Lynette Sweet, the “no comment” candidate


Lynette Sweet, who is running for D. 10 Supervisor, has already declined to give the Guardian an endorsement interview. And earlier this year, when Sweet sat down for a brief interview as part of our kick-off coverage of the D. 10 race, her campaign manager Shane Meyer kept trying to answer our questions before Sweet could even open her mouth.
But yesterday Meyer took the campaign’s habit of non-communicating to a new level, making us wonder just how much access or information anyone will be able to get out of Sweet, in the event that she actually gets elected, given how she is behaving as a candidate.

“We make no comments to the Guardian,” Meyer told us, when we called to ask if Sweet knew that workers with her campaign had stuck her campaign signs on the doors of the tenants association building in the Sunnydale public housing projects

Now, aside from the fact that Sweet is running a truly off-putting campaign by refusing to communicate on even the most straighforward issues, she might want to make sure her campaign staff are properly trained.

That's because, as John St. Croix, executive director of the city’s Ethics Commission, told us, “It’s generally illegal to post any sign on public property.”

“All political signs can only be posted on utility poles and lamp posts,” St. Croix added, noting that the Department of Public Works regulates such activity and these regulations are clearly laid out in the Elections Department’s candidate guide.

That guide also states that local law prohibits the posting of signs in excess of 8-1/2 x 11” on all street poles—and that there is a total prohibition on historic lampposts, traffic signals (duh!) and poles with directional signage.

The guide lists common violations of the law regulating outdoor political advertising, which include posting more than one sign on the same pole, and failure to remove signs after Election Day.

“Candidates are strongly advised to become familiar with all applicable laws to avoid such violations,” the guide states.


A real pity as I like Lynette.

Was a huge mistake not to answer the tax question, think that was the kiss of death.

Posted by A pity on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

should be charged with the same violations. Because every election their signs are plastered all over the city's light poles - from downtown up to Tower Market.

Thanks for informing me of this heinous violation of our city's election laws. This skulduggery has been allowed for too long. Breaking the law (as in the homeless lying around on city sidewalks) must be dealt with quickly and severely.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

It used to be that anyone who wanting to be a credible candidate for the republican nomination to be president had to pass through the 700 club.

How things change and yet they remain the same.,

Posted by matlock on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

Is it possible that she dosen't consider you a real newspaper?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 1:42 am

The only media to report on issues the others won't touch, guess that makes them real.

Posted by I Know on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 7:58 am

and that you would be hectored by a bunch of Red Guard members, why would someone drop by for the abuse?

Its a real newspaper in the same way Pravda was or the Washington Times is.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 11:12 am

To be clear, the Sweet for Supervisor campaign is happy to talk to any voter or journalist. Please visit or call 415-891-9085. With all due respect to the Bay Guardian, your stories, particularly about the District 10 race, are not journalism. Journalism is fact based reporting, not opinion based writing.

Comments like “truly off-putting,” or calling Director Sweet “weak,” are not facts, they are opinions. Why would any candidate engage with an opinion paper with an agenda that is very clearly aimed at minimizing her campaign?

Our campaign is focused on ensuring Lynette Sweet is elected as Supervisor to focus on the real concerns of the voters – bringing jobs to District 10 and thereby making safer communities with more resources for the next generations.

Please note, my name is spelled, “Mayer,” as it was printed on the card I provided to you in our first meeting at your office. One more, in a long list of incorrect facts.

Posted by Guest Shane Mayer on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

Since this Mayer guy (who sounds like he's the one really running for supervisor) is very much concerned about spelling, one would think he would spell the candidate's name correctly or at least proof his work. He typed:

That's a dead link.

He also wrote, "bringing jobs to District 10 and thereby making safer communities with more resources for the next generations." How? No specifics. That's the same type of vague, empty words that Steve Moss wrote. Predictable politician. How is Mayer (or Sweet) going to bring jobs to D10 when the economy is continuing to crumble and will continue to do so with outsourcing of jobs being at a record level? These candidates say anything. Then you have the words about safer communities. Is that code for sit-lie? It's all empty, vague, feel-good words intended to deceive the voters, although it will probably work. It usually does. But I'm sick of deceptive sweet-sounding feel-good words.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

Sweet handled the Oscar Grant shooting? She is not getting any votes from my hood. and she should pay her taxes!

Posted by Robert Jackson on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

Rather odd behavior for a candidate. Maybe her campaign manager is the one who's really running for office and not Lynette Sweet. But then based on their lack of communication skills, I don't think either of them should be running. We have enough bad people as it is in politics.

I was interested in the rules for political signs. “All political signs can only be posted on utility poles and lamp posts,” St. Croix added. That makes light poles fine, although I haven't seen any campaign signs on light poles yet. A strange thing happened earlier this week. I didn't see this but a friend (JD) told me about it. JD saw a big Mandelman sign on the building of the Twin Peaks bar at Castro and Market. It had just been put up. JD said you couldn't miss it. The next day I was in the Castro and I looked for the sign and it was gone. I don't know why. Assuming it was a "legal" sign, I wouldn't at all put it past someone's campaign to rip it down overnight and I have one person in mind specifically. The person I have in mind will stoop to any level to win I'm convinced of that. The person has already said "I intend to win." I don't know why the Mandelman sign disappeared, but I found it strange.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 12:53 pm

The Guardian isn't a newspaper, it's a very poorly run slate put together by white men over 40 who think they should be dictators and tell people what to do all day and are happy to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.

