Downtown money hits district races

|
(42)

Downtown cash is pouring into the district supervisorial races.

Ethics Department filings show that an alliance backed by the Chamber of Commerce, the SF Police Officers Association and United Health Care Workers West is dropping major money on Steve Moss in D10, Scott Wiener in D8 and Theresa Sparks in D6. 

Called the “Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth,” the coalition supports the building of a mega-hospital on Cathedral Hill.

The independent expenditure alliance puts UHW, part of the Service Employees International Union, in the odd position of using membership money to attack progressive politics in San Francisco – potentially undermining years of work by another SEIU affiliate, Local 1021.

Campaign disclosure forms show that the Chamber-Police-UHW alliance has spent $20,000 on bilingual (English/Chinese) door hangers for Moss that feature photos of Chamber of Commerce President Steve Falk and United Healthcare Workers political director Leon Chow.

These same interests also spent $20,000 on robo-calls for Moss, with a heavy focus on Visitacion Valley in an effort to secure the Asian vote in the crowded D10, where there is a strong likelihood that the race will be decided by second and third place votes

Word on the street in the Bayview is that former Mayor Willie Brown is pissed off that the Chamber is backing Moss, instead of African American candidate Lynette Sweet, and that termed out D10 Sup. Sophie Maxwell is angry that big corporations are trying to buy an election in the poorest and most ethnically diverse district in town.

But unlike the rumor mill, the money trail doesn’t lie. And from that perspective this is looking like a replay of the June 2008 election, when big businesses bought support for Lennar’s Candlestick Point/shipyard development by claiming it would create thousands of jobs building condos that most workers can’t afford—jobs that have yet to materialize.

This time the battle cry is for jobs building a massive hospital, even though few workers will likely get service from this hospital, which is designed to serve as a regional center for high-end health care.

So far, the same alliance of police and corporate money has plunked down $17,000 for bilingual (English and Chinese) door hangers in support of Theresa Sparks in D6 and another $17,000 for bilingual robo-calls in support of Sparks.

And so far, Scott Wiener has gotten the relatively short end of the corporate money stick: the Alliance has only spent $15,000 on a door hanger in support of Wiener.

This means that the alliance spent $90,000 in a two-week period in September. The numbers lend credence to DCCC Chair Aaron Peskin’s belief that the alliance has a war chest of $800,000, which it intends to use to put pro-downtown candidates into power.

Asked about the support of this alliance, Sparks, Wiener and Moss gave markedly different replies that reveal as much about each candidate as the money behind them.

D6 candidate Theresa Sparks suggested that the Alliance was spending more on her and Moss’ D10 campaign, because it felt Wiener was further ahead in the D8 race than she is in D6 or Moss is in D10.

And Sparks was openly supportive of the Cathedral Hill hospital project. “I’ve been very supportive of that project,” Sparks told us.

Sparks also observed that it was logical that the Chamber would support her.

“D6 has one of the largest numbers of small businesses and one of my biggest platforms has been economic growth, and I think the Chamber has been very supportive of job creation,” Sparks said.

By comparison, Scott Wiener told the Guardian that he has not taken a position on CPMC’s proposed mega hospital on Cathedral Hill.

“Those kind of issues could come before the Board, in terms of CEQA issues, and so I could be conflicted out,” Wiener said.

When the Guardian noted that the Alliance has so far not spent any money on phone banking for Wiener in D8, Wiener said, “I have volunteers doing phone banking.”

As for Moss, he told the Guardian that said he doesn’t have a position on the mega-hospital.

“I haven’t seen the plan,” Moss said. “But I understand that there seems to be an agreement that would maintain St. Luke’s with about 300 beds, but that there is a deep suspicion among the nurses that it’s not economically viable. And there seems to be a much greater need for a hospital in the southeast.”

Moss, however, is with downtown on other key issues: He supports the sit-lie legislation on the November ballot. He also reiterated that he likes the rabidly anti-tenant Small Property Owners Association, whose endorsement he called a “mistake” during a previous interview with the Guardian.

“Landlords feel that they are responsible for maintaining costly older buildings and that they are not provided with ways to upgrade their units in ways that share costs with tenants,” Moss, who sold a condo on Potrero Hill in 2007 for the same price that he paid for the entire building in 2001, and owns a 4-floor rent-controlled apartment building in D8, near Dolores Park, that he bought for $1.6 million in 2007, and where he lived from December 2007 to February 2010.

