Endorsement interviews: Jane Kim


Jane Kim’s top issues are economic development and jobs. She told us she wants to encourage small business in the district, starting with an “empty storefronts” campaign. She’s pushing local-first hiring for construction and development.

Kim said she wants the city to index affordable housing to market-rate housing and try to keep the ratio from getting too far unbalanced. She’s calling for a new affordable housing bond.

She recognizes that the city needs substantial new sources of revenue, and supports a transit fee on downtown businesses, a transfer tax hike for properties selling for more than $825,000, and would explore a city income tax. She said she’s open to congestion pricing for downtown drivers.

Kim supports the City Place project, saying that a lot of the residents of the Tenderloin want discount retail in the area.

She’s a fairly new arrival to the district, having moved in about a year and a half ago, but she told us: “D6 is a district you can run in without having lived there a long time."

Listen to the full interview here:


janekim by endorsements2010


On the SFGP questionairre, she answered that she SUPPORTS Care Not Cash. I have such a hard time believing that anybody who calls themselves a progressive would support something so awful, something that takes money out of the pockets of poor people, that I'm almost willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was a typo?

And yet, it's there in black and white on the Green Party website. Running in a district with such a large number of people who lost their benefits because of CNC, I think she owes folks an explanation.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

I've done a lot of 'dirty hands' research on this, Greg. (Dirty hands meaning I've gone down there myself and checked this out.)

I understand what you are saying and it can appear like it is taking away the little money through General Assistance the poor are entitled to now for a hand up.

GA still provides a cash benefit for those who are not homeless.

What Care Not Cash does for the homeless on GA is provide a shelter bed with meals plus $200 a month in food stamps that can be used at many locations here in the City - like Carls, Jr - instead of cash.

The problem with giving homeless $400 in cash is many drink and drug that money away before taking care of their business - like securing a shelter bed.

I can't give you a science produced number on what percent do this. I'll guess 30% plus.

I appreciate your empathy - just wanted to explain my observations.

Posted by Guest: Rich on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 7:58 am

You blabber too much about your own ideas, Tim. And when you -- the interviewer and endorser -- talk, you don't accomplish anything. All the candidates have to do is say mmm hmm, mmm hmm while you talk. This was a particularly egregious situation with Rafael Mandelman and Kim. You want to put them on the spot, not give yourself a chance to vent. This is one of the reasons I like Tony Kelly so much. Not only did he have great ideas; he was very aggressive about promoting them. The fact that Rafael and Kim both gave you so much time to blabber makes me think that they won't be particularly effective. Kim didn't even really know how much the bond should be worth. You should have challenged her on that.

Also, there were women in the room? If so, they give women a bad name for the very fact that they didn't participate.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 5:17 pm


Actually, I got a chance to finish listening to the interview and I will credit you for giving Kim more breathing space and I will credit Kim for presenting her own ideas. I went off half-cocked.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 7:46 pm

Half Cocked is a good way to describe you, Matt. You have the real life presence of a peanut, don't live in San Francisco, aren't capable of participating in campaigns, but somehow inflate your half-cock online personality to gargantuan proportions. It is so incredibly annoying to hear you constantly insult people like you are an authority on anything at all. Perhaps you raised a good point, but like usual, you did it in such a domineering and rude way that it got lost. You are the toke progressives answer of Arthur Evans. A flaccid dud in the tactile life, and a laughably overinflated authoritarian in the virtual world. Other than talking shit on the internet, is there anything concrete that you can point to that you have done to contribute to anything at all? I will buy you drinks till you pass out if you can tell me one precinct that you have walked for someone for this election.

Posted by Nate Miller on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 12:16 am

Nate, Calm the FUCK down. Jesus Christ. I'll look past your own insults and answer some of your valid questions, however. In Palo Alto, where I live, I'm a regular gadfly to conservative Democrats such as Anna Eshoo. I've showed up to her town hall meetings and challenged her directly and vocally (to my credit, not like that obnoxious diva, Medea Benjamin) with words and pickets. By the way, you should see the sedate types in the dark age that is south of San Francisco -- one of the reasons I get some satisfaction out of reading about what goes on in San Francisco. When confronting her, Eshoo looks like a deer caught in the headlights with her Newsomesque question cards. In terms of walking precincts in San Francisco, I haven't done anything in this particular election ... this is a bit of a tangent, but I helped collect signatures to put John Avalos on the ballot in 2008 (you might recall us meeting, I might add). Since I am quite poor, I don't have a lot of time to schlep down to San Francisco and make a more active contribution. Recently, with what little money I do have (though I know donations are a pretty lame way of being active in the civic arena) I have donated to campaigns of Tony Kelly ($100) and Rafael Mandelman ($25) via my San Franciscan sister (gotta take advantage of the public funds). By the way, if my internship at Hewlett-Packard turns into something more fruitful, I will probably move to SF and take one of those tour buses to get to work ... then again, I suspect you have a lot of contempt for those types as well. -- Matt P.S. Just curious: are you especially pissed at me because you are a Jane Kim supporter?

Posted by Matt Stewart on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 6:35 am

How long has Palo Alto been home Matt?

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 8:25 am

Jamie, how long have you been the Poor Man's Ryan Chamberlain?


Posted by marcos on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 8:42 am

I am so sorry somebody peed in your cheerios and made you such an miserable human.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 9:27 am

Matt, it sounds like you do some cool stuff in your town. Good for you.

I take issue with the fact that the only perspective that you have on San Francisco is through the Internet. Your contributions to political discourse consistently attempt to cut down other people, most frequently those whose views are only slightly nuanced variations of your own. The amount of rage that you direct at people is counterproductive, pathological and bizarre considering that none of these things even effect you.

