Who's your candidate for mayor? Vote today


If the mayor's race were held today, who would be your top choice?


Free polls from Go2poll.com


David Chiu

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

I just want to remind those of you who polled for Chiu and Herrera what their grim realities are.

David Chiu: Besides his deep betrayals of progressives, Chiu has consistently supported big corporate interests. Two big cases: He was the orchestrator of the weak last minute amendment process which guaranteed that Lennar's disastrous, toxic, gentrifying, Bayview Hunters Point Phase II project has gone forward. And, of course, he just supported the ridiculous Twitter Tax Break sellout.

Dennis Herrera: In 2006, Herrera completely trashed our democracy and the U.S. Constitution, throwing out 33,000 petition signatures, which Bayview residents had gathered, to put Lennar's toxic Bayview Hunters Point mega-condo project up for a public vote. Herrera's decision set the disastrous anti-democratic precedent that when a community is gathering signatures to fight a large development plan, each signature gatherer must absurdly carry (along with the petition) the entire project plan for potential signers to read. Since most big development plans are the size of several large yellow page phone books, this will make such petition drives impossible in California. A corrupt court of appeals upheld Herrera's decision... Herrera also very conveniently filed San Francisco's legal challenge of PG&E's anti clean-energy anti community-power Prop 16, exactly one day too late for it to be taken up by election officials. Herrera is a high end lawyer who simply doesn't -make- mistakes like that. And that means he likely did it on purpose, getting his marching orders directly from PG&E...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

Chiu's polling #2 on this Avalos biased poll and Brooks is running scared.

You wanna throw Mirk and Campos under the bridge too? They also voted for the Lennar project. How dare Chiu find compromise, the outrage!!!

By the way, what exactly was the Green Party plan for keeping Twitter in San Francisco? In fact, what's the Green Party's plan for creating jobs period?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

Yup. Mirkarimi and Campos fucked up bad. No doubt about it.

Lennar is a very powerful corporation, and has control of the SF Labor Council; a state of affairs which rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) scares the hell out of most local politicians.

But it was Chiu who -crafted- the ass covering resolution that he, they, and others then took cover under.

Chiu was the instigator.

Furthermore, Mirkarimi and Campos on most other votes have been rock solid, especially in the infamous interim mayor debacle.

So Chiu wins the elect-me-at-your-peril prize hands down.

And of course I am concerned that Chiu and Herrera have a shot at this. Chiu less so, but even with him, it doesn't pay to mess with such a danger. Being complacent would be foolish. So I am doing what it takes to help inform voters of who exactly they're dealing with.

Running scared isn't in my repertoire.

This is about doing my job to push for true progressive gains in San Francisco, and to help put a stop to David Chiu's fake and dangerous Newsom-esque game of Three Card Monty.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:05 pm

What's the point of creating jobs if they don't generate business tax and don't employ unemployed San Franciscans?

Are there any economic studies that quantify the public benefits of creating such jobs?

David Chiu just wants to give corporations welfare and hope for the best, the best being David Chiu.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

"Chiu was the instigator.

Furthermore, Mirkarimi and Campos on most other votes have been rock solid, especially in the infamous interim mayor debacle."

So was Chiu for the most part. If you actually did a vote by vote tally of how many times he voted the progressive side, it would paint a very different picture than how some progressives have painted him.

"What's the point of creating jobs if they don't generate business tax and don't employ unemployed San Franciscans?"

That's not true because Twitter still has to pay the payroll tax it currently pays, it would only be exempt for the new jobs it creates. If Twitter left, we would of had neither the payroll tax revenue they currently pay or the sales taxes their employees will pay. Also, how can you say that Twitter expanding in SF won't employ San Franciscans? Why would they only higher non-San Franciscans?

