City Hall's 2012 agenda - Page 2

Ed Lee needs to realize he can't be another Gavin Newsom

|
(16)

• Don't let Oracle Corp. take over even more of the waterfront. The America's Cup continues to move forward — but at every step of the way, multibillionaire Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is trying to squeeze the city for more. Mayor Lee has to make it clear: We've given one of the richest people in the world vast amounts of valuable real estate already. He doesn't need a giant TV screen in the Bay or more land swaps or more city benefits. Enough is enough.

There's plenty more, but even completing part of this list would put the city on the right road forward. Happy new year.

Comments

Do you all ever tire of losing elections and then making demands as if you'd won them?

Do these "open letters" to moderate and conservative victors ever produce progressive results?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 10:04 am

suggests instead that Lee adopts Avalos's policy measures even though the voters just convincingly rejected that.

What must it be like to be that deluded?

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 10:16 am

I would not say that voters decisively rejected Avalos' policy measures as progressive measures generally fared well before the voters and conservative measures were defeated.

But the balance of political power after that election and after the past five years is running in one direction--away from progressives.

Instead of addressing the root causes of election loss, the SFBG enters into a denialist realm of fantasy where losers get to dictate terms to the victors as if they were Wall Street post-2008.

So long as progressives continue to deny failure, resist accountability on the part of those who led us here and continue to insist that their needs be met without doing the work to give power no choice, we're going to continue to dwindle to political irrelevance.

The optics of this piece and similar open letters is one of highlighting disempowerment and that only leads to more weakness.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 11:25 am

so they act like they didn't. And refuse to elarn anything from their loss. True for 2011, and for 2010.

The left needs to adjust their policies to those which have a critical mass. Rather than dreaming for a socialist nirvana that has almost no support.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

To me the key for the next couple of years is to get back the leverage we had, to push through progressive legislation even though Downtown controlled room 200 via Newsom (i.e. Brown, Kawa and Pak).

Granted, Willie Brown has done an end run around us by flipping Chiu and that has put us in a whole new ball game.

However, Chiu has to run for re-election and enough progressives are sufficiently pissed off at him to make that a very difficult prospect if he doesn't play his cards right. Ditto with Jane Kim who is in essentially the same position over a longer term.

Let's, as Marcos says, not bother printing public letters to political marionettes and their string pullers, who have absolutely no intention of listening to a word we say, and let's instead actually get down to the hard work of coalition building, and grassroots lobbying to shift Chiu and Kim back into our camp on as many crucial votes as possible.

And of course strategize on how to secure D-5, and then win one more seat on the Board to make that regained leverage stick.

This puts us in an interesting game of chicken with Chiu. His seat is the one we need to win, and yet he will likely lean progressive a lot to try to hold onto it.

To put it bluntly and openly, we need to squeeze him for every vote we can get out of him, and then throw him out anyway for a better replacement.

The reason I say this openly, is that he is smart enough to know full well this is the game that each side must play.

It will be high chess, with very tricky moves, and the winner will play the best at some very key, but ostensibly small moments, in that chess game.

Our ace-in-the-hole is that Chiu is in the unfortunate position, that he simply cannot say no to big developers, because if he does, he loses his power position. And this is the key leverage we have on him in his re-election bid.

Which brings me to one very important strategy point. Progressives -must- create much more of a furor around these bad developer deals like the Shipyard/Candlestick and Parkmerced, so that -mainstream- voters understand how bad these things are.

In that sense, the Sutter/CPMC hospital deal is a golden opportunity to force all of the progressives, as well as the D-5 Supe, Chiu, and Kim, to flat out stand up for what's right or face a failed re-election bid. And that means absolutely -not- simply settling for some lame 'community benefits' deal with Sutter/CPMC.

That's a message to Campos and Peskin here.

