Willie Brown and accusations of machine politics in D6


A political mailer promoting progressive supervisorial candidate Jane Kim was funded primarily by former Mayor Willie Brown through a campaign committee that Kim consultant Enrique Pearce helped start and which was located in his office, the latest strange development in a race that is dividing the progressive movement at a crucial moment and prompting a nasty public debate over political “machines.”

It's illegal for campaigns to coordinate activities with independent expenditure committees such as New Day for SF, which put out the glossy mailer proclaiming “Another renter supports Jane Kim for District 6 Supervisor” and calling her “The people's candidate.” The most recent campaign finance statements, filed Oct. 4, listed the group's treasurer as USF student Brent Robinson and the contact number being that of Pearce's Left Coast Communications, where Robinson worked.

Pearce told the Guardian that he was involved in starting New Day for SF, but that he severed ties with the group and Robinson “about a month ago” when it seemed they might support Kim. “When it started to go down that path, we said that we can't do that,” Pearce said, adding that he didn't know why the forms still listed his phone number or why the receptionist in his office took a message for Robinson from the Guardian, although Pearce said they share a receptionist with other organizations. On Oct. 5, a day after the intial filing, the group filed a form to amend Robinson's phone number.

The campaign finance form shows the group raised $9,200, including $5,000 from Brown on Sept. 30 and $2,500 from Twenty-Two Holdings LLC, which last year applied for a liquor license for the Wunder Brewing Co. Robinson did not return our calls for comment.

The Bay Guardian and other progressive voices used to decry the corrosive influence on San Francisco politics of the Democratic Party political machine established by Brown and former California Senate President (and current state party chair) John Burton. Although that machine is dormant now, the concept of machine politics has been revived in this election cycle by Kim and her allies, adding an ironic note to her support by Brown.

“I'm not a part of anyone's machine and I'm certainly not a part of anyone's master plan,” Kim declared during her June 24 campaign kickoff party, where Brown and former Mayor Art Agnos made an appearance. When I highlighted the remark in my coverage of the event, and its inference that Kim's progressive rival Debra Walker was supported by a budding progressive political machine, it triggered a raging political debate about the concept that continues this day.

The nastiest salvos in that debate have recently been fired at the Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee – accusing us of being part of a political machine supporting Walker and excluding Kim (who got the Guardian's #2 endorsement) – by Randy Shaw on his Beyond Chron blog. Shaw is one of two staff writers on the blog, along with Paul Hogarth, a Democratic Party activist and Kim campaign volunteer.

Shaw founded and runs the nonprofit Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which has millions of dollars in city contracts to administer SRO leases through Mayor Gavin Newsom's Care Not Cash and other programs. He started BeyondChron a few years ago with seed money from Joe O'Donoghue, who was then president of the Residential Builders Association, a developer group that has sometimes clashed with Walker in her capacity as a member of the city's Building Inspection Commission.

On Oct. 5 and then again on Oct. 12, Shaw wrote and prominently posted long stories promoting Kim's candidacy and attacking us and the DCCC for not supporting her more strongly. In the first one, “In District 6, Jane Kim takes on the machine,” Shaw defended Burton but shared the Guardian's criticism of how Brown behaved as mayor.

“Brown’s power was strictly personal, as became clear when his chosen Supervisor candidates were defeated in the 2000 elections,” Shaw wrote, criticizing political machines and writing that the progressive political movement is not “served when those seeking to run for office feel they must choose between 'playing ball' with political insiders and giving up their dreams.”

But is it possible that Shaw's strident campaigning against Walker – indeed, his protege Hogarth planned to challenge Walker before Kim decided to get into the race – was prompted by Walker's unwillingness to “play ball” with Shaw and his RBA backers? Should we be concerned that it's actually Shaw who's trying to build his own little political machine?

I've tried to discuss these issues with Shaw and Hogarth, including sending them a detailed list of questions (as has Guardian Executive Editor Tim Redmond), but they've been unwilling to respond, just as they were unwilling to contact us before writing two divisive hit pieces that were riddled with inaccuracies that they've refused to correct.

I've also left messages with Kim and others in her campaign to discuss machine politics and its implications – as well as Sup. Chris Daly, asking about the sometimes close relations that some progressive supervisors have had with Shaw and RBA developers over the years [UPDATE BELOW] – and we're waiting to hear back.

