Steve Moss, carpetbagger

|
(73)

UPDATE: Read Steve Moss's response to this story here.

Steve Moss portrays himself as a District 10 candidate who has spent the last decade raising his family on Potrero Hill, working as a non-profit energy guy and publisher and editor of the Potrero View.

But in fact, during 2008 and 2009, Moss wasn’t living on Potrero Hill at all. When he filed his intent to run in the D. 10 race in 2009, he was living near Dolores Park, in a 4-floor 4-unit $1.6 million building he owns, and sending his daughter to Brandeis Hillel Day School, a private establishment near Daly City.

And shortly before he filed his intent to seek office, his wife told friends that the family was only moving to District 10 so Moss could run for supervisor, and that if he lost, they would be moving back to the Dolores Park area.

In his declaration of intent to run, a legal document he signed under penalty of perjury Aug. 4, 2009, Moss listed his address as 2325 Third Street, with a 94107 zip code. That address is where the View and Moss’s nonprofit San Francisco Community Power have their offices, along with M.Cubed, a private company that Moss and two other people founded.
In other words, the building is not where Moss was living with his family.

In fact, evidence that came to light in a lawsuit between Moss and his wife, Debbie Findling, and a couple who co-own the property where Moss used to reside on Kansas Street, indicate that he was living at 296 Liberty St, in District 8, until February 2010.

In a July 8, 2009 email to friends, filed in court as evidence in the lawsuit Moss’s wife noted:

“Steven has decided to run for City Supervisor in District 10!!! (Sophie Maxwell’s term ends in November 2010) so we’ll be moving back to the Hill in early spring! If you hear of any lovely rentals let us know. Or—I know it’s a crazy idea—but if you’re interested in swapping houses with us for a year as an even trade—you can move into our place on Dolores Park! (We’re hedging our bets in case he doesn’t win we’d be moving back to Dolores Park after the elections- If he does win, we’ll find a long-term place to live…).”

A three-day notice to cure or quit that Moss and Findling filed against one of their tenants at the Liberty Street address, which is also listed on public records as 841-849 Church Street, shows that between January 2008 and April 2009, Moss and his wife lived at the Dolores Park address.

For instance, Moss and Findling’s nuisance notice against this tenant notes that on “April 8, 2009, 7:10 a.m.—you pounded on the ceiling of your bedroom for several minutes and cursed repeatedly, “Shut the fuck up!”, severely annoying your landlords and scaring their daughter.”

Moss’s wife subsequently sent out a email in February 2010, alerting folks that the couple had moved from Liberty Street to their current address at 2145 18th Street, SF, CA 94107.

Reached by phone, Moss told us that it was only his candidate intention statement -- a form that allows a candidate to start to raise money -- that he filed while living at Liberty St. in 2009, not his official declaration of candidacy form. The language on the two forms is slightly different; the intent form only asks for a "street address," where as the actual declaration of candidacy asks for a "residence" address.

Moss said he filed his declaration of candidacy a few days before the deadline, this summer. That form requires that candidates must have resided in the district for which they are running, for not less than 30 days immediately preceding the date they file. Under city law, candidates must continue to reside, if elected, in the district during their incumbency.
“I’m planning to win,” Moss told us. “And we’re very much enjoying the house on Potrero Hill and hoping to stay there.”
He added: “I have lived, worked and raised my family on Potrero Hill consistently for the last ten years.”

Pressed, Moss acknowledged that he owns an apartment building near Dolores Park. But he said he did not actually evict the nuisance tenant and has since rented out his own family’s apartment in the building.

‘We have not occupied it recently, we have a tenant there,” Moss said. Asked where he is living now, Moss said he’s renting at 18th and Vermont.

Moss confirmed that Andrew Zacks, an Ellis Act eviction specialist, is his attorney in the court case against the co-owners of the Kansas Street property and in the notice to cure that he filed on May 13, 2009.

