Plan C endorses Sweet and Moss in D10

09.21.10 - 12:17 pm | Sarah Phelan |

(2)

Plan C, a group that promotes condo conversions and rails against tenant protections, claims to be working hard to elect “moderate candidates” to the Board this fall.

And now the group has invited its members to meet Plan C’s “endorsed candidates” on October 4 at St. Mary’s Cathedral on Gough Street.

The winners, according to Plan C’s website, are Mark Farrell in D2, Theresa Sparks in D6, Scott Wiener in D8 –and Lynette Sweet & Steve Moss in D10.

No big surprises here.

But candidates in the district elections might want to note that Plan C’s slate met with limited success in 2008: the group endorsed Sue Lee in D1, Joe Alioto Jr in D3, Eva Royale in D 9 and Ahsha Safai in D11, and none of these "moderate" political hopefuls made it into office.

In fact, the only folks on Plan C's 2008 slate who actually won were incumbent supervisors: D4's Carmen Chu and D7's Sean Elsbernd.
Hey, maybe that explains why Sweet is trying to act like the incumbent in D10 and refusing to give interviews before she’s even been elected...

Elections

Comments

MODERATE (as defined by

MODERATE (as defined by Merriam-Webster)...>>>avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits...>>>b: having average or less than average quality : mediocre<<<< We need outstanding and stellar candidates, not average quality and mediocre ones. Wouldn't one want to put the finest of the best in office instead of some mediocre? There is nothing >moderate< about sit-lie or railing against tenant protections as 2 examples. MODERATE is code for one being more right-wing and anti-tenant and anti-homeless. Candidates have either learned or been told by consultants that in San Francisco one cannot call oneself a right-wing or >conservative< candidate and expect to get elected. So one has to tone it down some and call oneself a >moderate.< The >moderates< and their supporters want their dogma as law in this city and elsewhere and it is not about moderation or being >moderate.< I would hope that those who vote would be able to see through the deceptive words used by >moderate< candidates and their transparency. Since when does one see positive, progressive change come from a >moderate?<

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

Five Things Worth Discussing in D10

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. 22, 2010 @ 11:18 am