Also, nobody's answered my question, so I'll ask again. What was the progressive plan for keeping Twitter in SF, and what about job creation? All I see are complaints about SF losing payroll tax revenue for jobs that would have left SF anyway.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 11:10 pm

The technical percentage of Chiu's previous votes is not the issue. The issue is that he betrayed us at a key moment and that has led to votes on key issues, much more often than before, turning against us. And he is now allied with Downtown meaning that if he gets into the Mayor's office, things will get even worse. There's no way we're going to tolerate that crap.

The progressive position on Twitter - Is not to be stupid enough to allow corporations to shove the city around and extort money they don't need out of the taxpayers - all in a never ending race to the bottom that other corporations have now latched onto like vampires.

Twitter isn't even worth it. It's business model is a joke that won't last 3 more years.

(Which is exactly why it pulled this move on us, so it can gouge us as much as it can before it bails out of San Francisco.)

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 12:26 am

You don't have to tolerate anything, but casting Chiu out further is not going to help the progressive cause either. Both sides need his swing vote, but only the moderates have the common sense to play ball with him. It's like trying to win to win the presidency without winning the midwest, it's impossible. The fact is, Chiu holds key swing votes in his sway, and failing to negotiate with him will only lead to more failure for the progressive camp.

On Twitter, your math is fuzzy. Twitter can't gouge or extort us for jobs that wouldn't have existed anyway. Gouging would of been demanding that they not have to pay their existing payroll tax at all, and asking for subsidies. Also, if Twitter is going to go bottom-up in 3 years, why are you guys making a fuss about it?

You act like the city is entitled to Twitter creating jobs, it's not. Twitter doesn't have to create those jobs, and it doesn't have to stay in San Francisco. In case you haven't noticed, we don't live in a communist authoritarian state, and Twitter is not owned by the city.

Also, you still haven't given an answer on the progressive plan for actually creating jobs. You may think Twitter is not worth the trouble, but you still have to have for creating jobs nonetheless.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:45 am

The only jobs that the City needs to light a fire under its ass to create are jobs that will employ unemployed San Franciscans.

What is David Chiu doing to address unemployment amongst San Franciscans, what kinds of jobs is he working to create that will put unemployed San Franciscans to work?

Ruby on rails developers and ops engineers at Twitter is the Wrong Answer.


Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:52 am

To run that building, it's going to take a lot more than the types of people you're only mentioning. Also it's not like San Francisco doesn't have unemployed techies. I'm also not talking about just the janitors the building will need, there will be other non programming jobs. Not to mention, the presence of Twitter will encourage other business as well.

Even though you guys hate the Lennar project and try to stop nearly everything else, these are the things that will create jobs. Local hire won't do anything unless there are jobs period.

Also, nobody has given an answer on the progressive plan for job creation. I'm starting to think there isn't one.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:19 am

The answer to your jobs creation question is to do locally what Obama -should- be doing and that is to fund a massive program to shift San Francisco to 100% clean renewable energy and universal 24/7 mass transit.

This will create a huge jobs boom, and the first phase of this transition is being actively worked for by progressives under San Francisco's CleanPowerSF program (see http://our-city.org/campaigns/CleanPowerSF.html )

We can also create a lot of jobs by building a universal municipal fiber optic internet backbone, and we're working on that goal as well.

Finally, a simple government wide plan:

Raise taxes on the rich in San Francisco by hundreds of millions of dollars and use that added revenue to re-fund, and then increase, all of the public service programs that have been cut.

Jobs galore.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

I don't disagree with the need for more green tech and infrastructure, but where's this massive funding going to come from?

You say raise taxes on the rich, but how are you going to do that without them jumping ship and moving across city lines. Raising taxes on the rich only can work on the national level, until that happens, states and cities are going to be penny pinching.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

Clean, renewable energy becomes essentially free (and therefore revenue producing after the initial installation is paid off) so a shift to 100% clean energy in San Francisco will be easily self funded through revenue bonds. The program would have been underway already, but the PG&E influenced Mayor's Office and SF Utilities Commission have been blocking its initiation. However, their interference cards are pretty much played out and we'll likely be initiating soon.