But Pearce said voters shouldn't read too much into a relatively small political contribution from Willie Brown, or from the “colorful writing” of Randy Shaw, emphasizing Kim's independence and saying that was always what she intended to stress when she raised the specter of machine politics tainting the race.

“Randy Shaw is not a part of this campaign, and Willie Brown is certainly not a part of this campaign,” Pearce told us. In fact, Pearce even noted that his office is not a part of the Kim campaign, that they're merely consultants to it. And he offered his hopes and belief that in 19 days when this campaign is over, progressives would overcome their differences and find a common agenda again. Let's hope so.

UPDATE: Daly and I just connected and he had an interesting take on all this. He noted that when Brown was mayor, the base that he brought together included the RBA, Rose Pak and the Chinatown power brokers (who also seem to be backing Kim, who used to work as an activist/organizer in that community), and, improbably, both Labor and Downtown.

"But that's not Gavin's alignment, his alignment is just downtown. The RBA guys hate Gavin, mostly just because of who is is, a silver spoon guy who never worked a day in his life," Daly said. So Matt Gonzalez, the board president who ran against Newsom in 2003, formed an alliance with the RBA and O'Donoghue, who already had a long relationship with Shaw, both personal and financial.

Daly also said that he thinks it's a personality clash more than anything else that is driving Shaw's opposition to Walker: "He just doesn't like Debra." In turn, that sort of personality-based politics -- more than any differences in ideology, vision, or qualifications -- is souring people in the two political camps on one another as this close election enters the home stretch. But will those resentments linger after this election? Probably, Daly said, although he plans to actively try to mediate the divide once the dust clears on this race.

"Luckily, we have a lot of young people entering the progressive movement," Daly said. "There's always a rejuvenation going on and one day the new leaders will be like, 'Why do that guy and that guy hate each other?' 'I don't know, I think it had something to do with the 2010 election."


If a progressive campaign is being puppeteered by Willie Brown, how progressive can that campaign be?

And there he is, being the same old Willie: unethical behavior, violating campaign rules, skirting the law, setting up dubious financial accounts, etc.

The Kim campaign has a lot to answer for.

Posted by progressively poor on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

So Da Mayor is back. Get ready for big downtown money in D6!

It's like the 90's all over again.

Posted by manys on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

maybe jane kim didnt know what willie brown was doing

Posted by marleymarley on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

At least we're not bored!


Posted by marcos on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

are you writing this to attack jane kim for being supported by willie brown or to defend yourself against a bloggers inaccurate postings?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

Perhaps a bit of both. Frankly, I just didn't understand Randy's attacks, which seemed to smack of self-interest, particulary given his various financial interests, from THC to this history museum he's trying to build. And when I discovered this Willie Brown thing, well, it all just seems a little strange and unsettling. I'd like to see Jane and Randy address this stuff directly, publicly, in true progressive fashion, and lay to rest any doubts about their motives. 

Posted by steven on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:23 am

it is illegal for an IE campaign piece to look like the real campaign. Shows coordination. Worsely, if you look at the recent campaign filing, Robinson's email is STILL Left Coast Communications. this is totally illegal and probably the end of Enrique's career.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

I don't think that there are any restrictions on an IE producing literature that looks like that of the candidate campaign, so long as there is no coordination and the FPPC requirements are met, the IE declares and discloses.

There are downtown-oriented political consultants which have tacitly admitted to coordination but never get busted. These consultants have historically been close to Willie Brown. Perhaps that is why they don't get busted. Perhaps that might apply in this case as well?


Posted by marcos on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 8:09 pm


It doesn't look like they properly declared or disclosed - not on the mail, not with Ethics.

It's not listed anywhere on the Commission's Third Party Disclosure listings: http://bit.ly/96Rlsv

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 10:34 pm

Steve Jones called me this mid-afternoon. When he called, I was emceeing the Senior Action Network 20th Anniversary event. After that, I was in Committee in the main Board Chambers from 3:30 until 5pm. I retuned Steve Jones call at 5:53pm.

