The next board president
Our clear choice for the crucial position is ...
EDITORIAL We've had our fights with Aaron Peskin. He's been on the wrong side of some key votes and issues, and he's had a penchant for political games. But on balance, he's been a good Board of Supervisors president. He made sure that progressives controlled the Budget Committee; he kept legislation on track; he helped put together the votes for good bills (and made sure that bad ones died) — and perhaps most important, he established himself as the leader of the loyal opposition, the person who took the front role in fighting the worst ideas of Mayor Gavin Newsom.
That's a crucial role at a time when the mayor's office is foundering, when the chief executive is thinking more about his political future than the city's present problems, and when the center of policy leadership in San Francisco has shifted from the mayor to the board. It's a job that requires experience and political acumen. And since the progressives fought mightily to keep a majority on the board, the top job simply must go to one of the six solid progressives who will be sworn into office Jan. 8.
Our clear choice is Sup. Ross Mirkarimi. He's compiled an excellent record in his first term, crafting environmental legislation (like the ban on plastic bags), leading the community choice aggregation (CCA) effort, and pushing effective, progressive approaches to crime.A D V E R T I S E M E N T
He has a long, distinguished record as an activist and organizer, running campaigns for sunshine and public power and for Terence Hallinan for district attorney and Matt Gonzalez for mayor. He devoted most of his first term to district and a few citywide issues and hasn't done as much as some other supervisors to build his own political constituency on the board, so as president, he'd have to make an effort to help his colleagues promote their own legislation. He's made no secret of his interest in running for mayor in three years, and he would have to make sure that his ambitions didn't overwhelm his ability to keep good working relations with potential opponents on the board.
But he's shown in his dealings with the police, the community, and the mayor's office around crime in the Western Addition that he can be a forceful advocate and work toward effective consensus at the same time. And he's well situated to lead the progressive coalition in developing its own agenda.
Mirkarimi would appoint good committees, make sure that the Local Agency Formation Commission (the center of public power efforts and the only agency focusing on the city's alarming lack of an energy policy) remains in place (with strong leadership), and have no trouble standing up to the mayor. The progressives on the board should support him.
However, that's not as simple a prospect as it ought to be. Sup. Chris Daly, who claims he is still angry at Mirkarimi for one vote on one bill several years ago, has told us he wants to see someone else elected board president. That's foolish, and Daly ought to back off and support the most experienced progressive for the job. Splitting the left like this, and damaging a potential mayoral candidate, would do no good for the progressive movement. And those who argue that Mirkarimi, as a Green Party member, would be less effective are making matters worse — there's no reason for the Greens and progressive Democrats to be fighting each other. But several of the newly elected supervisors — particularly John Avalos, a former Daly ...
Read more...
Page: 1 | 2
( 16 comments | Comment on this article )
superdaly on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Just a couple of points...
First I would like to reiterate a comment I made last month. I believe these discussions would be more productive if they were face to face. I don't think this is the healthiest format for us to be dealing with such difficult stuff, and I have always made myself available for a sit-down with colleagues, the Bay Guardian, and other progressive stakeholders. With that said, there are things now in print, and I feel compelled to respond.
I support John Avalos for Board President, because I believe he is the best choice to lead the new progressive Board of Supervisors in these tough times. His progressive politics are grounded in decades of community and labor organizing work. John is universally liked and respected (which seems to differentiate him pretty well from me!) and has an uncanny ability to bring people together. This fall, he put together what was probably the most sophisticated and well-organized progressive political campaign that this City has ever seen out in the neighborhoods. Like Eric Mar and David Chiu, he took tough hits and proved his political mettle.
And let’s be honest with everybody here. There are maybe 5 or 6 legislative assistants that are more involved in the day-to-day running of the Board (and the City, for that matter) than several members of the Board! Over the last 4 years, I have watched as John Avalos adroitly guided the budget process, always taking time to hear from everyone while watching out for our City’s most vulnerable. He may know more about the City budget than I do. This is important, because with our fiscal crisis, the budget is likely to occupy us for the better part of the next 2 years. Putting the Supervisor with the most hand-on budget experience in our top leadership spot is not “risky”, it’s smart.
To imply that I am supporting John Avalos for Board President, because of some sort of allegiance to me is not only disrespectful to both me and John, it plays directly into downtown’s meme of “Chris Daly’s Puppets”. The Bay Guardian and Ross Mirkarimi should be better than that.
I am not angry with Ross Mirkarimi, and I never claimed to be. Ross did, however, compromise the progressive position in 2007 when he chose to fund more cops over affordable housing and gave the People's Budget little to no political cover when the Mayor's forced unleashed a full assault against our budget priorities.
It is true that I told Ross at that time that I would not be supporting him for Board President or Mayor. And that's not because I felt slighted personally, it's that I don't agree with Ross on one of the most fundamental questions we deal with in local government – when the chips are down and resources are limited, do we invest in our communities to give people opportunities or do we fall into the old law and order trap? With limited resources, progressives should be prioritizing investment in our communities, not the right-wing Police Officers Association.
