Endorsement interviews: Scott Wiener


Scott Weiner has a long record in District 8. He helped build the LGBT Center, was the president of the Eureka Valley Improvement Association, co-founded Castro Community On Patrol, was co-chair of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Club and chaired the San Francisco Democratic Party between 2006 and 2008.

He’s very much the political moderate; he told us he doesn’t want to see the city go into the retail electricity business with a full public-power system. He supports the sit-lie law (and opposes the ballot measure calling for community policing and foot patrols). He says he takes a “case by case” approach to taxes, and support the vehicle license fee, but doesn’t support the hotel tax increase. He’s got the support of the Small Property Owners, perhaps the most anti-tenant group in the city. He doesn't think the city should go any further to stop Ellis Act evictions.

In fact, overall, Wiener thinks the city ought to address its financial problems with cuts and service reductions. “We have to live within our means .... Until the state gets its house in order, we can’t tax our way out of it,” he said.
You can listen to our interview here:


Wiener by endorsements2010


Not Sam

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

No, I'm the real Sam.

Not Sam 2

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

I liked the part where the people using fake names got mad at someone for using a fake name.

Posted by Definitely Not Sam on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Despite all the diversionary, ad hominem slanders by some folks here, the fact remains that neighborhood safety is an issue whose time has come.

This reality must be faced by all candidates for public office, including those for supe in district eight. They will have to come forward with plans to deal with this issue. They can no longer hide their heads in the sand.

They won't be able to get off the hook by keeping silent while their supporters and surrogates make personal attacks on those who want this issue addressed. That tactic didn't work when Eileen Hansen and Alix Rosenthal ran for office, and it will be even less successful now.

Candidates for supe in district eight: What will you do to make the Castro and other neighborhoods in the district, and throughout the city, safer and more vital?

The voters are listening.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

I read an article earlier this week about a city in California that has sit-lie. It's not a city-wide law. It's in their downtown area...that's one of the areas. It has been somewhat successful in sweeping the homeless and others that some people don't want to see out of sight. But It has cost a lot of money to implement this law according to the article. It has required an ongoing, Herculean effort by the city, local merchants and ordinary citizens and it's very imperfect. The article also said that at a meeting last week of the Haight Ashbury Improvement Association (a group of merchants and residents) some members balked at additional spending on resources for the street. Ted Loewenberg, the association’s president, said....“The spirit is there, but not the commitment to spending." The article concluded by saying that as far as San Francisco goes...>>>People want a magic pill to fix things...It doesn’t exist. It never did.<<< In other words, sit-lie (Prop L) will need lots and lots of cash in order to be somewhat successful and people in San Francisco are not willing to give it cash. So why approve Prop L then? Also, where does one sweep the homeless to?...The Bay? The Pacific Ocean? Or perhaps...
The proponents of sit-lie can wrap themselves in words such as moderation and all forms of that word as many times as they want, but there is nothing moderate about sit-lie. Some people can't deal with the real world and today's real world has lots and lots of homeless people (and all that includes) in it and it's only going to get worse with outsourcing of jobs at a record level and home foreclosures soaring. The homeless (and all the people that includes) should not be demonized just because some people who still have homes can't deal with reality and don't want to see homeless people and want them out of sight. Out of sight. Out of mind. What is civil about that? Civil (definition): >>>adequate in courtesy and politeness. Often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness.<<<
Some people misuse words to achieve their right-wing goals. Using the Merriam-Webster definition of "civil" two people could not argue while standing on the sidewalk carrying on a conversation under "civil sidewalks." I've heard lots of people arguing while standing on the sidewalks.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 9:45 pm

Adding to my earlier post...