And so what if the rich and rich corporations leave. We can eminent domain and turn into worker and housing co-ops what they leave behind (which is similar to taxation in impact in that it will create employment and low cost housing).

Capitalism has abjectly failed. It's time to change the paradigm.

(And not all will leave. An extra 10% tax on billions in profits and income, would turn our economy around.)

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

Wow, you really have no qualms with destroying San Francisco's economy, which is precisely why you guys will never win city wide election.

The last I checked, communism also failed too, and that's exactly what you're proposing, albeit with a smiley face. I'd like to see who would want to stay in San Francisco, unless that is you build a wall around San Francisco to keep people from leaving.

I'll take you at your word that you don't care if people leave, but you might as well kiss innovation and prosperity goodbye. You seem to be comfortable with the idea of San Francisco as a population of poor people reliant on the services of non-profits and the government anyway.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:23 pm

No actually, I'm not proposing communism at all. Co-ops are independent actors operating within a local market.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2011 @ 10:30 am

Well in theory anyway, communism is supposed to be a stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. How would a city city of only co-ops be different than that? No rational capitalistic entrepreneur would want to stay in the city if they could move a couple miles outside city limits so their business and income so they could avoid the outrageous taxes you wouldn't mind on placing on them, since you don't care if they leave. Good luck trying to get future companies to come to SF with that attitude.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

Pure Fantasy: "Not to mention, the presence of Twitter will encourage other business as well."

Not a scintilla of evidence that this is the case, more articles of faith from the trickle down economic sharia that has destroyed the economy. If memory serves, the Controller's report on the Biotech tax exemption said that clustering was minimal.

The problem with David Chiu is that he attracts people just like him, those hacks who will do or say whatever their meal ticket directs them to.

Posted by marcos on May. 02, 2011 @ 9:05 am

Really, you don't think 2,600 more employees working out of a business on mid-market is going to encourage business? You don't think this will have a positive effect on stores and restaurants in the area? What about Burning Man's organizers moving to mid-Market as well?

Considering the empty office space, I think it's only common sense that having any business there is better than nothing.

You advocate trickle down economics too, the only difference is you want it to derive from government and non-profits orgs only. If you supported a trickle up theory, you would call for a tax cut for only those at the bottom. Since sales taxes disproportionately effect the non-rich, would you advocate slashing it? Something tells me you wouldn't, because it would have an adverse effect on the revenue that the government and non-profits rely on.

You're just another extreme, the polar opposite of Reaganomics, but still an extreme. Instead of the non-rich sucking at the teat of business, which I don't advocate either, you want to have them suck at the teat of non-profits and government, which is just as bad.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 11:32 am

Show me the economic analysis that demonstrates that adding that many employees there will pay its freight from soup to nuts. What if Twitter provides free onsite food, gym and cleaning services as a benefit? No sales tax, no new payroll tax and many added burdens for the City.

Perhaps it will be as economically rational as those 19 units of affordable housing that Chiu and CCDC want from Muni at a cost of only $32,000,000 which rounds out to $1.68m per unit of affordable, ahem, housing.

Yeah, me in bed with the nonprofits and the unions, now that's a real chuckle fest, kinda like David Chiu's campaign and political future.

Posted by marcos on May. 02, 2011 @ 11:57 am

Building higher density means building better cities, unless the higher density is something Marxist Marcos is opposed to.

Urban sprawl is bad according to Marxist Marcos, we need to build work and housing centers on transit hubs says Marxist Marcos, we need tax money to support our government workers says Marxist Marcos.


Marxist Marcos thinks that the streets will need to be cleaned more because twitter has moved in. Marxist Marcos thinks that citizens of the city commuting to other cities is better for the environment, city economy and infrastructure, than taking muni or bart to Market and 10th.