After calling me foolish, the Bay Guardian goes on to say that I should support “the most experienced progressive” for Board President. Whether you like me or not, my 8 years of doing the heavy lifting for progressive stakeholder groups at the Board and taking care of progressive politics has earned me a little more respect than that. I am not foolish, but I am putting progressive politics before my own interest. Even though I will clearly be the most experienced progressive on the new Board, my 8 years there (and near perfect voting record according to your paper) does not automatically make me the best candidate for the position. In fact, I made a conscious decision to not run for President and have dismissed subsequent inquiries on the subject for the good of the progressive movement.
Likewise Ross’s 4 years on the Board does not automatically make him the best candidate, but it should provide him with enough insight to make the same choice I did to allow another progressive to lead.
The Bay Guardian writes that “several supervisors” suggested a compromise candidate from the more moderate bloc ought to be seriously considered. I certainly would never suggest this and am interested in who actually has. Further, I am very concerned about your last paragraph…
But in the end, the board president ought to be someone we can count on to appoint progressives to key committees and fight the mayor's regressive policies. And with all due respect to Maxwell and Dufty, we don't see either of them in that role. So if the balloting drags on and it's clear Mirkarimi can't get six votes, he ought to be a statesman, put the progressive agenda first, and vote for another progressive.
This should go without saying, and it concerns me very much that the Bay Guardian felt compelled to put it in print. No progressive Supervisor could justify a vote to deliver a moderate into the Board Presidency. Further, any “progressive” who has suggested it shouldn’t be trusted with our top post.
When Tim Redmond called me shortly after the November election concerned that I was going to give the Board Presidency to the moderate bloc, it took me 5 seconds to dispel the rumor. My point was that Ross wasn’t going to get to 6 votes (I believe he’s still at 1), and I was already working to help another progressive get there. But where did that rumor come from? Tim Redmond wouldn’t deny that it came from Ross’s camp. Let’s stop being so junior high school, sit down in a room (making sure to not commit a Brown Act violation) and work this out.
First I would like to reiterate a comment I made last month. I believe these discussions would be more productive if they were face to face. I don't think this is the healthiest format for us to be dealing with such difficult stuff, and I have always made myself available for a sit-down with colleagues, the Bay Guardian, and other progressive stakeholders. With that said, there are things now in print, and I feel compelled to respond.
I support John Avalos for Board President, because I believe he is the best choice to lead the new progressive Board of Supervisors in these tough times. His progressive politics are grounded in decades of community and labor organizing work. John is universally liked and respected (which seems to differentiate him pretty well from me!) and has an uncanny ability to bring people together. This fall, he put together what was probably the most sophisticated and well-organized progressive political campaign that this City has ever seen out in the neighborhoods. Like Eric Mar and David Chiu, he took tough hits and proved his political mettle.
And let’s be honest with everybody here. There are maybe 5 or 6 legislative assistants that are more involved in the day-to-day running of the Board (and the City, for that matter) than several members of the Board! Over the last 4 years, I have watched as John Avalos adroitly guided the budget process, always taking time to hear from everyone while watching out for our City’s most vulnerable. He may know more about the City budget than I do. This is important, because with our fiscal crisis, the budget is likely to occupy us for the better part of the next 2 years. Putting the Supervisor with the most hand-on budget experience in our top leadership spot is not “risky”, it’s smart.
To imply that I am supporting John Avalos for Board President, because of some sort of allegiance to me is not only disrespectful to both me and John, it plays directly into downtown’s meme of “Chris Daly’s Puppets”. The Bay Guardian and Ross Mirkarimi should be better than that.
I am not angry with Ross Mirkarimi, and I never claimed to be. Ross did, however, compromise the progressive position in 2007 when he chose to fund more cops over affordable housing and gave the People's Budget little to no political cover when the Mayor's forced unleashed a full assault against our budget priorities.
It is true that I told Ross at that time that I would not be supporting him for Board President or Mayor. And that's not because I felt slighted personally, it's that I don't agree with Ross on one of the most fundamental questions we deal with in local government – when the chips are down and resources are limited, do we invest in our communities to give people opportunities or do we fall into the old law and order trap? With limited resources, progressives should be prioritizing investment in our communities, not the right-wing Police Officers Association.
After calling me foolish, the Bay Guardian goes on to say that I should support “the most experienced progressive” for Board President. Whether you like me or not, my 8 years of doing the heavy lifting for progressive stakeholder groups at the Board and taking care of progressive politics has earned me a little more respect than that. I am not foolish, but I am putting progressive politics before my own interest. Even though I will clearly be the most experienced progressive on the new Board, my 8 years there (and near perfect voting record according to your paper) does not automatically make me the best candidate for the position. In fact, I made a conscious decision to not run for President and have dismissed subsequent inquiries on the subject for the good of the progressive movement.