That the best poker on the hospital fight is to (instead of grandfathering them) force Sutter/CPMC to comply with the upcoming Health Care Master Plan. Because if you do so, it will force Chiu and Kim to make a key shift to the left which may affect their overall posture on -other- issues as well once they've had to take a real stand against developers and the Building Trades (instead of weakly gaming with them for an early mediocre status quo 'community benefits' deal).

And if Chiu doesn't take that principled stand, any blatantly lame deal he cuts with Sutter may give us enough leverage with progressive voters to beat him in the D-3 election.

Either way, we win, because no matter what happens with D-3, we will still get a much better deal from Sutter/CPMC because we will have put them in a much more difficult negotiating position.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

are talking about having this "power".

You don't have any power. You don't have a seat at the table. You're just kvetching from the bleachers. A deluded loser pissing into the wind and wondering why he stinks of stale urine.

Out of touch, out of mind and wallowing in irrelevance.

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

..you will see that in my post above, I made no claim to any 'power' whatsoever. (In fact the only time I used the word 'power' at all was in reference to Chiu's 'power position'.)

I was talking about leverage; which any minority/opposition block can wield well to victory if they know what they are doing.

We were nearly as outgunned during the Newsom administration, and yet we repeatedly prevailed anyway.

We can do the same now.

As to irrelevance, building strong coalitions with others, I have won plenty enough recent victories to know better. I'm doing just fine.

The only irrelevance I see here is in you, a tired, boring and mildly irritating troll launching empty personal attacks at others so that you can feel self-important.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

Because that's what will happen.

It's this type of ass-backward thinking which has got progressives where they are today.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

Any replacement of David Chiu will be a progressive victory.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

Wait until you've got ol' Rose in that seat doing the bidding of her masters in Beijing, and you'll realize how good you had it with Chiu.

Pak is no fan of Chiu. Equating the two is absurd. Nonetheless doing so demonstrates the fallacy at the heart of progressive thinking.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 10:19 pm

Whenever I see things like "masters in Beijing," I know Soros and the New World Order can't be far behind. I'm no fan of Rose Pak, but you really shoot your credibility when you indulge in wild conspiracy theories.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

"and a history of political stalemate from mayors who have refused to work with progressives on the Board of Supervisors."

Did you all fail math? That stalemate has been resolved by elections and not in favor of progressives, either.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

Would have been even more effective had you gotten it signed off by "Dance Mission, Dance" like last time.

Hey, how did that one turn out anyway?

I'm not sure if you guys are just aging a little or what, but it's as if you're becoming cartoons of yourselves here. Marcos summed it up well, "Do you all ever tire of losing elections and then making demands as if you'd won them?"

Just kinda feel like you're mailing it in at this point. The recycled post defeat demand letter...

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

I am not gleeful like many here that progressives have found themselves marginalized to their power bases in the nonprofits and unions because that lack of political power to check what little corruption they had not bought into means the corruption goes on and on and on.

But the nonprofiteers and labor professionals get paid, so it ain't all bad, is it?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

To me, the phenomenon you are describing is a near term death spiral if we don't reverse it soon.

I'm hoping developments from the Occupy movement shift the decision making structure and the philosophy in the grassroots community to one far less coopted by industry and government grants / benefits deals.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 8:04 pm

The first step to recovery is admitting that there is a problem.

But so many paid progressives are over socialized to the extent that they privilege not offending their friends over a frank discussion of what's needed to advance the movement.

Once we get to the point where we can discuss what went wrong without everyone freaking out, then we can begin to rebuild the movement with an eye towards avoiding the choices that led us to failure.

I do not see this happening though. The machine has enough of the progressive coterie dependent on administrative largess that they have lucrative incentives to fail the movement.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 04, 2012 @ 8:31 pm

Related articles

  • San Francisco's loss

    Heading East: San Francisco is losing much of its diversity, cultural edge, and working class to the East Bay -- can anything be done?

  • No poetry or magic in being a robot

  • Live Shots: Wanda Jackson at the Chapel