When we called the city’s Ethics Department, a spokesperson said that they can’t comment on a specific race.
“But if someone signs a candidate form under penalty of perjury and they give an incorrect address, where they do not reside, that would add up to perjury,” the spokesperson, Mabel Ng, said.

Comments

Produce your leases Moss, time to come clean.

Who is living at your Delores mansion?

All your campaign pages, in your own words, state that you live work and reside on Potrero.
Prove it?

Lease from tenants at your district 8 address, your utility bills proving that you reside on 18th street.

Prove you are not Edmond Jew junior?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

Please proof your work

"where Moss used to reside on Kansas Street" ----"used". With this slopping writing it damages your credibility.

Posted by Native SF Girl on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

The ballots have been printed so what happens to his votes? What if he gets elected? Does the mayor make an appointment?

Posted by Matt Stewart on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

This is an Ed Jew situation.
Steve Moss is running for San Francisco Supervisor/District 10.
Steve Moss claims he lives, works, and raises his family on Potrero Hill/District 10.
Steve Moss has not lived or raised his family on Potrero Hill/District 10 since 2007.
Steve Moss lives and resides his family in Dolores Park/District 8.
Steve Moss sold and moved his family residence from Potrero Hill/District 10 to Dolores Park/District 8 in 2007.

Why would Steve Moss run for candidacy in a district that he has not lived in since 2007?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

Sounds like an Ed Jew situation to me.
Steve Moss lives in Dolores Park/District 8.
Steve Moss is running for District Supervisor/District 10.
Bottom Line: This is wrong.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Tells you all you need to know.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

So many elected officials feel they can play fast and loose with the residency rules: Michela Alioto Pier, Chris Daly, and Ed Jew. Not to mention some candidates running this year, whom I won't name right now, trying to carpetbag their way to the top.

This is a sick mixture of ignorance and arrogance. No more Ed Jewism. Not again.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

So will he be sent to jail? Ed Jew went for lying - I assume lying on the form. Under penalty of perjury - which I assume means going to the state pen for lying?

Posted by hill resident on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 11:46 pm

Why does the Potrero View (community non-profit), San Francisco Community Power (non-profit?), and have their M.Cubed (private for-profit) have the same address?

I wonder who pays the rent? Looks like his home address isn't all that is messed up.

Posted by sf native on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

a similar investigation should be undertaken for a number of the candidates.

for example, we know that eric smith lived at fulton & divis until recently. malia cohen's address appears to be that of her parents and we don't know if that's in fact where she's been living for the past few years. chris jackson also moved into the neighborhood not too long ago but, like ms. cohen he also claims extended roots in the district.

if all of this is true, cohen and jackson at least have the legitimacy of having long time family connections in D10. mr. moss on the other hand appears to have a serious problem on his hands.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 6:36 am

Moss campaign page

I live, work and raise my family in this District. I’m not using this race as a stepping stone. I’m running because the future of this District is my family’s future too, and I will work to make sure promises made to this community are kept. With your help I can do that.

Andrew Zacks, are you friggin kidding.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 7:54 am

Really, is this what we should be focusing on in D-10? A guy lives for 8 of the last 10 years in the D; works to help small business and residents save energy & money; works to get the power plants turned off; creates jobs...and we're looking at emails his wife sent out & where his kid goes to school? Man-o-man - we've got too much time on our hands and not enough attention on the real issues in our D.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 8:14 am

And Moss and his family currently live on Potrero Hill. Be careful of what you read in the BG. Moss and his family moved to the Hill in 2000, moved to the Mission Dolores area for two years, and then moved back to the Hill. Much ado about nothing....

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 8:50 am

So why didn't he mention that genius.

So why did he put a 94107 address on the city form???

Also you math isn't that good. He left in 2007, you seem to know, how about an exact date? When exactly did he return? Exact date in 2010?, come on easy stuff here.

When did they stop staying at Dolores park, the last night, exact date, should be easy Mr much ado about nothing.

Mr. Moss can clear this up in 5 minutes with verified info, please provide.

