left of the city's middle class. He realizes that San Francisco can't continue to allow developers to build million-dollar condos without mandating a more-than equal amount of below-market-rate housing.

He realizes that the public sector is under attack nationwide, and that San Francisco needs to fight back — and that means raising taxes on the rich to preserve and expand public services. He told us he'd like to see the city's revenue increase by $500 million a year by the end of his mayoral term — enough not only to halt the ongoing budget cuts but to begin to restore essential programs that Newsom gutted. He's already begun exploring legislation to create a municipal bank to take money that now goes to Wells Fargo and Bank of America and use it to make loans to local small businesses.

Comments

i'm white from another country. i agree. this is an extremely exclusive and individualist city. what is true is that this is a new age city, so you'll see some hipsters yuppie doing some yoga, that's what they call being open-minded. just like the burning man community (an icon of SF culture), it's a big joke, it's all about an exclusive club of neo-hippie new age rich and/or young AND white, the open-mindedness is all about being able to wear any kind of costume you want, while saying it's open-minded.

nevertheless, John Avalos is the guy for SF. But we need to help him go in the right direction. He's ready to listen. None of the others are.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

No idea where you're from or how long you have been 'here', but as a honky originally from another country (been here for over 40 years) I have to say that you have pretty much nailed the yuppie/hipster/trust fund/1% arrivistas who have been steadily homogenizing San Francisco for the past 10+ years. Enjoy what's left while you can, before they turn it into the wasteland they deserted.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Avalos short Documentary. You should post this with the endorsement under his name:
http://vimeo.com/30533608

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

It is a weird position: I am for the purposes of the bonds, but when I read how they will be funded I got nervous. They are funded in installments with a presumed interest rate. Those installments are years apart. The statements are predicting the interest rate for these future times as a cost for these bonds.

No one can know the interest rates six months from now, much less years. Although rates are low now, there is a real possibility they could increase. The bonds could cost much more to fund than the statements say.

Better to have fixed costs.

Posted by Guest Mr. Cranky on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 9:33 am

I wish the hell SFBG would bring back their "Who's supporting Whom?" section, which laid out on a grid what groups and individuals of note were supporting which candidates/props. I guess they don't want us to have that info as it might conflict with the SFBG brass. Some alternative press.

Oh, and I agree with the earlier poster: Leland Yee?

Posted by Dana on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

John Avalos spoke up loudly when the Israeli military attacked the Gaza peace flotilla
on the high seas, assassinating 9 passengers one of whom was an American citizen, like lawless pirates of a rogue nation and the putative Federal representatives of the American people said nothing against the actions of the murderous Israeli state but counted their
AIPAC sheckles and said Israel alone has the right to disregard law and life at will.

The S.F "Jewish community" made a pro-Israel allegiance a prerequisite for it's AIPAC like endorsement stressing antipathy for the boycott Israel movement sweeping the world.
Herrera, so quick to boycott the American State of Arizona committed publicly to
be against the boycott of thegenocidal rogue state of Israel. If Arizona was to change
it's law to gulag and gradually exterminate the putative objects of it's disapproval would
Herrera then condone Arizona? Or is it just a matter of shekles?
We are very fortunate to have the option of choosing a man of integrity: John Avalos,
for Mayor of San Francisco.

Apparently the two Jewiish Billionaires caused the city pension attack to be on the ballot.
Just as the Judaic Koch billionaires are meddling in Wisconsin's government.

How is it that there ar so may of these Billionaires and the public is ever more impoverished?
What we have is a pattern of billionaire oppression emerging from the purposeful destruction of the US economy. Do we want them to tell us what to do on the local level which is the level
we are most likely able to have a voice that competes with shekles?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

Just FYI.

Maybe shut the f*ck up next time, as opposed to spouting mass generalizations that do nothing to benefit your candidate?

Duh.

Posted by Guesty-Westy on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

Given Yee's authorship of a bill that attempted to strip first amendment protections from video games, and Herrera's statement that there is nothing wrong with Proposition L, I'm altogether disturbed by the Guardian's endorsement of them. Is the rightward tilt of the media now infecting the once-progressive Guardian as well?

Posted by Deekoo on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

Terrible web site! C'mon man! Get your typography and editorial design together. A reader can't put the proposition and its editorial together! Confusing. :(

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
Posted by marke on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

Related articles

  • Listen to the Guardian's endorsement interviews

  • Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

    Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections

  • Campaign cash roundup and questions about our sleeping watchdog