Likewise Ross’s 4 years on the Board does not automatically make him the best candidate, but it should provide him with enough insight to make the same choice I did to allow another progressive to lead.
The Bay Guardian writes that “several supervisors” suggested a compromise candidate from the more moderate bloc ought to be seriously considered. I certainly would never suggest this and am interested in who actually has. Further, I am very concerned about your last paragraph…
But in the end, the board president ought to be someone we can count on to appoint progressives to key committees and fight the mayor's regressive policies. And with all due respect to Maxwell and Dufty, we don't see either of them in that role. So if the balloting drags on and it's clear Mirkarimi can't get six votes, he ought to be a statesman, put the progressive agenda first, and vote for another progressive.
This should go without saying, and it concerns me very much that the Bay Guardian felt compelled to put it in print. No progressive Supervisor could justify a vote to deliver a moderate into the Board Presidency. Further, any “progressive” who has suggested it shouldn’t be trusted with our top post.
When Tim Redmond called me shortly after the November election concerned that I was going to give the Board Presidency to the moderate bloc, it took me 5 seconds to dispel the rumor. My point was that Ross wasn’t going to get to 6 votes (I believe he’s still at 1), and I was already working to help another progressive get there. But where did that rumor come from? Tim Redmond wouldn’t deny that it came from Ross’s camp. Let’s stop being so junior high school, sit down in a room (making sure to not commit a Brown Act violation) and work this out.
JMCinSF on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Chris, you made a very telling comment on Fog City Journal when you characterized Ross as "not a family man." You and the other DCCC folks are trying to run the progressive movement as if it were the Corleone family. Although John may be the more levelheaded and well-spoken Michael to your Sonny, not all of us share these family values. The way you're setting up poor Fredo, who can blame him if he's thinking about jumping on somebody else's boat?
milkcluber on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Without disrespect to any of the parties involved, a fairer view of Ross' experience would take note of more than four years on the Board. He also had "decades" of experience on progressive issues, including serving as a Board aide to then-supervisor Hallinan nearly more than 25 years ago! He then served in the most progressive DA's office we've seen. He was an important part of Gonzalez' mayoral campaign in 2003 and ran the public power campaigns. His support for increased police patrols is certainly understandable when looking at the crime and murder rate in his district, which is appalling and doesn't receive the police attention it needs.
I'm interested to know why Avalos' experience wouldn't make him a better choice to serve as budget chair, where he can do the kind of due diligence that Daly did when he was budget chair -- crafting an excellent budget under the circumstances.
Daly is one of the best supervisors both in terms of results and in terms of values, and in pursuit of those values, he naturally keeps a very sharp and sometimes narrow focus on those priorities. No one, even someone as good as Daly, can have complete peripheral vision when it comes to issues that creep up on the sides.
For example, Daly just won a change in the city's lobbyist law to take in expediters, which is long overdue, but did it without noticing that the Ethics Commission has abandoned any pretense of enforcing the lobbyist law. Daly won a paper victory when we need accountability in our institution, not a rewrite of a paper law.
His work to push for affordable housing set what I believe was the right target for the percent of affordable housing in the recent ballot measure, and he correctly identifies that the real affordability index should be.
At the same time, San Francisco's housing advocates pretty much are silent on the unacceptable housing conditions in public housing and some HUD-funded housing, despite the city attorney's formal opinion that our city law controls. The result is more than 300 vacant public housing units because no one will live there. That's an unacceptable price for us to pay for quiet acceptance of the status quo there. It is certainly a place where Daly's leadership would energize and focus both advocates and government to the benefit of the most vulnerable.
The point is that progressive vision and values are identical in their commitment to the vulnerable and budget priorities, but they can and do cast a wider view on the city's challenges than any one person can determine. I don't think Daly wants to monopolize the political dialogue, and I strongly reject the downtown distortions and lies about Daly, but I think even he can benefit from considering that others also bring important issues to the forefront and that the best progressive approach is to be inclusive of those issues.
I'm interested to know why Avalos' experience wouldn't make him a better choice to serve as budget chair, where he can do the kind of due diligence that Daly did when he was budget chair -- crafting an excellent budget under the circumstances.
Daly is one of the best supervisors both in terms of results and in terms of values, and in pursuit of those values, he naturally keeps a very sharp and sometimes narrow focus on those priorities. No one, even someone as good as Daly, can have complete peripheral vision when it comes to issues that creep up on the sides.
For example, Daly just won a change in the city's lobbyist law to take in expediters, which is long overdue, but did it without noticing that the Ethics Commission has abandoned any pretense of enforcing the lobbyist law. Daly won a paper victory when we need accountability in our institution, not a rewrite of a paper law.
His work to push for affordable housing set what I believe was the right target for the percent of affordable housing in the recent ballot measure, and he correctly identifies that the real affordability index should be.
