It's official: Adachi's in the race (VIDEO)

|
(117)

Public Defender Jeff Adachi filed to run for mayor of San Francisco on Aug. 12, the last possible day to enter the race.  Adachi said he'd decided to run in order to "make sure there's a voice in there that's talking about the fiscal realities of our city."

At a mayoral candidate forum Aug. 11, every single contender -- Mayor Ed Lee, Sup. John Avalos, venture capitalist Joanna Rees, Assessor Recorder Phil Ting, Board President David Chiu, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, former Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, former Sup. Bevan Dufty, and Sen. Leland Yee -- said they would support the pension reform package that was placed on the ballot after discussion with labor unions, the mayor's office, and business interests, and not the pension reform measure authored by Adachi.

Here's a video of Adachi explaining his decision to members of the press moments after filling out the paperwork.

Video by Rebecca Bowe

Comments

Rebecca...

Terry Baum is also a contender in the mayor's race, for the Green Party, was -on- that stage with those other candidates at the last debate, had to fight tooth and nail to get on that stage, and it is unconscionable that this article specifically did not mention her, or get her stance on the pension reform measures.

Please contact her and update your article.

Her campaign web site is at:

http://terryjoanbaum.com/

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

Eric, I was talking about the candidates at the debate last night NOT aug. 8 who answered a yes or no question.

Posted by rebecca bowe on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

Ok, I'll withdraw 'unconscionable'. But it is still a huge rift that neither Baum nor her stand on 'pension reform' were part of the report.

The media must do better if we are to have legitimate strong debate in elections.

Can we get the Green Party's candidate properly into this discussion?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

What is Terry Baum's position on pension reform? I don't see it on her site under the issues section and I can't find anything on the web. Can you link to something? Thx.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

To be honest, I don't know the exact position. I just want the SF Guardian to put on some shoes and go find out. ;)

Her address is on the web site. Folks should ask her.

I am asking the media (at least the local progressive media) to report this story.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

now we have a real progressive with a real record and viability, not just a sacrificial lamb. Bye Avalos, we appreciated your willingness to serve, but it's time to step aside.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

I don't know how someone who buys into the Scott Walker/Koch brothers narrative that pensions and healthcare are the root causes of the economic crisis, can be thought of as progressive.

I respect Adachi's work on criminal justice enough that he merits some consideration. He's right on enough issues that I could *possibly* see myself voting for him as a third choice behind Avalos/Yee, but he's so spectacularly wrong on this one issue that i have to say, even that would be tough at this point. I can't imagine a self-respecting progressive actually voting for him first.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

Every indication shows that Adachi has sold out to pursue high cynical power politics using the leverage of the global corporate assault to drastically cut social spending, wages, health care, benefits, and education, to enrich the elite power structure.

There is an all out war of the rich against the rest of us, and Adachi has joined the dark side of that war gambling to become wealthy and protected himself.

Ranking him at all is a dangerous mistake.

Anyone who is uncertain of this, should get a copy of Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' and read it. Every word of it.

See: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 11:08 pm

"I don't know how someone who buys into the Scott Walker/Koch brothers narrative that pensions and healthcare are the root causes of the economic crisis, can be thought of as progressive. "

The economic crisis predates the national calls for reform around these things. Unless you have some conspiracy around this too?

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 4:45 am

Let's see how fast Commissioner Olague can get herself in front of a microphone and a camera to swear her allegiance to the Man Most Likely to Win.

Posted by Carling on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

It's exciting to have a truth teller in this debate...He has my vote.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

CONGRATULATIONS SAN FRANCISCO!

From a former resident who now lives in MI but continues to love the city:

I met Jeff Adachi years ago when I was youngster in law school and regard him as principled, dedicated and decent.

You've got people across the country excited, watching and pulling for you!

NOW ELECT HIM!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 9:19 pm

'nough said..

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 12, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

Folks,

I pushed Gonzalez and Adachi for darn near a year to enter this race. Greg Kamin ridiculed me and called me "delusional' to think Jeff would enter. I'm certain an honest guy like Greg is going to apologize to me in the same public forum in which he demeaned me. Right, Greg?

I'm waiting.

Go Giants!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 4:51 am

h,
It may come as a shock, h., but there actually is more than one "Greg" who posts on these forums.

That said, you're right. I didn't think Adachi would enter. I did think that you were delusional, and I said so on fcj. I was wrong in this case. I still think somebody's delusional. I just thought it was you and not Adachi. I guess it is Adachi after all, because apparently he thinks he can win.