Moss refused to provide a copy of the lease on his current rental at Vermont and 18th St—something that the Guardian requested in light of an email from his wife that indicated that the family intended to move back to Dolores Park of Moss loses the race.
‘That’s private information,” Moss said, claiming that he does not plan to move back into his apartment building in D8, if he loses in November.

Moss claimed that UHW endorsed him because his position on politicians and unions.
“I agreed that politicians should get not involved in union politics,” Moss said. “The United Healthcare Workers seem to be a worthy group,” he added. “All they said was that they wanted to make sure that they had access.”

All this campaign money drama is playing out against the backdrop of a punishing battle between United Healthcare Workers West and the rest of SEIU. And as these recent filings show, UHW is spending a huge amount of its membership dues to undermine the city’s progressive infrastructure by trying to elect candidates who are not progressive, even though its progressive sister union has endorsed Rafael Mandelman in D8.

SEIU 1021 member Ed Kinchley, who works in the Emergency Room at SF General Hospital, is furious that UHW is pouring all its money into downtown candidates like Moss, Sparks and Wiener and trying to undermine everything that its progressive sister union is trying to do.

“UHW basically isn’t participating in the Labor Council, it’s just doing its own thing,” Kinchley said.

Kinchley noted that UHW is currently in trusteeship, and is being controlled by its International, and not its local membership, thus explaining why it’s doing this dance with forces like the Chamber and the Building Owners and Managers Association, which have long been the enemy of labor.

“Sutter wants a monopoly on private healthcare, and people like Rafael Mandelman in and Debra Walker have been strong supporters of public healthcare,” Kinchley said, Kinchley also noted that he wants supervisors who are willing to state their support for public health care, rather than dodging the issue and hedging their bets, right now.

“I want someone who can straight-up say, here’s what’s important for families in San Francisco, especially something as important as healthcare,” Kinchley said. “but it sounds like UHW is teaming up with the Chamber and supporting people who are not progressive.”

“And it’s not OK for somebody in D10 to say they haven’t seen CPMC’s plans, when people from D10 use St. Luke’s all the time for healthcare, because it sounds like Sutter wants to change St. Luke’s into an out-patient clinic for paying customers,” he continued.

SEIU 1021 activist Gabriel Haaland accused the Chamber, the Building Owners and Managers Association, UHW and the Police Officers Association of putting together a massive political action committee, “to try and steal the election through corporate spending.”

All this leaves the Guardian wondering how Leon Chow, the political director of UHW, who has done good work in the past on health care issues, is feeling about seeing his photograph spreads all over town alongside that of Chamber of Commerce President Steve Falk on door hangers in support of Sparks, Wiener and Moss.
 
As of press time, Chow had not returned our calls, but if he does, we’ll update this post.

Comments

These are tye candidates Who will ignore neighborhood needs .... Sparks has already proven she is ready to ignore Tenderloin residents concerned about traffic impacts that Planning has not accounted for in the CPMC EiR. District elections are intended to get folks who listen to neighborhood needs elected ... Not more Gavin Newsomites who ignore residents in order to please corporations.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 12:40 am

First is there is little doubt left he is going to win. Peskin and UHW must know the score if neither are pouring much $$ into D8. Second he is smarter than all the other candidates by not taking a 'formal' position. Everyone else on the left and right are in danger of being legally recused on CPMC.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 6:30 am

DCCC IE for Mandelman ongoing.

I saw two teams of two women each with what looked like DCCC IE materials for Rafael on Church Street this week.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 9:44 am

Lynette Sweet in District 10

Tax problems: Could it be that Ms. Sweet's problem with receiving tax notices has
something to do with her residency? Does she actually live a substantial amount of
time in Bayview, as listed, or is she also an absentee candidate ?

Non-disclosure of income: Does the IRS have the the W-2's issued from Trans-Bay
and AANIL or does she receive an unreported 1099 as an independent contractor
or corporation?
 These questions leave a very sour taste in the mouths of District
10 voters.