At the same time, San Francisco's housing advocates pretty much are silent on the unacceptable housing conditions in public housing and some HUD-funded housing, despite the city attorney's formal opinion that our city law controls. The result is more than 300 vacant public housing units because no one will live there. That's an unacceptable price for us to pay for quiet acceptance of the status quo there. It is certainly a place where Daly's leadership would energize and focus both advocates and government to the benefit of the most vulnerable.
The point is that progressive vision and values are identical in their commitment to the vulnerable and budget priorities, but they can and do cast a wider view on the city's challenges than any one person can determine. I don't think Daly wants to monopolize the political dialogue, and I strongly reject the downtown distortions and lies about Daly, but I think even he can benefit from considering that others also bring important issues to the forefront and that the best progressive approach is to be inclusive of those issues.
mbstewart_79 on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 11:35 PM
There are a few problems I have with this editorial:
1.) A major part of the editors' arguments rely on Ross's accomplishments over the past four years. Though I think that being an effective and intelligent politician are major components to being a good Board president, I also feel like they are not the primary reason that someone should be suitable for that position. A strong talent at working well with others is perhaps equally important, if not more important.
2.) The tone of the editorial is decidedly angry. Though I think that the editors make some well-reasoned points, I also think that their anger is coloring their perspective and hypocritically defeating one of their main arguments (i.e. Chris is bitter and angry about "one vote" that Ross cast).
3.) I think that it was unfair that the editors did not do their research regarding why Chris is pushing for John Avalos, as Chris's comment corrects and cogently sets the record straight. It is unfortunate that the editors felt compelled to make a misinformed, very public, and negative editorial before getting all the facts right.
4.) The editors made a poor argument when they say that Ross has one eye on the mayor's office. The editors seem to be defeating their reasoning since the unintended subtext is that Ross is using the Presidency as a tool to get a public boost for name-recognition in the coming years. The person who is interested in becoming Board President should be entirely focused on being a good Board President without any distractions or ulterior motives. John has stated clearly that he is pursuing the Presidency because he genuinely feels that he would be the best tool to unite progressives and to selflessly accomplish what needs to get done. It is less about him and more about the common good.
1.) A major part of the editors' arguments rely on Ross's accomplishments over the past four years. Though I think that being an effective and intelligent politician are major components to being a good Board president, I also feel like they are not the primary reason that someone should be suitable for that position. A strong talent at working well with others is perhaps equally important, if not more important.
2.) The tone of the editorial is decidedly angry. Though I think that the editors make some well-reasoned points, I also think that their anger is coloring their perspective and hypocritically defeating one of their main arguments (i.e. Chris is bitter and angry about "one vote" that Ross cast).
3.) I think that it was unfair that the editors did not do their research regarding why Chris is pushing for John Avalos, as Chris's comment corrects and cogently sets the record straight. It is unfortunate that the editors felt compelled to make a misinformed, very public, and negative editorial before getting all the facts right.
4.) The editors made a poor argument when they say that Ross has one eye on the mayor's office. The editors seem to be defeating their reasoning since the unintended subtext is that Ross is using the Presidency as a tool to get a public boost for name-recognition in the coming years. The person who is interested in becoming Board President should be entirely focused on being a good Board President without any distractions or ulterior motives. John has stated clearly that he is pursuing the Presidency because he genuinely feels that he would be the best tool to unite progressives and to selflessly accomplish what needs to get done. It is less about him and more about the common good.
superdaly on Thursday, January 1, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Hey JMC, did you write this Ahsha Safai hit piece?
[link]
Maybe when I mentioned family I meant "a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals," and not the Mafia.
[link]
Maybe when I mentioned family I meant "a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals," and not the Mafia.
mbstewart_79 on Thursday, January 1, 2009 at 09:06 AM
By the way, I think that it is very telling that John Avalos is open to having any of the progressive Supervisors be Board President -- including Ross. This is a generous, flexible and thoughtful perspective that Ross doesn't seem to reciprocate as, remarkably, he has suggested that a moderate might be more suitable than any of the other five progressives. Perhaps I'm being too cynical for my own good but I can't help but think that this is a spiteful "If I can't have it, no one can" attitude.
In any case, John just happens to be offering himself as one of many possible options that people can take or leave and that he is perfectly fine not being President as long as the position goes to a progressive. And I don't think it is an arrogant or presumptuous move on his part by stepping forward, rather, he has a solid grasp on the reality of the situation and he knows that he has the qualifications to be a very good Board President and that he has the respect of those who would be working with him, above all else.
In contrast, I think that it is also telling that Ross is frustrated at merely getting challenged for something that he seems to think is not so much a privilege but is his right and that he views John's move as a cynical Daly-by-proxy subterfuge -- a view that, unfortunately, Tim, Steven, and others seem to share with particular bitterness.