If Steve Jones wants to talk to me about "the sometimes close relations that some progressive supervisors have had with Shaw and RBA developers over the years," he can find me at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Otherwise, to report that he "left me a message" and "is waiting to hear back" is a bunch of bullshit.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 1:18 am

1. Complaining about his treatment in the Guardian? After ten years of being servile apologist for Daly's idiotic antics?

2. And Chris Daly is complaining that someone is uninformed on a point and just blabbered on anyways?

Everyday is the first day of year zero.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 5:20 am

He is right though, this is written in a misleading way. How long have you been waiting for these folks to return your calls? Will you update the story when/if they do? Also, for us not so familiar with the brief background, why did O'Donoghue clash with Walker? I am a resident in the tenderloin and have been trying to figure out who to voter for, but this kind of reporting is making me even more unsure...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 7:12 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 7:48 am

Bay Citizen is starting to really stand out. The reporting is good, the writing is good, and it's unbiased.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 10:30 am

With all due respect to the Bay Citizen, which does good work, I was the one who discovered this apparent campaign finance violation and reported it here five hours before Bay Citizen, which had nothing in their story that I didn't have in mine, except non-commital comments from Kim and St. Croix.

Posted by steven on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Also, @"He is right though" guest, if you follow the link I included on Joe O'Donoghue's name then you can read past Guardian reporting on his conflict with Walker and others.

Posted by steven on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 11:31 am

It's true that Chris Daly called me back a few hours after I called him, and when I returned that call, he called me again a few hours later. We finally just talked and I'll update my post.

Posted by steven on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:54 am


On the O'Donoghue/Walker clash. It began when Joe's people were clear-cutting and building the phony live/work structures SOMA that followed their 'Richmond Specials' of the preceding decades (guy's gotta eat). Joe and his RBA were rolling along with little opposition with the notable exception of two LGBT ladies named Debra Walker and Krissy Keefer (who later ran for congress against Pelosi). Joe and his thugs threatened the ladies who were protesting the planned destruction of a dance studio. It was reported and blackened his name and he's hated them since. Keefer still runs a big dance studio (Dance Mission) and Walker has remained in the public eye. In her year's on the DBI Commission Debra never blinked when O'Donoghue/Willie/Gavin commissioners attacked her relentlessly. Their number one ally? That would be Randy Shaw.

Go Giants!


Posted by Guest h. brown on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 8:25 am

@matlock - You don't know shit about fuck...

But I do.

Even though I have consistently scored the highest on the Bay Guardian report card, I've never received the deference that they've given to many others. Even in their first endorsement of me, the Guardian felt it necessary to take me to task for style (which, of course, was used on a mailer against me.) They've never really understood that this is battle, and you do what you need to do to deliver for your people. The Bay Guardian lacks political discipline and probably will never get it.

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 8:44 am

They might have a job for you when termed out.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 11:08 am

>>>@matlock - You don't know shit about fuck.<<< Perfectly said Chris and a most accurate assessment. That person's name is one of the names in my comment filter so I have the pleasure of not reading anything he writes. Regards Chris.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

You are the shit on Dalys shoes, your fawning and servile ass kissing will get you no where with this Daly's ego. Keep trying, maybe he will notice your servility.

Posted by matlocl on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

it's nearly 10am, and I am still waiting for Steve Jones to return my call from yesterday. Typically, I wouldn't be bothered by his delayed response, but I know what a stickler he is on this subject!

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 8:52 am

This is bad. Jane Kim and her people are in over their heads to let something like this happen.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:52 am

I am so grateful that finally someone in the press has called out Enrique Pierce and the Jane Kim campaign / staff for their unethical and SHADY tactics. Pierce and his staff person Sunny Angulo, (Jane Kim campaign manager) have been going around for years calling everyone elitists, claiming they don't pass the progressive litmus test. What a crock! There is nothing progressive about setting up a carpetbagger to run, funded by Rose Pak / Walter Wong + Willie Brown, all while breaking the law. SHAME! To top it off they are race baiting any group or person who does not endorse or support Jane Kim. These are the most vile, bottom feeder, despicable tactics I could ever imagine. Calling it "Progressive" all the while? Please, don't come back around later and ask why people think progressives are a joke! District elections and carpetbagging CANNOT go hand in hand. Let's keep it real people, this is the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:53 am

I am thermonuclear pissed. I believed in her. I walked a precinct for her in the TL last Saturday and now I have to haul my ass over to Debra Walker and say I'm sorry.