The money: Lynette Sweet is backed solidly by Willie Brown and company. Look
at his activities and decide if she will be independent in managing District 10. It is
likely 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 10 years in District 10
overall ? How many since the election games began? Sweet is far removed from
what is happening here now and has no leadership credibility. Her candidacy is a
neighborhood joke that Willie Brown, Bevan Dufty, Amos Brown and Gavin Newsom
and others fail to grasp.

The IE question:
Sweet fundraising declarations do not square with the billboard expenditures in D10.
Where is this money coming from?

A few D10 election gaffes from Lynette Sweet:

- supports the renaming of Third Street for Willie Brown and suggests that Brown
would be her choice for interim mayor if Newsom wins in Nov.

- cites a law regarding against using cell phones while driving as something she
would have opposed !

- named the Oscar Grant family as an endorsement for her campaign-very bad
behavior and insulting to the tragedy that the Grant family has endured.

Sweet is just another candidate who is bought and paid for.
She and Moss should drop out Now.

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 11:07 am

How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved by You)!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 11:23 am

on the people who you like and what they are spending on?

What demographic will a progressive represent and who will they ignore in their districts based on the money and resources given them by for example, the public employee unions?

The public employee unions seem to be upset that Adachi is running for mayor or some other office on them, after decades of backing progressives who promise these unions the world. What progressive will take a more moderate, less servile view with the unions after taking their money and backing?

Posted by matlock on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 11:51 am

Eric Smith is the strongest progressive candidate in D-10.

Posted by Danny K. on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

If Eric Smith is such a 'progressive' why does he support the Candlestick Hunters Point environmental impact report? I don't see him standing up to downtown money in -that- fight. I see him publicly -claiming- to be standing up, while doing absolutely nothing in real life to stop this deadly, corrupt project.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

With all the planned changes for D-10, seems like they would be best represented by neighborhood activists who really understand planning.... Tony Kelly and Kristine Enea seem the best in that regard.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

Kristine Enea knows her facts about D10. She's really both a community activist and sharp lawyer.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:49 pm

lAs a retirerd 1021 member I have to say that SEIU-UHW's extrerme right-wing positions taken over the last several years is disgusting. UHW has abandoned it's members and instead has alligned itself with corporate America. And what is most disturbing is the fact that the Purple Plague continues to masquerade as fighting for and protecting the contract. What a bunch of bullshit! Does UHW really think that union members are going to roll over? Not a chance in hell. They wanted and started World War III and they've lost practically every battle and they will ultimately lose the war. There can be no respect for a "union" that has sold it's soul to big business an greed. Local communities and California's healthcare industry has had enough of UHW masquerading as representing members and a defender of basic human rights.

NUHW RISING! UHW DIMINISHING!

Posted by Francisco Martinez on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

You are stupid like all NUHW idiots.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

MMMM.. This is all you got huh? To call people "Stupid"..Shows how low your IQ is...The branch doesn't fall far from the tree...It's all about NUHW and we're taking over...BYE BYE SEIU-UHW...you won't be missed.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

Wow! Is that all you can come up with? At least try to justify your anger with facts. Well , if your are a union member that is supportive of SEIU. I hope you keep in mind that we are all brothers and the NUHW is to help all union brothers and sisters. take it easy GUEST : )

Posted by oscar on Oct. 03, 2010 @ 7:49 pm

Basically anyone who is not an extremist left winger, is a against us, makes sense to me!

Posted by Barack Obama on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

i'm the decider, i'm the decider, i'm the decider.
it's my idea that is the best one.
it's my point of view that is smarter than yours.
it's my needs that are more important than yours.
it's my family that needs more resources.
it's my pension that is more precious than yours.
it's my rent that should be free
it's my transportation that should be here when i want it, free.
it's my house that should be expanded. don't block my view.
it's my landlord who should share his equity with me.
it's my supervisor who should listen to me and only me.
it's my coffee that needs individual dripping

it's my pacifier that fell off the high-chair.

i'm a san franciscan and i, and only i, approve this message.