In any case, John just happens to be offering himself as one of many possible options that people can take or leave and that he is perfectly fine not being President as long as the position goes to a progressive. And I don't think it is an arrogant or presumptuous move on his part by stepping forward, rather, he has a solid grasp on the reality of the situation and he knows that he has the qualifications to be a very good Board President and that he has the respect of those who would be working with him, above all else.
In contrast, I think that it is also telling that Ross is frustrated at merely getting challenged for something that he seems to think is not so much a privilege but is his right and that he views John's move as a cynical Daly-by-proxy subterfuge -- a view that, unfortunately, Tim, Steven, and others seem to share with particular bitterness.
JMCinSF on Thursday, January 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Chris,
A key ingredient for a good hit piece is a kernel of truth. Any political insider who’s dealt much with Peskin or Paulson knows their true character. You’ve written about it yourself:
[link]
The piece you linked appeared to have been aimed at political junkies who are aware of these facts, and was therefore a total waste of money. John is fortunate to have faced such incompetent opposition.
You keep going back to the disastrous 2007 budget season, but why you have a vendetta against Ross in particular, since it was Hank who stabbed you in the back?
[link]
You say above that you won't support Ross for PBoS or Mayor because you don't agree with him "on one of the most fundamental questions we deal with in local government." If I recall correctly, it was you who was stuck at 1 vote at the time ([link]). Why pick on Ross rather than Ammiano, McGoldrick, or Peskin?
Matt, isn't "if (we) can't have it, no one can" the same thing Chris and John are saying? I don't think any side has the moral high ground here. So far, none of the candidates appear to be able to count to 6, and some progressives clearly can’t grasp a number as large as 2011.
A key ingredient for a good hit piece is a kernel of truth. Any political insider who’s dealt much with Peskin or Paulson knows their true character. You’ve written about it yourself:
[link]
The piece you linked appeared to have been aimed at political junkies who are aware of these facts, and was therefore a total waste of money. John is fortunate to have faced such incompetent opposition.
You keep going back to the disastrous 2007 budget season, but why you have a vendetta against Ross in particular, since it was Hank who stabbed you in the back?
[link]
You say above that you won't support Ross for PBoS or Mayor because you don't agree with him "on one of the most fundamental questions we deal with in local government." If I recall correctly, it was you who was stuck at 1 vote at the time ([link]). Why pick on Ross rather than Ammiano, McGoldrick, or Peskin?
Matt, isn't "if (we) can't have it, no one can" the same thing Chris and John are saying? I don't think any side has the moral high ground here. So far, none of the candidates appear to be able to count to 6, and some progressives clearly can’t grasp a number as large as 2011.
sfgprich on Thursday, January 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Yeah, as an SF Labor Council delegate and Green Party member, i commend all the great work that Avalos and Daly have done for the labor movement and the community. But if the Gaurdian feels 'somehow compelled' to exemplify Ross as someone who will 'take a hit' for the 'progressive home team', i'm sure it's pretty fair in knowing him, that he would only do something like that on his own recognizance, without having to rely on(i'm not saying that complements are unneccesary, it's just that you have consider ALL sources, not on how one may perceive another, too many arguments get lost in translation when one tries to control the PERCEPTION of a debate) someone having to sample [ross's] bit into the electoral deux machina, to effectively grind the gears of the political machine to a semi-halted time-
stretched envelope that attacks the decay of a dissenting opinion before you sustain the release of a preemptive rejoinder..
stretched envelope that attacks the decay of a dissenting opinion before you sustain the release of a preemptive rejoinder..
anathanstevens on Friday, January 2, 2009 at 01:26 PM
I'm watching the battle for president of the Board of Supervisors as an outsider. The SFBG writes an editorial endorsing Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi for Board president, apparently because of his history of campaigning for public power, among other qualifications. And then Supervisor Daly and JMCinSF jump in and make the battle appear like a pissing war of local Democrats against Mirkarimi because Mirkarimi has not been a loyal progressive ally to Chris Daly. And everyone is avoiding the real issue: Mirkarimi has anger management issues. He may not be able to get the votes that he needs to become president because of that. The SFBG editorial only tangentially touches on this issue by saying, "He would have to make sure that his ambitions didn't overwhelm his ability to keep good working relations with potential opponents on the board."
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has sponsored good legislation and few us outside city hall doubt that he is genuine in his passion for social and environmental justice. And he has many supporters. If he can get his anger under control within the next few days, he should be a shoe-in for the presidency. Otherwise, he should abdicate leadership to someone else.
As a historical reminder, look at what happened to State Senator Carole Migden. Here is an excerpt of the Bay Guardian endorsement of Mark Leno for state senate this past spring, in part because of her famously abusive temper:
"Migden has done much good, much to be proud of, but she had also become somewhat imperious and arrogant, a politician who hadn't faced a serious election in more than a decade. If this election serves as a reminder to every powerful Democratic legislator that no seat is truly safe (are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?), then the result of what now seems like a political bloodbath can be only positive. When we challenged her on that move, she showed her legendary temper, attacking at least one Guardian editor personally and refusing to address the issue at hand. Unfortunately, that isn't unusual behavior."