I've read posts and testimonials from some of the proponents of sit-lie and they complain about being called names by people sitting on the sidewalk. Some of the proponents just can't deal with being called names. The poor things. I thought most people got past that after elementary school or at least high school. No? If the proponents would only have the maturity to ignore the person calling them names (no matter what the name is), when that happens. This speaks more to the sit-lie proponent's lack of being secure with themselves and who they are as a person than with someone sitting on the sidewalk. If someone calls me a name, I just ignore them and keep walking, no matter what the name is. I don't snarl at people sitting on the sidewalk either. I also don't look down on them, so to speak. The sidewalk situations that the proponents go on about can happen anywhere, not just in major cities, but to hear the proponents of sit-lie talk, one would think they just moved here from some backwater small town and they seem to live in constant fear of something or someone and they don't seem to have any "city smarts" as I call it. They sound quite naive. Prop L needs to be widely rejected, especially considering what I previously wrote about people's lack of interest in putting money into funding it. It will need a lot of money and that's not going to happen based on the response from the Haight-Ashbury group that I wrote about earlier....so why even approve Prop L? This is crazy. Bottom line...if one has a problem on the sidewalk, call 911, which is what one would have to do anyway.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 2:10 am

One of the articles in the Chronicle had a story about a girl who had her dog killed by one unleashed pit bulls. She said the owner got a good laugh out of it as she cried and freaked out.

Sam you should really address the issues at hand not spin up this desperate plea.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 6:07 am

How was it resolved?
Did the police enforce existing laws?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 11:23 am

And didn't find it right off.

Some girl with a little dog was walking it at night and one of the thugs dogs ran up and shook it to death. She started to freak out and they laughed at her according to the story and moved on.

Had the same thing happen to me a couple of times when I had a dog, thats probably why I remember it at all. In one case my dog started to maul the other dog and I started punching on the owner.

Posted by matlocl on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

Yer pretty tough.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 8:37 pm

As this thread demonstrates, the doctrinaire opponents of neighborhood safety will continue to engage in diversionary tactics. For ideological reasons, they want to deflect attention away from the issue.

Politicians will make a big mistake if they confuse the diversionary sentiments of ideologues with the concern of the voters. The voters want to see the politicians come up with practical solutions for neighborhood safety.

Politicians who look the other way, or who mumble empty rhetoric, in order to please the ideologues, will not get a pass from the voters. They will go down to defeat in November.

Such is especially the case in district eight. Recent spikes in crime, combined with ever larger contingents of nomadic addicts and alcoholics flopped out on the sidewalks, have residents concerned.

So far, Rafael Mandelman has shown the least interest in neighborhood safety of any of the leading contenders for supe in district eight. He would be wise to correct this imbalance.

Scott Wiener, on the other hand, has so far shown the most concern with neighborhood safety. That's one of the reasons you see more of his signs around the district than signs for the others.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 9:17 am

I'm not Sam either, but if the story you outlined really did happen that way, I think it's really terrible. And the owner has probably already been arrested/charged, and the dog will probably be put down.

There are plenty of ways to deal with incidents like this without violating people's civil rights. You could try banning certain breeds, muzzle laws, leash laws, or (gasp!) existing laws.

Funny how one so quick to get outraged over infringements on corporations' freedoms to peddle junk in whatever venue/manner they please, suddenly supports the most restrictive and most draconian infringements on personal freedom when it comes to individuals

Posted by Greg on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 9:32 am

"Funny how one so quick to get outraged over infringements on corporations' freedoms to peddle junk in whatever venue/manner they please, suddenly supports the most restrictive and most draconian infringements on personal freedom when it comes to individuals "

so caught up in the dogma of being a "progressive."

Also Greg, I'm am opposed to sit lie, I do get a laugh out of the "enforce existing laws" mantra though.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 11:46 am