Posted by The Real S F Voter on Oct. 03, 2010 @ 8:09 am

It is interesting that no mention was made in the article of the $22,000 spent by the "progressive" equivalent "Teachers, Nurses, Muni riders, neighbors and working families supporting Mandelman for Supervisor 2010 sponsored by labor organizations," and no judgment that they are trying to buy the election for the "progressive" candidates.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

Yep. It sure is interesting that only "downtown" money seems to be a bad influence in district politics while money from local government employee unions is fine and dandy. Can we say the "progressives" have a double-standard of what?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

For balance, please publish an article about who is funding the campaigns of Debra Walker and Rafael Mandelman.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 03, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

Debra Walker and Rafael Mandelma are funded by the starving children of the third world!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 10:03 am

Nothing is quite so confidential as the $4m plus Moss stole from State and City taxpayers.

How many times have people asked him how many jobs he created and I guess that is private information as well!

Amazing between two lead candidates how few answers there are and how many more questions.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 6:52 am

Actually Guardian, I'm extremely concerned that we will see a sweep of conservative candidates-Moss, Weiner, Farrell, and Sparks. Bu honestly, you guys have spent all your energy bashing Kim, instead of exposing Sparks or another of the other more conservative candidates across the city. Even in D6, there was no mention in your interview or attacks on Sparks as a "carpet-bagger." Those comments were reserved for a young thoughtful, woman of color with a base.

I think we have a chance to pull through, but that means coming together and repairing some very damaged relationships. We have one month to put aside differences and, as Tim Gunn says, make it work.

I've also heard the rumors that Rafael is loosing. Having been a resident of the Castro for five years, and also seeing the recent energy around his campaign, I completely disagree. Weiner is a formidable foe, amazing campaigner, but I think of my former neighbors. He can make it, but it means we need to do our part. This is so reminiscent of two years ago and I've got two words: Eric Mar.

I believe SEIU 1021 took no endorsement in D6.

Posted by B'Low on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 10:27 am

Well well. Looks like the chickens have come home to roost

SEIU-UHW has been exposed as one of the most hypocritical and despised organizations in California. They have been masquerading as defenders of basic human rights, such as healthcare, and a representative of working people. What a pile of crap!

The SEIU carpet baggers can no longer bamboozle the working poor in our communities and they certainly can't fool other union locals.

NUHW RISING! SEIU-UHW DROWNING!

Posted by Francisco Martinez on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Hey Francisco- did you see the results of the Kaiser vote? Whose drowning now?!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

Yes, money is being spent on Mandelman by the "progressive equivalent" in D8. But it's still significantly less than the $36,000 that the alliancespent on Wiener (according to the most recent filings, which run to September 30.)

But it pales in comparison to the $65, 000 the alliance spent on Moss in D10 (as of September 30.)

Or the $68,000 it spent on Sparks in D6 (as of September 30.)

Hell, at this rate (with four weeks to go) the alliance will end up spending more money in these races than the sum raised by all the other candidates.

Posted by sarah on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

What the fuck is your point, because you "claim" it it much less, does that make it any better or worse, is having less money better?

Then why are the Progressives trying to raise so much more money. Why did both Kim and Walker have so much more money than sparks, did you mention that? What are you trying to say here?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

Read today's Matier and Ross for an update!

Lynette Sweet in District 10

Tax problems: Could it be that Ms. Sweet's problem with receiving tax notices has
something to do with her residency? Does she actually live a substantial amount of
time in Bayview, as listed, or is she also an absentee candidate ?

Non-disclosure of income: Does the IRS have the the W-2's issued from Trans-Bay
and AANIL or does she receive an unreported 1099 as an independent contractor
or corporation?
 These questions leave a very sour taste in the mouths of District
10 voters.

The money: Lynette Sweet is backed solidly by Willie Brown and company. Look
at his activities and decide if she will be independent in managing District 10. It is
likely 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 10 years in District 10
overall ? How many since the election games began? Sweet is far removed from
what is happening here now and has no leadership credibility. Her candidacy is a
neighborhood joke that Willie Brown, Bevan Dufty, Amos Brown and Gavin Newsom
and others fail to grasp.

The IE question:
Sweet fundraising declarations do not square with the billboard expenditures in D10.
Where is this money coming from?

A few D10 election gaffes from Lynette Sweet:

- supports the renaming of Third Street for Willie Brown and suggests that Brown
would be her choice for interim mayor if Newsom wins in Nov.

- cites a law regarding against using cell phones while driving as something she
would have opposed !

- named the Oscar Grant family as an endorsement for her campaign-very bad
behavior and insulting to the tragedy that the Grant family has endured.