Careful what you read from supporters of Moss who say careful about the BG but won't refute or prove the opposite.

He states he's lived worked and worked raising his family and forgets to mention not for the last three years, BS.

Provide the facts and the explanation for the forms, we are all interested.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:10 am

Moss states hat a guy he is in the district and for years.

He hasn't lived on Potrero since 2007, at least August of 2007, and he rented another palatial mansion (18th street must be thousands a month) in Feb 2010.

Can he prove he has been living full time since March 2010 on the hill? Provide evidence, let's all see his utilities usage for both places, Ed Jew did.

He lied on the city forms, go to the ethics commission and look, lied on his campaign page and took thousands in contributions while not even living in the district.

He doesn't help small businesses or residents, he recycles a PG & E program that is available to anyone. Check it out, total BS.

How many jobs has he created, put it up on his web page, easy to say, prove it and how many?

He's using Zacks to evict people in his Dolores mansion and hiding the address in a clever way. It took the Guardian to have the balls to find.

Man o man that is what Ed Jew went to prison for, common on last poster, what's in it for you supporting a carpetbagger.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 8:54 am

Yes, the article states that they left and moved out of Potrero Hill.
But most importantly, the article shows that he lies.

He lied on the declaration to run form (under perjury) that he was currently living in Potrero Hill. Which he wasn't.

He is quoted with the lie that he has "raised his family consistently in Potrero Hill for ten years." Which is not true because they moved to Delores.

And there are more...

Would you want to vote for someone who already started lying before they even stepped foot in office?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:13 am

I don't understand how you think he has created jobs?
How did he create jobs?
What business did he create jobs for?
???
He says he wants to create jobs if he gets elected.
But he has not created any jobs that I know of prior to candidacy.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:21 am

Moss has created jobs through the non profit he founded SF Power. He's hired unemployed or under-employed residents in Bayview and Hunters Point to do energy audits. He's created jobs through hiring local staff at the Potrero View.

Furthermore, Moss is the ONLY candidate in the D10 race that HAS created jobs in the district.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:19 am

D10 has a candidate who is qualified to serve as city supervisor, cares deeply about the district, founded a nonprofit organization to help low-income residents reduce their energy bills, provides jobs to people in the district, runs the neighborhood newspaper, has widespread support from merchants on the Hill and pastors in the Bayview, moved to the Hill 10 years ago (and oh me oh my, moved to Mission Dolores for two years and then moved back) and the BG chooses to trash him? Might I suggest to Phelan and others to do some serious fact checking before slinging mud shots. Or better yet, talk to the owners of Goat Hill Pizza, Christopher's Books, Farley's Cafe, Baked, and Good Life Grocery, among many others on the Hill- who have known Moss for more than a decade and are endosing his candidacy. Who would you believe? Local merchants or the BG?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:27 am

He lied on the city forms under penalty of perjury.

True or false?

You don't have to believe the BG, go to the ethics commission and look at the Moss filings, he lied about where he was domiciled.

What jobs, what jobs, what jobs?

How many? List and how were they created, funds from where?

Helped low income families, how? It's a PG & E program.

True or false?

Phelan, how could she report that a candidate listed a business address as a residence and that is mud slinging. Was Ed Jew's address mudslinging or perjury.

Owners of Goat Hill Pizza, Christopher's Books, Farley's Cafe, Baked, and Good Life Grocery, is it OK to lie on city forms under penalty of perjury:

Yes or no?

Did Moss lie on his campaign site about where he lived:

Yes or no?

Do you want a supervisor for your district that lies on his forms in advance:

Yes or no.

Also, I know this is very hard to believe living in your Dolores mansion, thousands a month rental, tax payer funded non profit salary and benefits but three quarters of our district can't afford Goat Hill Pizza, Christopher's Books, Farley's Cafe, Baked, and Good Life Grocery.

How out of touch are his supporters?

Just answer the questions that Phelan asked?

