Dede Wilsey is an idiotAnd you wonder why Phil Bronstein, whose blog is quite pathetic, even pays attention to her. But Phil is always down with the swells, and now he is promoting Dede's plan to repeal district elections.
Let me remind you, Phil, since you haven't been covering City Hall in a long time, that the district-elected supervisors are far, far better, despite their occasional foibles, than any previous board in the 25 years I've been watching.
There's a good reason for this: District candidates can run without big money from the powers that be and the Dede WIlsey's of the world. So you get candidates with real grassroots constituencies, not just hacks who are pawns of the power structure.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (7)
Tim,
Do you think that Dede's brainchild will gain any traction? I get the sense that this harebrained assault of her's is sprouting up because there is a good chance that a full progressive slate (with the exception of incumbents, Sean Elsbernd and, most likely, Carmen Chu) will win come November.
Posted by expatriate | April 29, 2008 04:14 PM
By the way, according to Bronstein's blog, he seems to sense that San Franciscans wouldn't be willing to reel in the Big Kahuna (i.e. complete repeal of district elections) so, like the Pemex partial-privatization, he is floating the idea of a compromise approach: a mix of district elections and city-wide elections. Unfortunately, like the deceptive Proposition 98, I think that that Trojan Horse would probably appear much more palatable to a lot San Franciscans.
Posted by expatriate | April 29, 2008 04:33 PM
I think the reason Newsom and Co. haven't taken a repeal seriously is that the polls show most San Franciscans really like district elections. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we have to stay on this.
Posted by tim redmond | April 29, 2008 08:37 PM
Ah, all of you could not be more wrong. I've lived in San Francisco for 15 years, and have never seen so many people clamouring for a change. The feeling is palpable.
There are many of us who will do whatever it takes to repeal district elections. They have been a joke, saddling us with supervisors like Daly, Peskin and Ammiano. The population today is much, much different than it was even 8 years ago.
District elections will be repealed; it's only a matter of time...
Posted by Matthew | April 29, 2008 10:28 PM
Uh, Matthew ... Tom Ammiano was also elected under the at-large system, and while he has since been re-elected under the district system there are many people (like me) who don't live in his district but would gladly vote for him for Supervisor. I'll be proud to cast my vote for him this June for Assembly.
Posted by Paul Hogarth | April 29, 2008 11:14 PM
The best part was that Michela Alioto-Pier, the DISTRICT appointed/elected supervisor who would have a difficult run of it going citywide due to her non-physical disabilities, was the one who was complaining that constituents in her DISTRICT did not feel represented under the DISTRICT system.
Sounds more like an indictment of Alioto-Pier herself than of the district system that produced her, perhaps an argument for reining in mayoral appointment power for vacant seats so that no district is saddled with such an absentee supervisor again.
-marc
Posted by marc | April 30, 2008 11:30 AM
Oh yes. The wonderful at-large system, so in touch with the people of San Francisco that a board elected under it once voted to eliminate all transfers on Muni, making non-pass holders pony up a dollar every time they boarded a bus or metro.
Oh yes. Let's do go back to that system. I can't wait until we have an entire roster of Michela Alioto-Piers at the helm.
Maybe some of you poopy diaper types out there having tantrums because you can't cast a vote for a supervisor you don't like should get more involved in exploiting the tremendous grassroots opportunities offered by the district system.
Posted by Dan | April 30, 2008 04:31 PM