January 1, 2003

talkback...

From Milk to Dufty

Tommi Avicolli Mecca's editorial ("Why Dufty won," 12/18/02) shows that he and other "progressives" still don't get it. My partner and I have lived in the Castro since 1978. We voted for Harvey Milk and actively supported Bevan Dufty. Other gay male couples who are our friends and who have lived in the Castro even longer – men who voted for Milk – also voted for Dufty. In 1978 we supported Milk because we wanted an openly gay elected official to help get gays and lesbians a seat at the political table in San Francisco. That goal has been attained – gays and lesbians are a vital, respected, and potent force in San Francisco politics. We have every legal right the city can confer and are slowly gaining ground in getting recognition at the state level. Willie Brown was among the first elected officials to support us in our struggle for legal equality, and he did so when it was politically risky. Therefore, Dufty's ties to the mayor were nothing to be ashamed of.

The issues in 2002 were very different. They centered around quality of life. Why should Castro Street be dirty, when Union Street is clean?

Regarding the homeless, many of us who opposed the 24-hour drop-in shelter for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) young adults did so because we did not want a replica of the temporary program housed at the Eureka Valley Recreation Center. That program – which Hansen supported – did little to help the homeless while increasing crime in our neighborhood.

Hansen said she favored the city's Continuum of Care program to address homelessness. Yet the "progressive" majority on the Board of Supervisors has had two years to enact that program, but hasn't. Few people supporting Proposition N, including Dufty, think it is a panacea. Rather, we see it as a crucial first step in solving this serious problem.

Disenchantment with the "progressive" movement among gays and lesbians is widespread. Hansen lost not because she is a strong Jewish-lesbian-feminist, but because she presented no viable plan to address the concerns of the majority of residents in District Eight – gay and straight – or convince us that she would respond to them if elected. She claimed to offer "Leadership that listens," but many of us felt that while she might listen, she and her "progressive" allies would disregard our concerns in pursuit of their doctrinaire agenda.

Dufty, on the other hand, had firsthand knowledge of what our issues were and the experience and determination to address them. That's why he won.

Gustavo Serina

San Francisco

Who smeared Hansen?

A number of very good points were made in your Dec. 18 issue in the two opinion pieces and one article covering the District Eight supervisors race. However, there were some points that need also to be noted.

First, the stunning claim that Eileen Hansen and her supporters somehow "smeared" Bevan Dufty was the real smear of the campaign. Neither the literature sent to voters nor the signs announcing Willie Brown's support for Dufty were dishonest. It is Orwellian excess to claim that telling the truth is a smear. The signs were honest and the literature pointing out Dufty's role as a lobbyist were completely truthful. Dufty failed to counter this with anything to tell voters why he was being smeared, but instead came out with a piece called "Think Positive," which by inference, was to suggest that Hansen and her supporters were being negative.

Next, the real smear campaign came from the Machine-supporting media. In the San Francisco Chronicle, in a vicious attack, Ken Garcia lied in accusing Hansen of "flipping and flopping" on the issue of implementing Proposition N. As one of Hansen's core campaign staff, I know that Hansen never said she wouldn't implement Prop. N. She publicly stated that she would implement it along with providing adequate services. The San Francisco Examiner's Frank Gallagher red-baited Hansen as being a "Bolshevik" because she was cofounder of the People's Budget Collaborative. This preposterous attack speaks for itself. Adriel Hampton and Samson Wong of the Examiner and the Independent repeatedly filed stories that grossly distorted Hansen's past and politics. What this says is that the Machine doesn't need to wage a massive smear campaign through mass mailings anymore. All it needs is to wait for its functionaries in the local media to do its dirty work.

One last point is that, having been Hansen's staffer who delivered campaign signs to homes throughout the district, I was astounded by the large number of vacant apartments. Particularly in modern buildings where rents generally are cheaper and the residents generally more lower-income and working-class, vacancies were everywhere. I feel these missing voters were a part of what contributed to Hansen's loss. Until the absurdly inflated rents come down to what is affordable, the district will lack its full complement of residents and voters.

Alan Collins