Get Moss out of untouchable, Farley's latte and $100 coffee table books and answer why you received tens of thousands in taxpayer funds when you didn't live in the district?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:54 am

I agree.

Someone who can not speak the truth before they even reach office shows a display of character of one who can not be trusted with our tax dollars.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:31 am

How does he exactly "provide jobs to people in the district"???

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:34 am

good point. non-profits do not employ or create jobs. if he runs a non-profit, he is not creating jobs.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 9:44 am

whatever one feels about mr. moss, this statement is ludicrous and on-par with right-wing teabagger arguments that the jobs created by the new deal weren't real jobs. if someone is working and receiving a paycheck, they have a job and an employer. if that job didn't exist before that organization - gov't, non-profit, or for profit - hired someone then its a new job.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

His nonproft is the view - and according to him all of the positions are volunteer

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

Definition of Carpet-bagger: "A candidate who runs in a district where he or she does not hold residence prior to running"

This definition is out of the dictionary.

The title of this article is correct. He is a carpetbagger.
Moss did not live in District Hill/Potrero Hill prior to running.
Unless you think living here three years ago qualifies.

Moss left this District and is quoted in the article saying he would leave it again
and return to Dolores if he doesn't win.

Is this the type of candidate you want in your district?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:00 am

Advice to BG: get a life. Steve Moss has been an active part of D-10 for years and years. Working with his environmental non-profit, the Potrero View, working with small businesses, and low-income familes to reduce utility bills and on, and on and on.

And the big, problem is he used his office adress as his campaign mailing address? Wake me up when there is actual news to print.

Oh wait - here's some: More petition signatures from District voters than any other candidate, wide spectrum of endorsements including healthcare workers, small businesses, pastors, police and more.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:14 am

Oh Brother.

Get a life:

STEVE MOSS IS A LIAR. HE STATED HE WAS DOMICILED IN A DISTRICT HE DIDN'T LIVE.

So did Ed Jew, who is he representing.

Anyone who is supporting Moss on here please state who you are? Is that difficult.

Those who oppose Moss and his lies do so as guests, why, Andrew Zacks, need to know anything else?

Statement from Moss, we are waiting, a bit quiet Steve, cat got your arrogant tongue?

Come to the Bayview Steve, let us know why you lied, you know how to get here, no lattes and people can't afford them, but you can answer all the questions about residency and jobs you created, where's the list????

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:31 am

He has not created jobs "by hiring local staff at the Potrero View"
All staff positions at the Potrero View are voluntary.
It states this on the Potrero View website.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:36 am

Steve Moss has not created jobs by "hiring local staff at the Potrero View"
All staff positions at the Potrero View are voluntary.
This is stated on the Potrero View website.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:43 am

Sorry, but from an objective observer's standpoint, I have to call this what it is... An attack piece on Steve Moss. To call him a carpetbagger, is one thing. But to allege that he is not a resident of D10 is ridiculous and frankly poor reporting. Did you go to his house and sit with his family? Did you ask to see utility bills and other sources that would prove residence? No. If you did, I assume this would be a non issue.

Have you levied similar scrutiny to the other candidates -- i.e. Malia Cohen, Chris Jackson, Eric Smith -- or just the candidate you view as the front runner? Is this really "objective reporting"? No, it's not. This is an attack piece.

Moss is the candidate with the most momentum in District 10 right now, that's no secret to anybody whose been following the race. But for a publication to launch an attack on a candidate because they like another candidate better (you know who I'm talking about), and to not scrutinize all the candidates equally, is a political attack. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have a little integrity. If you did, you would probably see that Steve Moss would be a great Supervisor for ALL the people of District 10 - not just the ones who support him. In that same vein, your reporting should be objective and not used as a vehicle to attack the opponents of the candidates you support, BG.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:43 am

C'mon

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

Did Moss make a false statement on residency to the city on filing papers.

Will you or one of the Moss supporters answer the damn question and stop saying what a great supervisor he'll be.