I want an apology from JK.

Posted by Orlando Chavez Jr. on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 10:00 am

Don't lie to me,

You're all loving this and so am I. I said at the very beginning of this race that Jim Meko was far and away the best candidate and suggested his campaign motto be: 'No drama!'. The district doesn't need to be the stepping stone for carpetbaggers or in the debt of the D Triple C.

My walking stick says:




on the other side it says:


Go Giants!


Posted by Guest h. brown on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 10:14 am

Very simple: she is smarter, knows how to build coalitions, and her campaign is actually outreaching to voters door to door.

I'd be happy with Walker but I think Kim is a better candidate.

As for the Shaw/Guardian flame war, I don't care about it. This article raises interesting questions about independent expenditures and the people who fund them.

I don't know about you but Willie Brown doesn't scare me anymore.

Posted by Reason People Like Kim oVer Walker on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 11:01 am

And yeah, you sure don't know about me.

I'm scared when a progressive gets called out for ethics violations.
I'm scared when a progressive gets in bed with the bête noire of the progressive movement.

And the notion that Kim's campaign is the only one canvassing is demonstrably false. Walker's canvassers are everywhere.

I'd be happy with Walker, too. But this article doesn't raise interesting questions. It answers them.

Posted by slappy on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

She's not smart enough to keep from breaking the law.

And her "coalition building" is exactly what we're afraid of. We don't want downtown in our coalition. If you can't wrap your head around why, you shouldn't call yourself a progressive.

Posted by ohheygreat on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

"Luckily, we have a lot of young people entering the progressive movement," Daly said. "There's always a rejuvenation going on and one day the new leaders will be like, 'Why do that guy and that guy hate each other?' 'I don't know, I think it had something to do with the 2010 election."

They move here because where they lived supposedly sucks and no one will listen to the crazy non sense college professors convinced them was revealed gospel. These "young people entering the progressive movement" tell us all how to live for a couple of years, then move to Fairfield which hasn't been ruined by their policies.

At least born again Christians stay put.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 11:17 am

"... when Brown was mayor, the base that he brought together included the RBA, Rose Pak and the Chinatown power brokers (who also seem to be backing Kim ..."

and who were the progressives fighting against when we came to power in 2000 if not this exact group?

shit, why not just run joe o'donohue as supervisor for d6 and drop the fig leaf?

Posted by lensiprocity on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

from what i understand, directly from jane, when paul heard her describe her grasp of the issues and direction she would like to take district 6, he was so impressed he decided not to run and to support her instead.

take that for what it's worth but i believed it.

i think a lot of d6'rs have a hard time deciding between jane, theresa and debra and the current process of 12 plus candidates until the bitter end did us no service by not having the three of them debate each other for 90 minute sessions.

i admire the rest of you for trying but this is serious shit!

there has only been 3 real candidates for some time and the rest of you just diluted and distracted a very important process from being brought to it's extremely important end.

Posted by jashsf on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

My 3 choices on my ballot mailed in yesterday were:
1) Jim Meko
2) Debra Walker
3) James Keys

I have no doubts about the loyalties of Jim, Debra, and James to the people of District 6.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

This is off-topic for D6. But Mark Leno is now adding to the lies and deceptions. Since there's not a "current" article about Wiener I'm choosing to put this post here. I just received a robocall from Mark Leno calling to "Set things straight on Scott Wiener's record on rent control and health care. These are the facts. Scott Wiener will fight to..." That's where the message ended. The recorded message got cut off there, but I thought I heard Leno say that Wiener will fight to keep rent control. Who would believe that considering the support and backing Wiener is receiving from the real estate industry, homeowners, Building Owners and Mangers Association and Small Property Owners. More lies and deception. Wiener opposes slowing the loss of rent-controlled housing by maintaining existing restrictions on condo conversions and opposes rent control for all units and opposes stopping the demolition of rent controlled units. Wiener is also a homeowner, not a renter. The Tenants Times wrote (August 2010) that both Prozan and Wiener flunked their Tenants Union questionnaires. So Mark Leno, please save your lies and deceptions for people who will believe them. NO to Scott Wiener. NO on Prop L. Yes on Prop M.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

Wow, what a revealing thread!