Posted by maltlock on May. 02, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

Seriously? You make it sound like Twitter is a part of a conspiracy of tax avoidance, up to even including all of its future 3000 employees in such a scheme? If they're willing to go that far, they might as well have free transportation and housing so they can avoid the hassle of a single employee contributing to the local economy. In fact, why don't they just buy an adjacent building and house all their employees there, and then build a bridge or tunnel to connect it with the office. It would go so far that that their employees would in effect actually cause no impact on the city's infrastructure. Next step, form their own compound called Twitterland and declare independence from the United States.

Come on, get real. Twitter has no reason to, nor any way of finding a way to have all their employees avoid every tax in SF, that's just ridiculous. Even with all those things provided, I can't imagine every one of their well paid employees wanting to eat catered food everyday when there's so many good restaurants around.

Maybe you're no in bed with the non-profits and unions, but you're certainly on the same side as them, and they were the people making the biggest stink about the tax exemption.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

Your proposed strategy for getting votes from Chiu is a proven failure.

Organizers and nonprofits have been kissing the asses, and playing nice with, neo-liberal Democrats for decades and that approach has led to utter failure.

What actually works with corporate influenced politicians like Chiu is to show them very clearly that they will continue to be criticized and marginalized until they clean up their act and become strong progressives.

Though the progressive voting block is a minority, it is nevertheless a large one, and Chiu knows damned well he can't get elected without across-the-board progressive support.

So it is a better strategy to keep him on the outs until he comes to Jesus and makes amends in a big way.

If that posture drives him even further out of the progressive camp, so be it. We will just kick him out of office next election and put a real progressive in his place.

If he is smart, it is fear of that outcome which should be driving him right now.

If he's not smart?

C'est la vie..

Progressives win when they get tough and fight back, (and when necessary drive jackals like Chiu out of government) not when they kiss ass.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

When's the last time a San Francisco official has been recalled from office or an incumbent has lost reelection? Be realistic, you guys have no chance of recalling Chiu or even beating him if he ends up running in 2012 as a supervisor.

If your faction continues to do these witch hunts and not compromise, you'll only continue to see your numbers dwindle. Way to keep on falling on your own sword in the name of self righteousness.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

The arena for compromise is between Supervisors themselves, not between organizers and politicians.

I've fought scores of political battles as a grassroots organizer. I do not remember -one- that was won through compromise.

The way organizers win is to set a -very- high bar for politicians to meet and force -them- to compromise (or lose face and influence).

Now on the -inside- of City Hall the dynamic is very different.

John Avalos and others wouldn't get far without frequent compromise with politicos like Chiu, and they forge such compromises all of the time.

But in the midst of seeking compromise, progressive politicians depend on grassroots organizers on the -outside- to raise hell so that they are able to take stronger positions in their path to compromise with other electeds.

So, you are vastly oversimplifying political strategy by not making the -key- distinction between electeds and organizers.

And you are simply profoundly mistaken in calling for the grassroots to build bridges with opponent politicians. That has never worked. Campaigns can succeed by temporarily joining with them on single issues, but not through ongoing watered down harmonism across all issues as a strategy in itself.

Trying to do the latter is what led to the deep environmental betrayals of the Clinton and Obama administrations.

Time to stop foolish games and get seriously in the face of these bastards.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

Perhaps I was not clear, but I did not mean to imply that you specifically should compromise. I did oversimplify, so my bad. Doesn't change the fact that progressive supes haven't really tried to compromise either, which probably explains why they've gotten so little done as of late.

I'm glad you said that organizers should not build bridges with politicians, because you just contradicted yourself. You were perfectly fine with helping Leland Yee get to room 200, which many of your fellow progressives are already scratching their heads at. Why don't you just admit that you're willing to go to lengths just to try to burn David Chiu. It's a more a personal quest, not good politics.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

Pushing publicly for Yee as a third ranked choice is far from bridge building.