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has sponsored good legislation and few us outside city hall doubt that he is genuine in his passion for social and environmental justice. And he has many supporters. If he can get his anger under control within the next few days, he should be a shoe-in for the presidency. Otherwise, he should abdicate leadership to someone else.
As a historical reminder, look at what happened to State Senator Carole Migden. Here is an excerpt of the Bay Guardian endorsement of Mark Leno for state senate this past spring, in part because of her famously abusive temper:
"Migden has done much good, much to be proud of, but she had also become somewhat imperious and arrogant, a politician who hadn't faced a serious election in more than a decade. If this election serves as a reminder to every powerful Democratic legislator that no seat is truly safe (are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?), then the result of what now seems like a political bloodbath can be only positive. When we challenged her on that move, she showed her legendary temper, attacking at least one Guardian editor personally and refusing to address the issue at hand. Unfortunately, that isn't unusual behavior."
mielikki11 on Friday, January 2, 2009 at 03:09 PM
I support Chris Daly for Board President, contrary to his own misgivings I think that he would be the best choice, in my mind little replaces experience and as Chris acknowledges he has more experience than any Progressive on the Board as an elected official.
Progressives have long been respected by his office, we can go to Chris with any issue he listens and is responsive.
He has been the target time and again but he never fails his constituents and this important.
Still it seems that a conversation is in order and I agree with Daly that he and Ross and any other appropriate individuals should sit down and resolve this issue too much is at stake here, Daly has long been an ally of the Green party and other Progressive interests and this issue shouldn't drive a wedge between us.
Progressives have long been respected by his office, we can go to Chris with any issue he listens and is responsive.
He has been the target time and again but he never fails his constituents and this important.
Still it seems that a conversation is in order and I agree with Daly that he and Ross and any other appropriate individuals should sit down and resolve this issue too much is at stake here, Daly has long been an ally of the Green party and other Progressive interests and this issue shouldn't drive a wedge between us.
pakohler on Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Firstly, it is a real shame Aaron Peskin's leaving coincides with this trying time for City Hall. Kudos to Aaron for doing an excellent job as President of the Board for the past few years.
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when
pakohler on Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Firstly, it is a real shame Aaron Peskin's leaving coincides with this trying time for City Hall. Kudos to Aaron for doing an excellent job as President of the Board for the past few years.
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when
pakohler on Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Firstly, it is a real shame that Aaron Peskin is leaving us at exactly this trying time for City Hall. Kudos to Aaron for doing an excellent job as President of the Board for the past few years.
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when
pakohler on Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM
(Apologies for repeated posting: SFBG website Comments box puked on my less than sign. Hopefully this will work!)
Firstly, it is a real shame that Aaron Peskin is leaving us at exactly this trying time for City Hall. Kudos to Aaron for doing an excellent job as President of the Board for the past few years.
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when less than 5% of their energy comes from clean sources while the planet faces such a dire environmental prognosis. At the very least someone needs to light a serious fire under PG&E to get them to move. Other cities are moving. As a responsible progressive city we need to also.
Ross always treats everyone with respect and professionalism. While he may not have a family, he’s a gentleman and someone that we look up to. While that professional conduct isn’t that common at San Francisco City Hall, for a position where negotiation and compromise skills are at premium it is a definite plus and something we should learn to value. Over the years the lack of respect for others with opposing viewpoints has contributed to the stalemate we currently have between the executive and legislative branches of City Hall.
His District is centrally located and therefore the issues that his District faces are well representative of what other Districts face.
Ross has the intelligence and intellect to grasp the complexity of issues that in many cases are complicated and the political savvy to forge solutions between disparate parties.
Ross has a history of initiating and strongly supporting sunshine laws.
Ross has been very active in efforts to improve the police department and reduce our increasing crime figures. Policing will be a key issue in the coming year as we have increased homicides, crime is predicted to climb with the state of the economy, we’re about to implement new initiatives such as community policing and with a new Police Chief there’s the prospect for implementing more changes.
With progressives having a Board majority here’s why the shoe doesn’t fit with the other progressives Sups:
- Sup. Daly has been a great advocate for the progressives, however the qualities needed in a President of the Board are those that Chris isn’t known for. Unless news reports are mistaken Sup. Daly isn’t on speaking terms with a number of other Sups. While Chris may his reasons it is a requirement for a President of the Board to be able to work with all Sups at all times. If he wanted to be President then he should have conducted himself differently over the past years and developed a good working relationship with all Sups.
- Rookies don’t have the required experience. We’re heading into a very difficult time where valued programs are going to be cut and taxes raised significantly. This is no time for learning on the job. Having a quick-learning rookie Sup. take the spot and get up to speed as quick as a few months, even with Aaron Peskin’s ongoing coaching, is still too late. Sup. Elsbernd is right that it would be very risky to put a newcomer in the presidency.
