Editorial: The challenges for Board President Chiu
Editorial in Wednesday Guardian: Chiu will have to stand up to Mayor Newsom, publicly and privately, and make clear that a cuts only budget isn't going to fly in San Francisco.
Editor's notes by Tim Redmond: (Scroll all the way down): Are the wealthy residents and big businesses willing to pay just a little more each year to keep basic services in place in San Francisco? The worst of the bloodbath can be avoided with a couple of fair and progressive new revenue measures on the special election ballot in June.
(Sup. Chris Daly responds and comments in the comment section.
Read advance copies of both this week's Editorial and Editors Notes after the jump.
The challenges for Board President Chiu
EDITORIAL The ascension of Sup. David Chiu to the presidency of the Board of Supervisors gives a relative political newcomer considerable power. It also puts Chiu in position to carry on the legacy of Aaron Peskin and lead the opposition to Mayor Gavin Newsom's pro-downtown, pro-Pacific Gas and Electric Co. agenda. Chiu, obviously, lacks the experience Peskin brought to the job, so he needs to move carefully at first. But he also needs to show that he's more than a compromise candidate and that he has the ability to lead the board and promote the progressive agenda.
Let's remember: Chiu was elected president entirely by the six progressive supervisors. The way the vote went down, five people, including Newsom's closest allies, stuck together as a solid bloc and repeatedly voted for Sup. Sophie Maxwell. Maxwell had come down to the Guardian office a few days earlier to tell us that she was a solid progressive, but we saw the future of the board playing out when the votes were counted. Maxwell and Sup. Sean Elsbernd, who both have voiced concerns about the prospect of an inexperienced person taking the top job, could have broken with their bloc and voted for Sup. Ross Mirkarimi — that would have put him over the top. But through seven votes, as the progressives moved around trying to find a candidates all six could support, the Newsom Five stuck together. (Of course, if it hadn't been for Sup. Chris Daly's ill-conceived antics, Mirkarimi would have been able to get six votes, and we would have had an experienced leader in place).
Although Chiu talks (as he should) about bringing everyone together, he needs to keep in mind from day one that he is now the most visible member of a six-person board majority that can control the agenda and the set the tone for the city — if none of the six starts to drift toward the squishy center.
It's going to be a rough, brutal year. The mayor has already made clear through his comments that he doesn't even want to look at new revenue measures; he intends to solve the city's half-billion-dollar budget crisis with cuts — deep, bloody cuts — alone. Chiu will have to stand up to him, publicly and privately, and make clear that a cuts-only budget isn't going to fly in San Francisco.
And while Chiu will need some time to develop a leadership style and become familiar with the often-complex workings of the board, he should do a few things right away to show that he's prepared to take on the difficult tasks ahead:
Support Peskin's proposal for a special election in June. The proposal to allow the voters to consider raising taxes instead of just cutting is going to need a lot of help and support. The mayor opposes it, and some of his allies may oppose it too. But it's absolutely crucial that San Francisco refuse to follow the lead of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's crucial that the progressives, while acknowledging that cuts will have to happen, also insist on looking at fair revenue ideas. Chiu needs to take the point on this.
In fact, now that the mayor and his allies on the board have made this a central battleground — and in effect have made this a litmus test for Chiu's new presidency — it's even more important that every one of the six progressive supervisors stands up to this challenge.
We're not sure which of the dozen-odd tax proposals floating around is the right one. But it would be the worst kind of foolishness to take the whole idea off the table.
Put good people on the key committees. The Budget Committee at this point looks good, with Mirkarimi, Sup. John Avalos, and Elsbernd. When that panel expands to five members (and it should, soon) Chiu should make sure that either David Campos or Eric Mar joins the committee, keeping a progressive majority. The Land Use committee will be crucial as the Eastern Neighborhoods plan is implemented; Chiu needs to appoint a progressive chair and majority.
Save LAFCO. The Local Agency Formation Commission is the only board committee that has public power and energy policy as its primary agenda. Budget-cutters (spurred by PG&E, which more than any other company is responsible for the budget crisis) have made LAFCO a target; Chiu needs to make it clear immediately that LAFCO will remain in place, with strong appointments and a chair committed to making community choice aggregation work and pursuing public power as the largest potential new revenue source for the city.
Chiu has promised to work with the mayor, which is fine. But first he needs to show the progressives who elected him that he's also ready to do battle.
EDITOR'S NOTES
By Tim Redmond
I guess Mayor Gavin Newsom really wants to cut the budget. He wants to force city employees (and not just the cops) to accept pay cuts. He wants to lay people off and eliminate services. He wants to solve the budget crisis entirely on his terms — and honestly, it baffles me.
Anyone who runs a public or private enterprise has to make tough decisions and tough choices in tough times. I know that. I've had to cut spending and lay people off — and I can tell you, it sucked. It didn't make me feel like a strong leader or a hard-nosed manager, it just made me sad.