It is simply advocating that voters put Yee as a pragmatic choice in their rankings.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2011 @ 10:27 am

Only he's not really the pragmatic choice, the pragmatic choice would be a real progressive candidate in your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice if you wanted a real progressive to win. Giving Yee a 3rd choice ranking only gives more votes to an actual front runner. You might as well not even vote for Avalos or your party's candidate then. Plus, when were progressives ever interested in pragmatism?

Even Steve Jones draws a line between progressivism and pragmatism in that article.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 11:54 am

You clearly don't have the slightest clue how ranked choice works.

High ranked candidates keep their ranking until there are inextricably removed from the running due to simply not getting enough votes to be above last in any given tabulation round.

Putting a fallback choice who is more mainstream as a third rank choice doesn't interfere in any way with higher ranked candidates.

Furthermore, this is the whole -point- of ranked choice.

It allows voters to top rank their most desired candidates while -still- ranking below them a fallback mainstream candidate that they can live with if their preferred candidates don't win.

The ability to vote for that third ranked mainstream candidate is actually crucial to allowing voters to vote their conscience without worrying about the 'spoiler' effect.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

My only point is that your candidate and Avalos realistically have no chance in winning, so you might as well be only voting for Yee, because you're really only helping him. If you're really, really convinced that Yee is actually progressive or progressive enough, yeah, then making him your 3rd choice makes sense, but many here obviously don't buy that at all.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

What is the point of creating jobs that do not generate more business tax to cover the City's cost of providing services that those employees cause the City to incur? Muni, clean streets, public safety, fire protection, all of these things take an incremental (small) hit from employees, which is why there is an incremental (small) business tax on labor.

You all make the case that "creating jobs" is an universal good. Most of you all were not politically and economically cognizant when Ronald Reagan used "creating jobs" as the first battering ram to demolish liberalism in 1980.

Show me how the City comes out ahead, how San Francisco's productive economy comes out ahead, when neither new hires nor increased gross receipts of a growing company are exempted from business tax.

They've gotta buy a lot of Starbucks and Chaac Mool in Dolores Park to make up that difference. Perhaps the new upwardly mobile, less queer, more conformist replacement for the Eagle will make up the difference?


Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:40 am

Chiu supports changing thr biz tax to gross receipts and closing the gaps that allow financial orgs to not pay any taxes.

Since the unemployed incur the costs you state anyway, having them employed is still better, since they would be more likely to buy things anyhow.

Your comparison to Reagan is not apt. This is not voodoo economics, which is just another name for upward wealth redistribution in the guise of economic effectiveness. Indiscrimate tax breaks don't work simply because of the law of diminishing returns. The fact is taxes are too low at the national level, but Sf is the opposite. It's far too easy for companies to leave for cheaper pastures. A local income tax would lead to an unprecedented outward migration.

I think most of us in Sf would love for businesses and the rich to pay more taxes, but we have to be aware of the economic realities too. Twitter was a simple decision between lose-lose and lose-win.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 11:48 am

Chiu had the chance to move a gross receipts tax last year but was unable to seal the deal. The proposal did not pass his former Small Business Commission. David Chiu talks the talk but can't walk the walk because to do so would be "divisive" and not "civil," which is Chiu's "third way" which is the "first way" all gussied up.

What David Chiu supports and what David Chiu is willing to make happen are two different things. The only constituencies Chiu is willing to offend are progressive constituencies, just like Ronald Reagan.

Most unemployed Ruby on Rails and system ops engineers do not live in San Francisco, hence their unemployment does not impact the City's balance sheet. San Francisco provides an infrastructure second only to NYC, and that infrastructure don't come cheap. Absolving Twitter of their business tax obligations simply means that those obligations get shifted onto the backs of San Francisco residents, most all of whom do not work for Twitter.

Tax breaks on capital gains of IPO stock sales are quintessentially Reaganomics, in that they both relieve "the American people" (read: corporations) of their tax burdens but also cuts the capital gains tax "to stimulate investment and create jobs."