Sweet is just another candidate who is bought and paid for.
She and Moss should drop out Now.

reply
Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 11:07 am

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 8:30 pm

AGREED!

STOP SWEET & MOSS [WHINING] NOW

thank you

-DK

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

Dear Neighbors,

District 10 residents will witness significant pressures on population growth and land-use options in the coming decades. There are very few accomplished, dedicated, intellectually and emotionally mature local community leaders who have, for years, advocated for smart development, safe neighborhoods, healthy families, strong schools, support for local employment and who have earned respect from a diversity of our residents in Bayview, Potrero Hill and Visitacion Valley.
In Bayview, one verifiable resident homeowner, an honest, dedicated and smart community volunteer who heads a couple of neighborhood organizations, who also knows business and reads the fine print, has emerged as easily the most qualified and least controversial candidate in this election cycle. Her name is Kristine Enea, and she is running for Supervisor in District 10.
Drawing on her experiences as a lawyer, writer, filmmaker and community leader, Kristine has formed a plan to lead this district and to represent our D10 neighborhoods from a wider perspective. She is dedicated to building relationships that facilitate open and consistent “citizen to supervisor” communication throughout D10. Kristine has the “institutional memory” of the decades-long planning and development process, plus a familiarity and working relationship with various stakeholders within our neighborhoods. She can be relied upon to modulate the disparate and valued hopes and desires for our future. Kristine is a leader who will run interference on those who choose to “divide and conquer,” whether that behavior is exhibited as an unfortunate by-product of uncoordinated city agencies (Redevelopment, Planning, Transportation) or by outside development entities who play by their own rules. Such leadership has been absent in our district for the last decade.
From my personal questioning of her goals and vision for the district, I know that Kristine has a deeper understanding of the five most obvious and important issues: Crime and Public Safety; Health, Environment and Social Services;
Land-Use Planning and Housing; Education, Economic Development and Jobs; and Transportation, Muni, Traffic.

Yet, there are FIVE additional issues, which have rarely been discussed during any of the recent forums but are high on the priority list for Kristine Enea:

1. Re-Districting in D10 in 2012. Kristine Enea has pledged to retain the relationships and 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 Nonprofit allocation question in D10. Are the organizations receiving real money actually delivering significant services?

Please add your top five priorities to these lists and vet the candidates.

What we have heard throughout the district over the past number of months is a sobering reaction to the promotion of candidates with no community experience in this election cycle for District 10.
Kristine Enea, on the other hand, has the community history, the relationships, temperament and independence to serve us. I believe that she will bring a fresh and pragmatic perspective to getting things done.
I am supporting Kristine Enea for District 10 Supervisor and urge you to meet with her and to support her campaign for representing our communities.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dan Dodt
San Francisco

Kristine Enea –the details

Education:
B.A., Economics, UC Berkeley, 1988
M.B.A., UC Davis, 1992
J.D., UC Hastings College of the Law, 1993

Memberships:
California State Bar (1993-present)
SF Democratic Women’s Forum (2009-present)
SF Women’s Political Committee (2009-present)
World Affairs Council of Northern California (Boardmember 1994-1996)
Bayview: PAC (Secretary 2008-present)
RAB (Technical Committee Chair 2009)
Bayview Merchants Association (2008-present)
India Basin Neighborhood Association (Chair 2008-present)
SF Choral Society (Boardmember 1996-1999)
SF Bicycle Coalition (2009-present)

Tax, residency or ethical problems:
none

Posted by dan dodt on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:37 am

I have to speak up against Kristine Enea. She repeatedly got up to speak in favor of Lennar's Candlestick Hunters Point environmental impact report even though it scopes a reprehensible project plan that will likely kill hundreds of people over the next century.

The only position that is acceptable on that EIR is total opposition, and Kristine chose instead to fudge and wimp out, and speak on the supporters side.

District 10 needs a supervisor that will have the guts to stand up -strongly- for what is right.

Kristine Enea does not fit that description.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 10:34 am

I live right down the street from the Shipyard. I have as much at stake as anyone in making sure it's remediated and responsibly developed. That's why I've attended more than 500 community meetings over the past five years, studied the Shipyard plans extensively, and served as Technical Chair of the RAB. My conclusion is that leftover contamination is not going to kill anyone. It's just the opposite - the promise of development is what finally got the Navy off the dime. Were it not for the development plans, we'd be living next to a contaminated wasteland for the next thirty years.