In politics, I guess, there's some advantage to looking like you can stand up to organized labor and the left. Maybe Newsom thinks he can run for governor as the mayor who refused to raise taxes during a budget crisis. Maybe he, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, thinks taxes are for girlie men.
But does he really want to preside over the decline of his own signature health care plan? Does he want to be mayor of a city that recovers more slowly from the recession? Does he want to be the environmental leader who cut public transportation funding?
He doesn't have to do that. There's another alternative. He can work with the supervisors — and labor, and business, and community activists — and look at ways to bring in some more money. It shouldn't be that hard a sell, really. The budget gap is huge — Aaron Peskin, who served on the Board of Supervisors for eight years, said before he left office that he's having a hard time even getting his mind around the monstrosity of the necessary cuts. I've been watching local politics for 25 years, and I've having a hard time too. We could be looking at eliminating half the discretionary spending in the general fund.
Do people who live and work in this city (including business owners) want to see public health cut by 25 percent? Do they want to see libraries closed, and neighborhood fire stations eliminated, and police stations shut down, and recreation programs that keep kids off the streets eliminated, and the Small Business Assistance Center defunded, and more mentally ill people wandering the streets, and longer waits for more crowded Muni buses? Is this the city we all want to live in?
Or are the wealthier residents and bigger businesses willing to pay just a little bit more each year to keep basic services in place?
If Mayor Newsom, who is still quite popular in town, asked that question, in that fashion, and presented budget cuts that everyone knows are necessary and better oversight and good government programs to let us all know that the money isn't being wasted, and then promoted a couple of fair and progressive new revenue measures in a June special election, the worst of the bloodbath could be avoided.
I can't understand why he wants this to be so hard.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (16)
Please explain how your gratuitous shot at me advances your argument or agenda.
I happen to be the one doing much of the heavy lifting at the Board of Supervisors on your agenda, but you don't make it easy.
Posted by Chris Daly | January 13, 2009 03:12 PM
Supervisor Daly: We were critical of how you handled the Board presidency issue. You knew that, it's no secret, and you have felt very free to criticize us, too. Which is fine and fair.
And it's not the Guardian's agenda we're talking about here -- it's the progressive agenda for San Francisco, and you and I agree on almost all of it.
So let's be civil here.
Posted by tim redmond | January 13, 2009 03:33 PM
I don't mind constructive criticism, and it is true that I offer it often.
However, your pot shots are neither substantiated nor constructive.
I've been working to forward the progressive agenda here at the Board for 8 years, and yes, we agree on almost all the issues. Given this, it's amazing how little deference I am afforded and how quickly you turn to propagate downtown's knocks on me.
I am still waiting for a reply to my original request.
Posted by Chris Daly | January 13, 2009 03:48 PM
Supervisor,
Our criticism was not a "gratuitous shot," it was well aimed and diplomatic under the circumstances. We were also critical of the way you lobbied and organized a campaign against the most experienced supervisor, one who has paid his dues and shown his mettle over and over again through the years, in favor of the least experienced and untested newcomer to the board. We felt that this campaign was hurtful to the progressives and independents and the City and County of San Francisco. Your inability to understand and gloss over this political point only reinforces our position. All the best, B3, watching the fumes from the Potrero Hill plant from my office window, thanks to PG&E and (then your critical vote for Dick Sklar to the PUC, who orchestrated the move to keep PG&E in control of the plant and keep it pumping away in our neighborhood)
Posted by Bruce Brugmann | January 13, 2009 04:18 PM
What we're seeing now, not just citywide but nationwide, is the result of 30 years of class warfare launched by Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann and continued by gutless Republican and Democratic politicians who sell themselves to corporate interests.
Those who favored cutting taxes and shrinking government said such measures would eliminate government waste. They haven't. The wasteful spending (attributable in a major way to backroom dealing that persists despite the proliferation of sunshine laws) continues while governments cut essential public services.
We need wide-scale rethinking on what taxation really is (or should be): a pooling of financial resources that enables governments to provide the services that individuals cannot -- top-level public schools and universities, high-quality health care, truly rapid mass transit, utility services (yes, they belong in the public sector!), infrastructure improvements and maintenance, excellent emergency response, ad infinitum.
The taxation system we have has played a huge role in shrinking the middle-class ranks and in widening the gap between rich and poor. If that trend is not reversed, we will see bloodshed within 10 years that will make the urban riots of the 1960s look like tea parties.
Posted by Gino Rembetes | January 13, 2009 04:26 PM
Bruce, I "lobbied and organized a campaign" to elect John Avalos Board President, not against Ross Mirkarimi. Also, Ross is not the "most experienced supervisor". He's actually the 6th most experienced Supervisor, but it's not as if you're a journalist that should be concerned with the facts!
I believe that the Bay Guardian's meddling in the internal affairs of the Board was what really hurt progressives and independents in the leadership discussion. With that said, I hardly glossed over your very public criticism -- effectively countering your petty and ridiculous points made in print.