Once and for all, did he make a false statement?

What are the dates of residency?

Remember Ed Jew's supporters, all the signs, give them a call!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Here are your answers:

No, Moss did not lie on his forms. Anyone who knows better on where to verify this information (hint it's not law suits and emails) would know that a quick trip to city hall would put that argument to rest.

Moss is, and has been for some time, a resident of District 10. Go knock on his door on Vermont Street, heck talk to his neighbors or ask to see his water bills -- the way they caught Ed Jew. There's nothing to hide.

Per the Dept of Elections voter registration rolls - which, by the way, is another public document that REQUIRES you to list your residence under penalty of perjury - Moss is a resident and registered voter in District 10 and has met all the requirements to run for Supervisor - as verified by the Department of Elections and Ethics Commission under penalty of perjury.

You seem to be really riding this horse that Moss is not a resident of D10 - in that case, bring it on, because there's no story there. The proof is out there for anyone to see - Dept. of Elections, Ethics Commission, City Clerk's office. Go see for yourself. If that doesn't answer your question, then I would assert that you're not that objective yourself, and are just another TK supporter looking to knock Moss. And that's fine, just leave the lies out of it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

Another Moss supporter of course.

He didn't live in the district till this summer, everyone knows that, worst kept secret.

So who's the tenant at his mansion, proof?

Provide the utilities, should answer.

Of course he lied, he wasn't in district 10 when he raised money.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Who are you guest?

Own up.

Provide Dolores and 18th street utilities.

Who is the tenant he states, lease, when did it start.

How many days has he spent at Dolores since renting 18th street.

How difficult are these to answer, such an intellectual as Moss with all his money, should be very easy, unless there is something to hide.

So you are saying the e-mails are lies, come on, who are you? and go on record, not very much to ask is it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 4:33 pm

All political candidates get attacked

Palin was probably the most extreme example.District candidates become neighborhood celebrities and SF is not the type of city that keeps mum or is afraid of not sharing their opinions.We are the sanctuary city for people who don't really belong anyplace else.In time, all of the candidates will get a bit of the news coverage limelight as they usually do.I wish them all of the best of luck.Looks like District 10 is the up and coming community in SF.It will be nice when they do something about the waterfront.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 11:58 am

whats the big deal?

Go back to where ever you came from and save those people.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

that is true........

I wonder how many people would be left in the city minus the carpetbaggers???

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

The city would become for more open and tolerant right off, and it would quickly improve in many other quality of life areas as well.

They could take their learned behavior back to wherever it is they came from and help those people save themselves from themselves.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

here! here! chris daly can go first!

Posted by hill resident on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

Are the jobs he created paid?

I know that some "non-profits" are able to create paying jobs but I dunno if the non-profit jobs were paid or unpaid. It's a shame that all "non-profits" are not able to pay their hard-working people. But I guess this will be more of the case due to tightening of tax dollars.Funny that my first job at a "for-profit" company was an unpaid internship.Go figure.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

what jobs did he create? the potrero view already existed - he just took it over. and if the paper itself states that the 'jobs' are voluntary.

what exactly does his non-profit do? who does it employ? how much are they paid? do they have health benefits - or is it just an odd hour here and there?

i consider myself to at least be 'light green' in my attempts at environmental conservation - but i don't really understand how is non-profit is helping --- and i mean really helping, not just 'looks good on paper' helping

so - say he is a resident of this district, why did he move away if it was his home? being a native myself i have lived in a few districts - but once you have found 'yours' you get pretty attached. seems curious.

Posted by hill resident on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

C'mon
Sorry, but from an objective observer's standpoint, I have to call this what it is... An attack piece on Steve Moss. To call him a carpetbagger, is one thing. But to allege that he is not a resident of D10 is ridiculous and frankly poor reporting. Did you go to his house and sit with his family? Did you ask to see utility bills and other sources that would prove residence No. If you did, I assume this would be a non issue.