The problem with the Twitter deal is that when you negotiate with terrorists, like Ronald Reagan discovered, you only embolden them to take more hostages. It also cost David Chiu and Jane Kim a great deal of the support that elected them to office in favor of Willie Brown and Rose Pak who will dump them like hot lead the moment they don't produce more than they consume.


Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 1:17 pm

But yet an excellent example of why the progressive left in SF keeps falling further and further behind. With friends like Marcos the progressive movement needs no enemies.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 01, 2011 @ 1:36 pm

Chiu as Reagan is as hyperbolically absurd as Chiu the Progressive.

Take away: David Chiu is absurd.

At last Snapples caught the absurdity of it all.

Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

In the 80's when the crazy right was whining that Reagan was only giving them 85% of what they wanted. "Sure Reagan's spending billions on the military, cutting taxes, jabbering about welfare queens, but he isn't addressing prayer in school"

Posted by matlock on May. 01, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

You act like Chiu can unilaterally do whatever he wants. The gross receipts tax is still something he's interested in introducing, and I think it's obvious that more and more people are leaning in that direction. Even Mirk has taken up the tax issue, as well as others.

That's completely false that Chiu is only willing to take positions against progressives or that he's a corporate tool. Phonebook and handbill legislation don't bid well well with business, and to those on the right, his attempt to give non-citizens the right to vote in school board elections was definitely not popular. You're just blind to the fact that Chiu has voted with progressive a majority of the time.

Your definition is Reaganomics is just plain wrong. Tax breaks have a real purpose, but Reaganomics abuses those purposes and exaggerates their effects. Reagan's own economists knew Reaganomics was fuzzy math, and so did Bush Sr. To call Chiu, Kim and Mirkarimi proponents of Reaganomics for advocating time limited tax exemptions is just a load of outrageous hyperbole.

Posted by Guest on May. 01, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

Chiu failed on tax reform last year when he introduced a measure and was not able to build support for it. He did not even try to mount a political campaign to do this even though there are ample sectors which would support such a project.

The extension of the payroll tax to stock options passed unanimously in, what was it, 2004. It was proposed by Susan Leal, Jake McGoldrick and Fiona Ma and signed into law by Gavin Newsom. It was most likely passed when the sting of the dot.com bubble's pop was still fresh in everyone's mind. Now that we are in a new bubble, we're seeing the same kind of economic policy as we saw in the late 1990s as the first dot.com bubble inflated.

The extent to which economics and politics has been force shifted far to the right irrespective of election outcome is reflected in this approach to fiscal policy. The first casualty, the Eagle, of a projected plopping of 2000 new $150K workers within .5 mi of Western SOMA.

Jane Kim and David Chiu seriously miscalculated with this move and will most likely pay the ultimate political price. The economic arguments underpinning the Twitter deal are bad enough, but the political corruption of driving customers to a politically connected landlord while costing the general fund revenue is inexcusable.

The phone book legislation is like putting a pinwheel out of the window of a cart which has its wheels falling off that is stored in a house that is burning.

Reaganomics presumes that all fiscal policy should relieve the burden on business so that capital unleashed can be deployed most profitably and the resulting economic activity will trickle down on the rest of us. That is the economic argument put forth by David Chiu on Twitter and that is why his progressive support has peeled off and he finds himself and his campaign twisting in the wind. Without key field organizers, Chiu's campaign manager will find herself facing insurmountable challenges.


Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

eh Marcos?

Your ravings about Reagan are entertaining in that your manichean view puts you solidly in the Marxist camp. If a representative crosses you making them a Reaganaught, you are thus a de-facto Stalinist.

Refusing to see nuance in anything makes you an entertaining joke.