They are not to be trusted, and are part of the Aging Leftists that are dying off in San Francisco, making way for people who work for a living.

As for District 10, who cares? All of the candidates are unqualified assholes, and we should cut that district out of SF and let it sail on out to sea where it can't be a cancer on our city any longer. Bye bye Lennar Superfund Site!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 6:55 pm

Shane, I'm amazed that you just discovered that the Guardian has a point of view and isn't afraid to express it. A few month ago, your candidate was talking about how wonderful we were for taking on the Oscar Grant issue (in a hard-hitting way, with opinions, and comments about some BART Board members that were far more harsh than calling Sweet's response to the tax charges "weak.") Now, because we are challenging a public official who is running for public office to answer some basic questions, you're saying we aren't journalists.

Weak, Shane. Weak.

Posted by Tim Redmond on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

diane wesely smith also has sign violations!these canidates cant run an election how are they going to run a district!thats why my vote is going to!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

The Guardian has been the only media outlet to cover the D. 10 race in depth. And while I offer my apologies for the Mayer typo (sorry, Shane!), I have no apologies for covering the issues related to this race. I suspect that Sweet’s refusal to talk is about fear of our questions. So, I invite Sweet and Mayer to read the following sampler of our coverage--and then get back to us for an interview:

The battle for the forgotten district:

D. 10 candidates on Lennar’s plans:

D. 10 candidates on the gang injunction:

D. 10 candidates at black economic empowerment week.

D. 10 has highest concentration of foreclosures:

Black exodus emergency:

D. 10 target of Lennar’s development

Lawsuit over plans to build bridge over Yosemite Slough:

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 8:18 am


For those interested they can contact Lynette Sweet at: or 415 891 9085

Posted by Guest\ Onnyx Walker on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 10:39 am

Commuting from District 10 to downtown can take some time if you depend on the T line. To pass the time I often pick up the SF Weekey and the Guardian and on the way back the Examiner.

To all the candidates especially Sweet, I do not have time to call your office and waste my prepaid minutes waiting to talk to you. Some of my neighbors do not have the luxury of having access to a computer with internet and more than likely get our information from free publications and left over newspapers found on muni and coffee shops.

Remember what District you want to represent and maybe you'll think twice about how to communicate with the people you want to serve.

Richard Harlen

Posted by Richard Harlen on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Please don't vote or even consider voting for anyone that won't answer questions.

Posted by I Know on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 11:59 am

Lets say a candidate said they would not do an endorsement interview with the Examiner or Chronicle?

To justify not doing an interview they cited the dailies umm errr.... racism, anti-social justice views, them being tools of downtown, being "anti-immigrant," being pro-Israel or for giving the Panama Canal to Panama, who knows what comes from the Daly left these days.

What would your opinion be on that candidate?

Posted by matlock on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

Five Things Worth Discussing in D10

The following important, but easily ‘homogenized’ issues every candidate discusses in a general and peripheral way (often resulting in sound-bite solutions) have been given short shrift in the recent SFBG articles that focus on candidate-specific anomalies.

Crime and Public Safety
Health, Environment and Social Services
Land Use Planning and Housing
Education, Economic Development and Jobs
Transportation, Muni, Traffic

Yet, there are FIVE additional issues, which have not been discussed and are worth the attention of our candidates:

1. Re-Districting in D10 and the 2012 repeat of moved initiated in 2002. Will each candidate make a pledge to retain the relationships and district connections among the Potrero, Bayview and Visitacion Valley communities?

2. Tax Increment Financing, the Redevelopment Areas and Audits of the Redevelopment Agency

3. The Sewer Plant – move it, reduce it, expand it? Or ignore it?

4. M1 / PDR districts and the great pressure on building new affordable housing in D10. Will the remainder of SF play in this sandbox?

5. The Non-Profit sucking sound in D10. Are the organizations receiving real money actually delivering significant services?

Will the SFBG, the candidates and the D10 voters engage in a debate on these items?

Dan Dodt
San Francisco

Posted by dan dodt on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

Anybody who served on the bart board had to have known/should have known that they had under their jurisdiction an untrained armed "police force" that was at risk of facilitating a tragedy at any given moment. We are now being asked to reward that person by moving them to higher office. Sorry, I live in this district and there is no way on earth I would even consider such a candidate viable. Is there no shame in todays current political environment?

Posted by Guest rondd5 on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 6:43 am

@ $.02 - This is the same candidate who supports renaming Third Street for Willie Brown and cites a law regarding using cell phones while driving as something she would have opposed ! this puppet of outside endorsement will be recalled if elected.
such an election would only be possible by fraud and we are watching very closely.

we love district 10 !

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

...Interesting that she possesses the kind of money/resources which allows her to purchase a number of billboards in the district.(is she pg&e's candidate?)...and plan c has invited her, and steve moss to speak to their choir....just lovely...where oh where is the shame?

Posted by rondd5 on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

hello rondd5,
sweet is backed solidly by wille brown and company. look at his activities. she will be led around and kept out of the loop until she is told how and when to vote. how many community planning or safety or educational or health or transportation meetings has sweet attended over the last 5 years in bayview (before election time)? less than 5, maybe. she far removed from what is happening here now and has no leadership credibility. pge? maybe. lennar, probably. labor, unlikely. she is a neighborhood joke.

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 11:51 am

Won't give an interview?

Won't get my vote.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 12:11 pm