Speaking of dogma...I was on the website for the pro sit-lie group. They feed dogmatic deception to anyone who will consume it. Such as this paragraph >>>Our supporters are members of the ACLU, we are families, merchants and small business owners. We are fourth and fifth generation San Franciscans, and as San Franciscans it is our duty to make our city safe and to keep it thriving.<<< What did this omit in that paragraph? They omitted that the ACLU opposes sit-lie. There is also no way to confirm that anyone supporting sit-lie is a member of the ACLU. They also omitted who the main financial backers are (real estate and banking industry). The proponents' approach is very sleazy. They are so wrapped up in their right-wing dogma which they label as "moderate." Hopefully those who do vote will see the transparency of these deceitful, sleazy, dogmatic people supporting Prop L. The fact is that if one has a problem on the sidewalk, one will still have to call the police. It really is about enforcing existing laws. The voters have still not been told where the people swept up with be put. The jails are already completely full. That doesn't leave too many other answers. This law will basically criminalize being homeless. That brings me back to another lie from the dogmatic supporters. On the pro sit-lie website they say >>>Make no mistake, this is not about homelessness. Our supporters are the very people who help the homeless everyday.<<< What kind of double-speak, oxymoron is this? They offer no proof that any of the dogmatic supporters help the homeless every day and this IS about homeless people (and all that includes) and sweeping them out of sight and criminalizing being homeless.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

I'm seeing more Prozan signs in the Castro and Upper Market and I would say that the Wiener and Prozan signs are about even now. Also seeing a few more Mandelman signs. It should be pointed out that campaign signs do not necessarily correlate with what voters want. Some voters will put up a sign for a candidate without knowing anything about the candidate, specifics that is. It's given to them as they are walking by and because it's free they take it. It's sort of like an impulse vote. It's similar to all the Obama signs, bumper stickers and shirts. Most voters when asked came up with various things they said Obama was going to do if elected such as bringing charges of war crimes against Bush and Cheney and dismantling what they had put in place. Of course Obama has done nothing of the kind but most voters projected many things onto Obama while displaying his campaign stuff. I suspect that most of the voters in D8 don't really know any specifics about the candidate they are displaying a sign for. Instead, many voters when asked would simply repeat overused campaign slogans and jargon like >>>living within our means and getting the house in order.<<<.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

when I saw Sam/Barbara walking down the street. We were both counting signs. It was fascinating.

Therefore I thought I would tell you all how my daily experiences of walking down the street/interacting with homeless people/talking to my friend inform my political opinions. It's very important.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 6:14 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 @ 5:12 pm

I'm signing in anonymously as just a "Guest", not because I am ashamed or scared of identifying myself, but because I dont want to draw undue attention to my self, though those in the know will know. I had the privilege of being Harry's nurse in his final weeks; being with his circle; spending precious time with John; officially pronouncing his final release from these trials - damn but he looked so regal in his robes and crown.
Please be very conscious and cautious of how you invoke Harry's name in these difficult times, though that is probably the absolute antisethesis of his approach. Just please dont take or use his name in vain, he deserves more.
So Fuck It - Just Do It - Just Do Him Credit.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 7:52 pm

I met Mr. Weiner at Duboce park several months ago, he made a strong impression on me. Regarding tenants rights, I asked him if I could hold him accountable to defend seniors, the sick, children and low income people from being evicted by, TIC lawyers, and Ellis Act abusers.

In specific I asked Weiner what would keep him from supporting new rent board ordinances which would strengthen protections for children, elderly and the ill. At the time he claimed that what is in place is enough.

Again I asked "as district 8 supervisor will you protect me as a longtime renter from unfair eviction" ? Sadly I report he did not answer with a clear yes.

It is now widely reported that "Weiner is in the back pocket of the SF Small Property Owners, an anti-tenant rights group, and has said openly that he doesn't think the city should go any further to stop Ellis Act evictions.

It is no surprise that he eagerly reached around to shake the hands of the husband and wife owners of Golds Gym, rudely cutting our conversation in order to make his next strong impression.

On a side note, It was a shame to see Rebecca Prozan on the same Clear Channel bill board (Sanchez @ Market) as Mr. Weiner, but it is clear that these two candidates are the favorites of SF big money.

Posted by Guest Alter Nathan Bader on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

this is supposed to be a discussion about the candidate, and whether or not he is the person best for the job.

can we keep it civil?

Posted by Guestteresa on Oct. 16, 2010 @ 8:28 pm