That said, I've never been a rubber stamp for Lennar and never will be. I gave them and the Mayor's Office as hard a time as anyone over how they railroaded the public process and shamefully exploited the need to rebuild Alice Griffith to get their entitlements; I led the Bayview PAC's "no" vote on that sole source request. I pointed out repeatedly the environmental risk of pollution from funneling all of the Shipyard traffic down one residential street. That's why I spoke in favor of approving the project *only with an amendment and/or supplemental EIR to conduct comprehensive transportation planning.* Reducing the discussion to bridge-or-no-bridge shortchanges everyone.

While I appreciate Eric's perspective and commitment to environmental justice in the Southeast Sector, a simplistic "yes-or-no" on the Shipyard is not the right litmus test for moral integrity. From the beginning, my position on the Shipyard has been nuanced, even though nuance is politically dangerous. At the end of the day, based on all the research I'd done and after pushing as hard as I could to improve the plans, I ended up at the same place I started: the community will be better off with the Shipyard development than without it.

I believe my position is right, and I had the guts to stand up at City Hall and say so. What would have been wimpy was to not say anything at all.

Posted by Kristine Enea on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 10:19 am

Mr. Brooks,
The macro view on this is 'clean-up' of the shipyard.
Developer presence is less relevant than what influence
SF (and I'm not talking about the BOS) has in making a case
for deeper funds allocated to rid the place, if ever, of 'exotic toxins'.
Life and politics often present us with un-tidy choices.
I don't see another candidate in D10 other than Enea as well versed
on the history or current moves.

Posted by dan dodt on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:17 am

Give me a break Dan. Your statement about Enea is complete nonsense. Tony Kelly, a candidate whose position on Lennar and the Shipyard is rock solid, knows just as much or more than Enea does on that issue, and in general has far more experience making real neighborhood progress -happen- in D-10.

And Nyese Joshua and Espanola Jackson know the Lennar landscape like the back of their hands!

Chris Jackson (though because of his Labor Council support has also been -far- too weak on Lennar) knows the issue cold, and on other issues, has a more leftward stand than Enea's all too timid posture.

Even my current election cycle nemesis Eric Smith (a clear Lennar supporter) is very well versed on the Shipyard issue.

You must know this stuff from your interactions with Pat, so why are you blogging this hyperbolic white wash on behalf of Enea?

If Enea has a good record on other issues portray -it- instead of grasping at straws to gloss over her obvious deep weakness on the Lennar question.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:24 am

The correct way to debate an issue is an attempt to take apart the issue. Your responses indicate that you've obviously missed my point in favor of your need to rant about some perceived and personal transgression.

For your files:
. I know Tony Kelly, Tony Kelly is a friend of mine. Mr. Brooks, you don't know your history, in my opinion.
. Espanola and I have worked on a number of issues over the past 25 years or so. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not. I respect her passion for my community.
. My knowledge of the shipyard is not derived from outsiders; I've lived 8 blocks west of the place for 30 years.
. At least three of the individuals you cite in your complaint have suggested that I not waste my time in responding to you. I will now take that advice.

no breaks, in my opinion. get it?

Posted by dan dodt on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

Some D10 candidates have ducked clean-up questions by claiming that the Lennar development is a done deal--when the Navy's plan for the cleanup is a work in progress, and the city's EIR for the shipyard is being challenged in court.

But now comes the real time news that the Schlage Lock site in Visitacion Valley is more toxic then previously thought. According to C.L.A.E.R.'s Sharen Hewitt, a notice went out to local residents last Friday stating "ongoing soil testing has revealed the presence of volatile organic compounds". Hope someone asks the candidates about that at their next debate...

Posted by sarah on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:57 am

I don't understand why they (downtown $$) is giving Moss so much money. The dude is a proven (and documented) crook. They are just giving him $$ for attorney fees - which we all know is going to happen sooner or latter. Why pour $$ on a sinking ship??

If I was in that union I would be pissed off!

Posted by Girl on the hill on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

In her blog “Downtown money hits district races,” Sarah Phelan attacks SEIU-UHW for its support of certain district supervisor candidates she considers “not progressive” enough. In so doing, Phelan fails to grasp the fundamental democratic principle that guides our organization—namely, that SEIU-UHW members make the decisions and are the driving force behind any political support we offer.