Have you levied similar scrutiny to the other candidates -- i.e. Malia Cohen, Chris Jackson, Eric Smith -- or just the candidate you view as the front runner? Is this really "objective reporting"? No, it's not. This is an attack piece.

Moss is the candidate with the most momentum in District 10 right now, that's no secret to anybody whose been following the race. But for a publication to launch an attack on a candidate because they like another candidate better (you know who I'm talking about), and to not scrutinize all the candidates equally, is a political attack. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have a little integrity. If you did, you would probably see that Steve Moss would be a great Supervisor for ALL the people of District 10 - not just the ones who support him. In that same vein, your reporting should be objective and not used as a vehicle to attack the opponents of the candidates you support, BG.

reply

Posted by Guest/resident on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

Cant wait til the BG does the Malia Cohen piece. (Where did she live before calling mom & dad's her residence?) Lots there except real knowledge. Good rhetoric from her for the first minute or two then, inevitably, crash and burn. So much time left to evaluate what's best for residents of D-10. Nice try derailing the Moss coalition momentum BG, to support your "progressive" agenda. Just like the term "patriot," they were wrong when they said we were not because we did not want WAR. The people still want COMMON SENSE (as opposed to "crazy") at City Hall and, for D-10 if that means Jobs in the Southeast, then that's "progressive" enough for the unemployed voters in D-10...ask them.

Posted by Guest/resident on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

i (heart) bristol & levi

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

I do think it is fair to point out that Steve Moss moved back into the area just to run for Supe. He seems to fit the definition of carpet bagger.
I like Steve but am concerned to hear that his attorney is a lawyer well-known for evictions.
It seems he has legal action going both in his old home on the Hill and in his building in Dolores. Why is he caught up in legals disputes? I find that troubling. I try to resolve my issues long before it gets to an attorney.
Steve was my number 2 choice but I cannot vote for him having read this.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 7:52 am

facts is facts and i thank the guardian for reporting them.

i would thank the guardian again if it puts together a table of all the major candidates looking at their D10 neighborhood history - this includes residential, work, and/or activist.

this campaign is a test of who can both represent and govern. all of the candidates have shortcomings and this story adds more grist for the mill. we deserve to understand what everyone brings to the table.

as many district elections supporters, we want to make sure that the people running to represent our neighborhoods at city hall understand them. we of course also want to make sure they are competent to deal with the business of city governance.

the questions raised by this story go to the heart of the question of proper representation:
- what led the moss family to move in the first place?
- is the move back into D10 an opportunistic act?
- is mrs. moss' statement that losing the election will lead the family to again leave the district an indication of the candidate's commitment to the district as a resident?
- does any of this really matter?

i'm looking forward to the answers to these questions as well as similar information about all of the candidates.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 9:22 am

facts is facts and i thank the guardian for reporting them.

i would thank the guardian again if it puts together a table of all the major candidates looking at their D10 neighborhood history - this includes residential, work, and/or activist.

this campaign is a test of who can both represent and govern. all of the candidates have shortcomings and this story adds more grist for the mill. we deserve to understand what everyone brings to the table.

as many district elections supporters, we want to make sure that the people running to represent our neighborhoods at city hall understand them. we of course also want to make sure they are competent to deal with the business of city governance.

there is little doubt on my part about mr. moss' ability to deal with the business of governance but the questions raised by this story go to the heart of the question of proper representation:
- what led the moss family to move in the first place?
- is the move back into D10 an opportunistic act?
- is mrs. moss' statement that losing the election will lead the family to again leave the district an indication of the candidate's commitment to the district as a resident?
- does any of this really matter?

i'm looking forward to the answers to these questions as well as similar information about all of the candidates.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 9:37 am

He left potrero hill and moved to dolores in 2007

Why doesn't he run for supervisor in dolores, district 8?

Why run for district 10 since you left it?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 11:12 am

Because he has roots in D10, and knows this district better.

This article is a pure smear-job on Moss. Innuendo over substance.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 1:45 pm