Look at all these people who call themselves progressives - acting just like petty Republican schemers in a small town in Ohio.

Whatever happened to the inspiring visions of SF progressivism? The intelligence? The eloquence? The benevolence?

Answer below -

The politicians have co-opted it all.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

This disgusting troll, who tirelessly labels whole groups of people he has never met as "packs of migratory addicts and alcoholics", "squatters", and "narco nomads", is deserving of neither civility nor respect.
His latest transparent efforts to bring attention to himself and stave off the meaninglessness of his own existence as a lonely old has been, and a philosopher so useless that no one has heard of him unless he told them himself, are deserving of ridicule for their utter self centeredness and his willingness to trade the rights and well being of his neighbors for a fleeting sense of power and attention.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

Brothers and sisters, please stop fighting. Debra and Jane would both be bona fide true progressives.

The downtown corporate interests are licking their chops and laughing in their martinis as they read this.

Don't buckle under, folks. Rank the progressives 1-2-3 in any order you please, and a good candidate will win no matter what. And we will all support her.

But stop bickering with each other. It only chips away at our progressive unity and fight for the people.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

The downtown corporate interests ARE campaigning for Jane Kim. It's right there in black & white on the Ethics Committee website.

What part of "Willie Brown breaking campaign laws for Jane Kim" do you not understand?

Being a Progressive means something. You can't pervert the definition of the word and then march under the banner and expect not to be called on it. No one should vote for candidate who owes favors to Willie. And no one should vote for a candidate who breaks the law before they're even elected.

Don't trivialize this discussion as an attack on "unity." That's complete horseshit.

A good candidate will NOT win no matter what. Her campaign is under an active investigation. This is San Francisco, not The United Utopia of Pollyanna.

And by the way, I love martinis. Best value for your booze dollar after a Long Island Iced Tea.

Posted by orlistat on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 5:13 pm

if the people elect the wrong "the people," its not for the people?

Posted by matlock on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

@ orlistat

What part of "Willie Brown breaking campaign laws for Jane Kim" do you not understand? Add to your quote ' ..and Brown's support of Lynette Sweet in D10...
do you not understand? Wrap it up with Willie for 6 and 10 and those districts are doomed.
Sweet 'forgot to report' $120k worth of income; will she 'forget to report' the IE flowing in the D10 race?

Posted by D 10 votes on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

Couldn't have said it better myself. At least Sweet doesn't deny she's indebted to Brown.

And what with Prozan as a dyed-in-the-wool Brown administration official, and Scott Wiener being almost worse, you've got a hat trick of influence.

We better hope Janet pulls it off in D2. No love lost between the Reillys and Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. But if he can manage to squeeze a few favors from Mark Farrell, who's only running 5 points behind, then suddenly his Willie-ness is back in business with the Board of Supervisors.

He probably has his eye on the development for BART/Mission street corridor from 16th to 24th. That's just his size.

Posted by orlistat on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 6:01 pm


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 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.

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 7:38 am

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

The silence from Fog City Journal and Beyond Chron is deafening.

Posted by lensiprocity on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

Like Soviet TV, Beyondchron is beaming cultural programming into the web browsers of its loyal readership while they figure out how to spin Enrique and Willie's failure to cover tracks, just like when the dictator finally died, Soviet TV would interrupt its political broadcasts to beam somber music into the workers' hovels.


Posted by marcos on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:20 pm

Guess I will not expect a peep about this from the San Francisco Chronicle since Willie Brown is their employee ...


Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

San Francisco Chronicle

Ms. Sweet's failure to report income, residency questions and tax snafus do not fit with an endorsement from your publication.
Supervisor Maxwell's own absence of leadership in the district may explain her inability to understand that Sweet is just not a viable
quantity in the district. We suggest that you counter the Chronicle's endorsement via your own expert reporting. Be brave. Write the truth.

District 10 voters (in numbers)


Subject: Re: Why DISTRICT 10 is NOT supporting Lynette Sweet

sophie maxwell's message to the district. community comments in BOLD. pass it on.

From: Supervisor Sophie Maxwell [mailto:info@sweetforsupervisor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:04 AM
Subject: Why I'm supporting Lynette Sweet

Dear ,

It has been my honor to serve San Francisco and District 10 as Supervisor for the past decade. In that time I have made it my work to empower HOW DID YOU DO THIS, SOPHIE? all our communities to help them create the complete neighborhoods that they envision, from Potrero Hill to Visitacion Valley.