Phelan repeatedly refers to some undefined progressive movement to which SEIU-UHW’s political agenda ought to be beholden. SEIU-UHW, however, is beholden not to political abstractions but to our members in San Francisco, including the 22,000 IHSS members who provide home care services to tens of thousands of low-income seniors and people with disabilities, and to creating jobs and supporting the interests of working people. It is these workers and thousands of other SEIU-UHW members in San Francisco who define our political agenda—not the self-anointed arbiters of what is and isn’t progressive, be it Aaron Peskin or a Bay Guardian blogger.

Further, SEIU-UHW will not support any politician who arrogantly interferes in the internal affairs of our organization or who supports the disgraced former leaders of our union who were unanimously found by a San Francisco jury to have caused great harm to our members, and ordered to pay $1.57 million in damages.

Phelan also wrongly depicts SEIU-UHW as a renegade within the labor movement for its participation in the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth. The alliance is, in fact, a broad-based coalition featuring a number of other unions—including Laborers’ Local 261, Plumbers’ and Pipefitters’ Local 38, and Carpenters’ Local 22—and is working with many others who have endorsed the same candidates. Like SEIU-UHW, each of these organizations has a proud history of improving the lives of workers.

In short, SEIU-UHW’s commitment is to our members, their patients and clients, and to the working people of San Francisco. We support the creation of good jobs in California and the continued job security of our 1,100 members who work for California Pacific Medical Center. SEIU-UHW’s political backing during this election season accurately reflects these commitments and the opinions of working people who are members of our union.

Leon Chow
Director of External Affairs
SEIU-UHW

Posted by Leon Chow on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

Phelan is upset that the union is spending dues on politics. She is real bugged that the union might not be spending members dues on progressive enough politics.

Its OK if the union spends non progressive union members dues money on any half baked bullshit, but it's an outrage to spend it on anything less than a gold star progressive.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

I'm glad Leon Chow posted something, but I'm still waiting for him to explain why he is working with the Chamber which has a long history of fighting labor. (I called him last week and have still not heard back, so give me a call, Leon, and let's chat!). For instance, I'm curious to learn how many of his members live in D10, D8 and D6--the districts where the alliance is spending its ungodly gobs of money--and if they support local hiring policies.

And before you get excited Matlock, the same question holds true for all the unions that are spending money on these campaigns.

Just last month, I saw a bunch of African American workers picketing construction companies at UCSF Mission Bay, in D10, in a desperate bid to get those companies to hire local residents. And more than half of San Francisco's workforce already lives outside city limits. This means these folks contribute to creating greenhouse gas emissions each time they commute to work. I'm not blaming the workers. But I do think that folks who want to be the next supervisor should address San Francisco's failure to build enough truly affordable housing,  along with its questionable use of gang injunctions, and its seemingly illogical demand that public housing residents (most of whom have no savings) pay thousands and thousands of dollars in back rent. Because these three policies are happening as the outmigration of San Francisco's black community--and the displacement of other low-income communities and families with children--goes unchecked.

Because if candidates and their supporters aren't willing to address these critical issues head-on, then their claims to be committed to sustainable, environmentally just and diversity-protective policies sound like hot air to me.

Instead, they appear to be planning for a city with no children or poor people, but plenty of million-dollar condos and expensive hospital beds.

 

Posted by sarah on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

there are really only four choices:

Kelly
Cohen
Enea
Lacy

sweet is tainted.
moss is questionable.
jackson is not credible.
the remainder are, in some cases (including eric's) unfortunately, not in serious contention

Posted by D 10 voter on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

How about a simple " I Support Civility"

Print up 836,000 copies and distribute immediately
Spread the word. Do the work. Become a citizen.

Posted by Joe Citizen, San Francisco on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

Thanks so much Leon for coming to our district and throwing your cash at someone who is not only questionable but probably a crook.

You just want to advance your members cause and with anyone you can buy, Moss is the perfect candidate who has laced his pockets with $4m in taxpayer dollars and not a job to show.

You are a disgrace to labor and frankly I an many will now vote against your members for screwing our district.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2010 @ 6:12 pm