Bruce, your myopic view of progressive politics needs to be left in Mirant's (not PG&E, sorry Bruce, there's actually a corporation to fight that's not named PG&E!) fumes, once progressives once and for all close that monstrosity. I wouldn't expect you to understand that Sklar's temporary appointment helped win qualifications for future PUC members which has given us decent commissioners like Francesca Vietor and Juliet Ellis.
Your's Truly!
Chris (living a stone's throw from the Central Freeway and it's associated pollution -- thanks Bay Guardian for your role in not building an effective political movement over the decades to halt its construction!)
Posted by Chris Daly | January 13, 2009 05:37 PM
Brugmann and Redmond have been would-be kingmakers for decades, and it's frankly obnoxious. Brugmann's recent condescending reminiscence about Harvey Milk and when he would be "ready" for anointing by the Bay Guardian was especially noxious because he didn't bother to mention that the paper was fairly homo-free (in staff or content) in those days. The mid-1970s was also the period when Brugmann was breaking a unionizing attempt by his own employees after he won a legal settlement from the Examiner and Chronicle and moved into a fancy new building without offering any of his employees a raise in their starvation wages.
Posted by sfmike | January 13, 2009 08:25 PM
You guys are all that is wrong with San Francisco.
Posted by GlenParker | January 13, 2009 08:27 PM
Mistook an "it's" for an "its," there, Mr. Supervisor. Duke sucks.
I wonder if there's a comments forum somewhere in the Internets where Gavin, the Aliotos, SPUR et. al are all laughing at us. Cos this is fucking ridiculous.
Posted by rob hall | January 13, 2009 09:14 PM
GlenParker, you are absolutely right. These three buffoons, Brugmann, Redmond and Daly represent everything that's wrong with San Francisco today.
Posted by Michael | January 13, 2009 09:16 PM
rob hall:
Thanks for pointing out my grammatical error. It took me 5 minutes to actually find it. I would correct it if I was able.
As for your assertion that Duke sucks, I'd ask you to be more specific, as they are currently 2nd in Men's Basketball. Perhaps we'd agree that Duke sucks in relation to the politics of Durham.
As for having this discussion in a public forum, I think it's absolutely terrible. I can't tell you how many times I've asked Redmond to keep our disagreements out of print, but he can't resist. Once printed, however, I'm sure to respond in kind.
Tim admitted to me today that they are undisciplined. He wore it as a badge of honor even. That's part of the problem here.
To Tim and Bruce, you still haven't responded to my original point.
Posted by Chris Daly | January 13, 2009 10:44 PM
Give the man a break. He's really doing alright.
Check it out.
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4468
Posted by johnweiss![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 13, 2009 11:16 PM
Geez guys, get a (smoke-filled back) room, would ya?
Posted by Jeremy | January 14, 2009 12:41 AM
Question:
Whats more annoying than a mental circle jerk featuring Bruce Brugmann, Tim Redmond, Chris Daly, and Marc Salomon?
Answer:
Nothing
I think that South Park Episode idea of smelling ones own flatulence was solely based on the online postings of Marc Salomon. Read between the lines folks: "I'm good enough, I'm CERTAINLY smart enough, and goshdarnit! people (somewhere) like me"
Posted by Bob | January 14, 2009 09:40 AM
Brugmann, you owe Supervisor Daly a response to the original question:
"Please explain how your gratuitous shot at me advances your argument or agenda."
I am equally frustrated that Supervisor Daly didn't support Supervisor Mirkarimi, and frankly pissed about some of the "squishy-middle" endorsements the SFBG issues in the last election but the both of you need to keep your egos to yourselves and work together to orchestrate some real change for progressive San Franciscans because this in fighting is not pushing things forward.
Please
Posted by thesubjective | January 14, 2009 10:54 AM
My read of the situation was that many observers who supported all of Daly, Mirkarimi and Avalos in their various campaigns concluded that Ross was not going to be able to count to six in any viable scenario (for reasons best discussed in a smoke filled room, not here), and that Chris accurately read that situation and took steps to promote the candidacy of a progressive who might have had a greater chance of prevailing. Chris' sharp elbows don't change the validity of the underlying analysis.
Had The Guardian not supported their friend based on an absence of evidence of support without checking first for evidence of absence of support amongst the constituency that counts, then the precariousness of the position they had espoused would have been fleshed out with perspectives from a variety of supervisors and observers, and they might have figured out how to go for progressive Plan B instead of blaming Daly.
You've got to wonder about your friends when they aid and abet following a path that will end in failure, and you've got to wonder about a journalistic shop that doesn't perform due diligence in acting for the progressive community by not investigating the nuances of the matter fully, journalistically, and taking informed steps to ensure the best progressive outcome. In fact, it was a reporter who the Guardian fired several years who took the time from law school finals to do the digging to prove what so many had presumed.
The damage, of course, is that Newsom got to control the discourse during the weeks between the election and inauguration as the budget crisis became white hot, and that had progressives and neighborhood folks rallied around a candidate who could get six votes in mid November, we could have begun to tell our own progressive budget story.
-marc
Posted by marc | January 14, 2009 10:59 AM