In response to some of the comments that were made:
- It is ridiculous to criticize Ross for openly wanting to be the President. Sup. Peskin was unyielding when he tied with Tom Ammiano for votes on the President to succeed Matt Gonzalez. Aaron didn’t back down then and no-one knocked him for it. Furthermore, Ross has been a Sup. for 4 years so it is completely normal and understandable if a seasoned Sup. wants to assume the Presidency over an incoming rookie Sup.. Correspondingly, it would be surprising if an incoming rookie progressive Sup. wasn’t open to support another progressive Sup. for President.
- Sup Daly bases his decision on a vote in 2007 Ross gave to favor increasing funding for police when it is generally acknowledged we’re under-resourced in that department (Sup. Daly calls them the “right-wing Police Officers Association”). Sups McGoldrick, Peskin and Ammiano also voted with Ross. If true I’m sure any Supervisor can be faulted by anyone based on the thousands of votes they take and the complex reasoning behind many positions. One of the primary reasons given for push-back on community policing was that the police department is under-resourced. With the alarming homicide rates in the Western Addition I certainly don’t fault Ross for deeming it fit to increase the number of police so they can indeed walk their own beats. Does Sup. Daly think it non-progressive to consider increased community policing in the Tenderloin?
- anathanstevens suggesting Ross has anger management issues and comparing him to Senator Migden is laughable. Migden had a series of run-ins with the law regarding her erratic behavior. I have yet to witness or hear of any anger outburst from Sup. Mirkarimi. Unless you have supporting news reports that’s slander to throw that out there.
We face the most challenging upcoming session of our lifetimes at City Hall. Experience is required for the President of the Board position. Here’s to hoping honorable Sup. Daly sees the light and comes around.
Paul Kohler
Firstly, it is a real shame that Aaron Peskin is leaving us at exactly this trying time for City Hall. Kudos to Aaron for doing an excellent job as President of the Board for the past few years.
Ross Mirkarimi should be his successor as the next President of the Board of Sups. I believe he’s the right person for the job.
Ross is well regarded by progressive clubs. Ross has appeared a number of times at both District 3 Democratic Club and San Francisco Tomorrow meetings and he’s been nothing but outstanding. In fact Ross is a former Board member of San Francisco Tomorrow and hopefully others can chip in with their thoughts. While he is a Green the District 3 Democratic Club has strongly supported a lot of his initiatives over the past years including community choice aggregation (CCA) and the recent Proposition H for clean energy.
Ross is needed to lead the fight on clean energy. He knows the most about this topic. A number of factors indicate that there will be significant movement in energy including: the new Obama administration, anticipated Federal spending on the energy grid and clean energy, continued clean energy job growth in SF and many other cities have successfully migrated to municipal clean energy. Furthermore, who is better to hold PG&E’s feet to the fire. PG&E can no longer survive on endless massive PR campaigns when less than 5% of their energy comes from clean sources while the planet faces such a dire environmental prognosis. At the very least someone needs to light a serious fire under PG&E to get them to move. Other cities are moving. As a responsible progressive city we need to also.
Ross always treats everyone with respect and professionalism. While he may not have a family, he’s a gentleman and someone that we look up to. While that professional conduct isn’t that common at San Francisco City Hall, for a position where negotiation and compromise skills are at premium it is a definite plus and something we should learn to value. Over the years the lack of respect for others with opposing viewpoints has contributed to the stalemate we currently have between the executive and legislative branches of City Hall.
His District is centrally located and therefore the issues that his District faces are well representative of what other Districts face.
Ross has the intelligence and intellect to grasp the complexity of issues that in many cases are complicated and the political savvy to forge solutions between disparate parties.
Ross has a history of initiating and strongly supporting sunshine laws.
Ross has been very active in efforts to improve the police department and reduce our increasing crime figures. Policing will be a key issue in the coming year as we have increased homicides, crime is predicted to climb with the state of the economy, we’re about to implement new initiatives such as community policing and with a new Police Chief there’s the prospect for implementing more changes.
With progressives having a Board majority here’s why the shoe doesn’t fit with the other progressives Sups:
- Sup. Daly has been a great advocate for the progressives, however the qualities needed in a President of the Board are those that Chris isn’t known for. Unless news reports are mistaken Sup. Daly isn’t on speaking terms with a number of other Sups. While Chris may his reasons it is a requirement for a President of the Board to be able to work with all Sups at all times. If he wanted to be President then he should have conducted himself differently over the past years and developed a good working relationship with all Sups.
- Rookies don’t have the required experience. We’re heading into a very difficult time where valued programs are going to be cut and taxes raised significantly. This is no time for learning on the job. Having a quick-learning rookie Sup. take the spot and get up to speed as quick as a few months, even with Aaron Peskin’s ongoing coaching, is still too late. Sup. Elsbernd is right that it would be very risky to put a newcomer in the presidency.