Today I am proud to announce my support for a community leader who will carry on this critical work, Lynette Sweet. I have known Lynette and worked with her for many years, from her tenure on the Redevelopment Commission to the Taxi Commission and now as a BART Director and I have seen her commitment to our city and our district first hand. Most importantly, she has proved WHAT DID SHE PROVE, SOPHIE? that she understands the leadership and resources required to empower people to build strong communities.

Lynette and I share the same commitment to helping our neighborhood leaders build the communities they want. As a leader LEADER of WHAT, SOPHIE? from Bayview Hunters Point, she has been a champion for increased economic opportunity for her community. She understands the critical need to support other neighborhood leaders WHO, HOW and WHEN, specifically, SOPHIE? and residents from all parts of the district to help them build the communities they wish to see also.

Lynette understands that good leadership begins with listening LISTENING, TO WHOM?. As Supervisor she will serve neighborhood groups like the Visitacion Valley Planning Alliance, India Basin Waterfront neighbors and others who understand best OTHERS WHO UNDERSTAND BEST? OTHERS from OTHER PARTS OF TOWN ?what their communities need and how to deliver the resources they require.

There are many candidates in this race YES, and and one or two who can LEAD from a position of KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE and HONESTY, but only one who I believe best embodies the spirit of this district and that is Lynette Sweet. I know Lynette will continue to champion for our neighbors and neighborhoods, not an ideological agenda let's talk about LYNETTE's hiding of $ 120,000 worth of income, residency, tax problems, etc. . She will continue to help our communities build the neighborhoods we all wish to see.

I hope you’ll join me in voting for Lynnette Sweet on November 2nd.
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

Posted by D 10 votes on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:11 pm

I see you use critical thinking skills when you approach this stuff. You're not supposed to do that you know. You're supposed to read what they give you and not question it. Speaking of critical thinking skills I'm going to write about D8 for a moment. Scott Wiener has this on his website....>>>Scott helped provide leadership to create the new 17th Street Plaza at 17th and Market Streets. <<< According to the Bay Area Reporter of February 18th 2010, the cost of the 17th Street Plaza in it's final form was $56,500. This is what they wrote...>>>The $56,500 capital improvement grant from the city's Office of Economic and Workforce Development will fund new landscaping, concrete planters, and a textured pavement. <<< I liked the idea of the plaza from the beginning but in its current form I'm less enthusiast about it because of how it turned out. I almost liked the trial plaza better. For the final plaza, the textured pavement they put down resembled cat litter and it was tracking like cat litter when they put it down. It's a white or cream color. Why would they use that color for a walking area? It looks pretty badly now with black stains on it. I thought they were going to somehow lay brick or clay tiles for the "floor" of the plaza so that side (the plaza side) would match the other side of the street where the entrance to the muni metro is. The clay planters are beautiful on the Orphan Andy’s side, but the unpainted cement planters look ugly. I talked with a respected contractor I know and he said someone got ripped off if they paid $56,500 for THAT. The chairs and tables couldn't have cost much. I've seen some restaurants using them on their sidewalks. So did Wiener provide "leadership" for the final plaza? How did he do that? What kind of "leadership?" That's real vague. If so, his "leadership" is to be questioned.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

I have certainly noticed the enormous waste of paper for campaign fliers for just this campaign alone. Pounds per household have been used. None of it printed on recycled paper, even from progressives. I'm Internet-based and not mailbox-based so I went to my mailbox today (it had been a few days since I had cleared it out) and there was a huge pile of mainly campaign fliers. After I screened it, it all went into the recycling bin torn up. The candidates represented by the fliers: Wiener had most of it and one from Prozan. Mandelman was a no-show in this batch. Leno has a flier endorsing Wiener with the claim that Wiener is pro-tenant and "will fight to protect rent control." All of this campaign literature is such a big waste of paper, most of it very slick glossy paper and heavy card stock. So very wasteful...and each election is like this.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

Hi Bárbara, I've been using Green Postcards in India Basin for my campaign materials - recycled paper, union shop, small business in my district.
They're great!

Posted by Kristine Enea on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 12:16 pm