Posted by maltlock on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

in his diatribe. Best use of a nightclub as a political weapon since Republicans used the rumor of Hamilton Jordan snorting coke at Studio 54 to tar Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 01, 2011 @ 10:01 pm

Tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations in order to get them to spend part of the money from the tax breaks to build productivity and jobs (the trickle down theory) is the very -cornerstone- of Reaganomics.

Reaganomics is exactly what these fools are engaging in, and it is mindblowing that even some of our strongest so called 'progressives' are still pursuing such nonsense even after the recent economic crash proved unequivocally that this idiotic method is a failure. Alan Greenspan sat in a public hearing in front of the entire world on television and said 'I was wrong.' and these fools still continue. And worse, they continue to -cut- budgets instead of vastly increasing revenues.


It is exactly this idiocy that had led local progressives to become deeply disillusioned with City Hall.

We've had it...

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

policies work.

So its a push.

Posted by maltlock on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

What 'failed policies' are you referring to?

The New Deal, and the boom in wartime machinery production worked. I'm calling for a Green New Deal with a boom in peace time renewable and transit infrastructure production.

Pretty straightforward.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 01, 2011 @ 10:19 pm

How do you explain the lack of businesses along Mid Market and every other empty storefront in San Francisco? What about the sudden lack of film projects in the 2000s that have only started to come back?

Progressives had a majority most of the 2000s, what did they accomplish?

Also, you're arguing to people about the effectiveness of the New Deal to mostly a bunch of people who support the policies of the New Deal. That's your problem, you only see differences and none of the similarities.

If there was a local equivalent of Godwin's Law, it would be you guys calling everyone who disagrees a Reagan supporter.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 12:11 am

In the city, in the lasty ten years of the Willie Brown counter revolution, not your grand vision for the nation.

All the unemployement that you complain about your neo Reaganite's addressing for one. Progressive jobs programs are to raise taxes and employ more city workers.

The progressives have been happy for ten years with the blight of mid Market. Now that there is some energy working to clean it up and attract businesses that will last more than six months. The progressive plan in the area is, do nothing ever, that is also an option, but at least admit it. The red Herrings are so old.

The Armory went unused for decades, every plan that came up had the neighborhood activists crying and the progresssives claiming their entitlement to the building. Kink moves in. Any other previous plan would have employeed hundreds, and created a huge amount of taxes. This example could be extrapolated across the city.

The progressives create more services and invite in more non profits and the hobo situation is as bad as it ever was because it just attracts other city's hobo's to town.

The transit first policy is essentialy an attempt to make every other mode of transportation so intolelrable that people have to take the bus.

Complaining about and stopping any development that isn't centered on your classism, such as the condo tower by the Transamerica building. Then complaining about the shrinking tax base in a recession and how the cities economy has such a narrow base.

Look at your ideas, a Green New Deal or whatever? Thats not going to create any jobs in the city.

Posted by meatlock on May. 02, 2011 @ 1:28 am

Chiu has also supported park privatization including fees at the Arboretum. He will be Gavin Newsom on steroids!

Posted by George on May. 13, 2011 @ 6:44 am

I kind of feel entitled to vote three times in anything local. In related news, I now dine at three restaurants for every meal.

Posted by BrianSF on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

Sorry, Brian, but my polling widget isn't smart enough to do IRV. So we have to settle for first choices in this unscientific poll.

Posted by tim on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

Let's elect a real progressive for a change!~

John Avalos is my first choice, followed by...

David Campos

Chris Daly

Sheriff Michael Hennessey

Posted by Lisa on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

@Tim. maybe an extra 'little blue pill' would widen your widget. {:<0}
We need an IRV strategy NOW.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

This is, of course, utterly unscientific and not a random sample, but it's interesting to see that the readers of this blog, so far, like Avalos best and Herrera second best. Herrera is outpolling Chiu, who calls himself a progressive, and Yee, who is making a huge effort to court progressive voters.

It's early in the year, and early in this poll's voting (it's only been up for a few hours at this point) but intriguing.

Posted by tim on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 6:33 pm