In response to some of the comments that were made:
- It is ridiculous to criticize Ross for openly wanting to be the President. Sup. Peskin was unyielding when he tied with Tom Ammiano for votes on the President to succeed Matt Gonzalez. Aaron didn’t back down then and no-one knocked him for it. Furthermore, Ross has been a Sup. for 4 years so it is completely normal and understandable if a seasoned Sup. wants to assume the Presidency over an incoming rookie Sup.. Correspondingly, it would be surprising if an incoming rookie progressive Sup. wasn’t open to support another progressive Sup. for President.
- Sup Daly bases his decision on a vote in 2007 Ross gave to favor increasing funding for police when it is generally acknowledged we’re under-resourced in that department (Sup. Daly calls them the “right-wing Police Officers Association”). Sups McGoldrick, Peskin and Ammiano also voted with Ross. If true I’m sure any Supervisor can be faulted by anyone based on the thousands of votes they take and the complex reasoning behind many positions. One of the primary reasons given for push-back on community policing was that the police department is under-resourced. With the alarming homicide rates in the Western Addition I certainly don’t fault Ross for deeming it fit to increase the number of police so they can indeed walk their own beats. Does Sup. Daly think it non-progressive to consider increased community policing in the Tenderloin?
- anathanstevens suggesting Ross has anger management issues and comparing him to Senator Migden is laughable. Migden had a series of run-ins with the law regarding her erratic behavior. I have yet to witness or hear of any anger outburst from Sup. Mirkarimi. Unless you have supporting news reports that’s slander to throw that out there.
We face the most challenging upcoming session of our lifetimes at City Hall. Experience is required for the President of the Board position. Here’s to hoping honorable Sup. Daly sees the light and comes around.
Paul Kohler
anathanstevens on Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Not slander. Let Ross Mirkarimi refute the suggestion that he has an anger management problem himself. Or better yet, let him acknowledge that he has a problem and is working on it.
hbrown on Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM
campers,
Thanks for your hospitality, Ross but I gotta go with anathanstevens on this one. Being prone to irrational tirades myself, I can recognize them in others and I've seen Mirkarimi come down on his staff and campaign workers in a harsh and unfair manner. Not just in a rare instance. It's his style and temperament. If you think Peskin was imperious, just replace him with the guy with the wide stride.
I told you all almost 4 years ago when Peskin was first elected Board prez that Dufty would replace him this year. I repeat it again here. He'll be, as I've always said, billed as the "compromise" candidate. I admit that I always figured that Maxwell would provide the swing vote for Bevan. The fact that Ross is now threatening to do the deed only proves that his ego overrides his loyalty to the Progressive cause.
Again, you're gonna get Dufty and any meaningful Progressive legislation will come at the ballot box as always. It will be interesting to see if the Daly/Mirkarimi fight carries on and prevents either from gaining the 4 supe vote endorsement necessary to put measures before the public.
Side issue. Will Jake McGoldrick vote for Gus Murad's out-of-proportion condo project in the Mission and why? I seem to recall another project at 24th and Mission or around there were Jake provided the swing vote after being given thousands of dollars the night before at a fundraiser by the same developers. C'mon Jake, switch your vote and go out honorably, not by blocking out more Mission sunshine for a greedy developer. 65' in front and 45' in the rear of that parcel is still taller than anything in the neighborhood. And, Murad told me that he thought he should be allowed to build to 280'.
h.
h.
Thanks for your hospitality, Ross but I gotta go with anathanstevens on this one. Being prone to irrational tirades myself, I can recognize them in others and I've seen Mirkarimi come down on his staff and campaign workers in a harsh and unfair manner. Not just in a rare instance. It's his style and temperament. If you think Peskin was imperious, just replace him with the guy with the wide stride.
I told you all almost 4 years ago when Peskin was first elected Board prez that Dufty would replace him this year. I repeat it again here. He'll be, as I've always said, billed as the "compromise" candidate. I admit that I always figured that Maxwell would provide the swing vote for Bevan. The fact that Ross is now threatening to do the deed only proves that his ego overrides his loyalty to the Progressive cause.
Again, you're gonna get Dufty and any meaningful Progressive legislation will come at the ballot box as always. It will be interesting to see if the Daly/Mirkarimi fight carries on and prevents either from gaining the 4 supe vote endorsement necessary to put measures before the public.
Side issue. Will Jake McGoldrick vote for Gus Murad's out-of-proportion condo project in the Mission and why? I seem to recall another project at 24th and Mission or around there were Jake provided the swing vote after being given thousands of dollars the night before at a fundraiser by the same developers. C'mon Jake, switch your vote and go out honorably, not by blocking out more Mission sunshine for a greedy developer. 65' in front and 45' in the rear of that parcel is still taller than anything in the neighborhood. And, Murad told me that he thought he should be allowed to build to 280'.
h.
h.
Comment on: The next board president
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