I point out that you don't actually do anything that is useful, to emphasize a contradiction to the way that you position yourself as some omniscient arbitrator of San Francisco politics. As a person who grew up here and continues to be invested in the city, it is kind of insulting to see people who are in no way effected by important decisions, treating them as if they are some kind of game. Sure, I get that you live somewhere less cool, that what happens in SF can then recreate itself somewhere else. Thanks for being genuinely interested, but no thanks for the way that you act.

If you can give $125, you are not too poor to walk some precincts, which I would still encourage you to do. That does not cost anything. Maybe you could set aside a few hours that you would normally dedicate to checking blogs and when you come to visit your sister, go help someone out.

Yes, I remember you from John's campaign. You came for about an hour, gave up after getting like 6 signatures and then returned to the Internet to publicly discuss what you imagined our campaign strategy to be. This interaction is the basis for my opinion of the human version of you.

I really don't spend any time thinking about people who take buses out of the city to corporate jobs, but in these 30 seconds, it sounds like a good way to cut down on Carbon emissions. Obviously this is not good when little Google towns pop up and erode the culture of neighborhoods.

In regards to Jane Kim. Yeah, I think that she would make a good supervisor. I also think that Debra Walker would be great. And I love Anna Conda. And James Keys has good qualities too. But, no, my comments had nothing to do with my personal views on the race and everything to do with your toxic form of engaging people.

Posted by Nate on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 10:26 am

You should see the email that Matt Stewart sent me after I declined to converse with him over the telephone. It reads like one of Jamie Whittiker's rants.


Posted by marcos on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 10:33 am

"Did you move into District 6 to run for office?"

"No, well, like, I've lived in lots of different districts over the years."

That's at about minute 35.

Nice to see that the roulette wheel landed on right on District 6 just around the time you decided to run.

Posted by Barton on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 11:02 am


I appreciate your thoughts and you make some very good points -- particularly about being more active in things I have opinion of. Getting to SF isn't all that costly and the exercise and fresh air might do me some good. I'll make a point of coming down to campaign for Tony Kelly if he'll take me. I'll also tone down the radioactive rhetoric -- it really is counterproductive and trollesque.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

Jane Kim's campaign workers trespassed in our apartment building and hung their doorhanger campaign trash on all 94 units in the building. The tenants were VERY angry at me, the manager. Word is that Kim is a carpetbagger who moved into D6 in order to pull a political power play.

Posted by Guest Rich on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

In the U.S. it is a basic and -crucial- fundamental right of political campaigns to enter apartment buildings to promote candidates, measures and causes. And this has been fully affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Such freedom of campaigning is the most vital foundation of democracy, and our country and community would be a disaster without it.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

Kim's an evictee and a tenant like me for several years. Tenant access to neighbors sharing political speech is thankfully protected after years of legal effort. Almost all tenants prefer to be relieved of intimidation by building managers & property owners who sometimes shamefully seek to block access to information regarding pro-tenant positions and candidates.

Posted by bobby on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

I totally agree with what you say, and thank you for saying it.

That said, it's been alleged that those buildings owned by Kim supporters in the THC are ONLY allowing Jane Kim to campaign there. I think all buildings should allow open communication between tenants and ALL candidates, wouldn't you agree?

Also, the other thing that isn't being talked about much, is the impact on district elections. When Kim says that "D6 is the kind of district that you don't have to live in very long to run in," what does that say about her connection to the people of that district? It kind of begs the question, "As opposed to OTHER districts, where you have to pay attention to your constituents and get to know them in order to run?" Maybe she didn't mean it that way, but it sure looks bad on her part. And then after all that, if she squeaks by and wins, you KNOW that anti-tenant forces are going to use her victory as a bludgeon against district elections. I've already seen it written on one of the online chatboards, "What's the point of district elections if you're just going to elect carpetbaggers?" If she wins, look for efforts at "reform" (read: repeal) of district elections coming from the Chamber of Commerce.

And then my pet peeve is still Care Not Cash. With all due respect to Rich above, it's a shell game. It takes money out of the pockets of the poor, promises services in return, steals those services from OTHER poor people, and the whole sorry thing was used as a bludgeon against progressives in order to elect a conservative mayor, so we could take even MORE money from poor people. And Jane Kim answered on a questionnaire that she SUPPORTS it!

Personally, I like Kim. I think she's been great on the school board, and on most issues I think she'd make a fine supervisor. But I'm troubled by certain stands she's taken. I'm troubled by certain supporters she has. And I really, REALLY don't want to see us get into a situation where district elections are jeapordized.

If we lose district elections, we can pretty much kiss our tenant protections goodbye.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 11:43 am

She was obviously a district-shopping politician on the make. That's why she moved into D6.

Her statement in the interview that she did not moved here to run is completely bogus and won't fool anyone.

The carpet-baggers cramming into D6...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

What gives? She was personally evicted, isn't a carpetbagger, supports district elections and tenant protections, and the Tenants Union endorsed her. She doesn't have the BOMA, SFAA, or subsidized-multiunit access afforded other candidates, i.e., the pro-mayoral CnC candidate or the anti-RCV candidate. To effectively spin for her opponents, please at least offer some credible evidence that she'll beat up on the poor, lose rent protections, or return to Chamber-dominated at-large elections. That's the opposite of her positions and record.

Posted by bobby on Oct. 01, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

Jane Kim promised to improve SFUSD Middle Schools; it didn't happen.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 3:50 pm