But if he gets those 199,000 votes for mayor that you claimed he would, then I'll say that you (and he) are both visionaries.

Posted by Greg K on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 9:47 am

Really guy,

I didn't say Jeff would get 199,000 votes for Mayor and you know it. You're simply lying. I noted that he'd gotten 199,000 votes in the last election cycle and that's the truth. You're about 1 inch from being Arthur Evans' twin. I liked you better when you were 'Westside'.

Where's my apology?

Go Giants!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 10:56 am

When the Guardian profiled another mayoral candidate, here's what you said:

"Adachi in a walk
Wake up,

Jeff got 199,000 votes 6 months ago from voters who ignored the Guardian and the unions and the DCCC. They'll do so again.

Adachi for Mayor!

h. "

No h, you did not write the *exact* words "Adachi-will-get-199000-votes-for-mayor."

You did say
-Adachi for mayor.
-He'll win in a walk.
-199000 voters voted for him 6 months ago and they'll do so again

In that context, I don't think anyone seriously thought that by "do so again" you meant "do so again" if he runs for re-election as PD with no opponent. Yeah, I agree that 199,000 voters will vote for him again if he runs for re-election as PD unopposed.

But it's pretty clear that's not what you were talking about, given the context of the rest of your post.

Who are you kidding?

Posted by Greg K on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 11:22 am

"There is an all out war of the rich against the rest of us, and Adachi has joined the dark side of that war gambling to become wealthy and protected himself."

- Eric Brooks

Good grief.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 6:56 am

There is no conspiracy about adopting the right wing framing of organized public sector workers as responsible for economic collapse, taking the money of billionaires to advance that framing, and running for mayor to advertise that.

Adachi and Gonzalez have three choices: either go down with the ship, which nobody wants but upon which progressives insist upon, figure out a way to fix the ship and keep it sailing towards progress, or abandon ship to a bigger ship and start to ram the sinking ship with the big ship.

Adachi and Gonzalez are choosing the last option. For Gonzalez, the change is the starkest.

For one who has stood so visibly on principle, adhering to the slightest nuances in the rigid progressive dogma of the dogmatic progressive sect, to be supporting a candidate who does not rule out the death penalty just because he gives the PD's office the time of day is puke inducing.

The kind of change this city, state and nation need will not, cannot come from the ballot box alone.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 7:52 am

Read your own quote of me,

What I said was that the voters would again ignore the Guardian and the unions and I was right. I didn't say he'd get 199,000 votes this time. 50,000 first place votes will certainly do it. You deleted that part of my statement.

Don't pick a sword fight with Zorro.

You'll just end up with a 'Z' on your belly.

Go Giants!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

was the part where you said "Go Giants" for the umpteenth time, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I thought I'd delete it for the sake of brevity.

However, if "Go Giants" translates in your language to "Jeff Adachi will get 50,000 first place votes for mayor," I apologize for not understanding that.

Truth be told, if you said that, it was in some other post which I did not see. You may want to provide a link.

As for picking fights, oh believe me, I don't pick fights with you. And the reason has nothing to do with sword fighting with Zorro. The analogy I was thinking of was that of mudwrestling a pig, and the state that you wind up in, even if you win. The only reason I responded at all was that you came out of the blue demanding an apology.

Posted by Greg K on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

I do believe Willie and Rose are laughing their asses off about now.

Posted by GuestRickinSF on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

"I do believe Willie and Rose are laughing their asses off about now."

- Rick in SF

Yes, you're right. Our local progressive sect has made a total fool of itself. Much of the city is now laughing at them, and not just Willie Brown and Rose Pak.

Consider:

*In January 2009, Chris Daly blocked Ross Mirkarimi's bid to be appointed by the board of supes as their prez. David Campos engineered the choice of David Chiu, in place of Mirkarimi. A few years later, Chiu turned his back on the progessives and joined the moderates.

*In the supes' races of 2010, Chris Daly demonized every leading candidate for supe in district six except James Keys. He was overwhelmingly defeated by Jane Kim, who later broke with the progressives on many issues.

*In January 2011, the supes unanimously appointed Ed Lee as interim mayor - including support from what remained of the board's progressives. Later Lee announced he would run for mayor in November, enjoying a big lead in the polls over all his rivals.

*In 2011, after 10 years of controlling the board of supes, the progressives proved unable to come up with a viable candidate for mayor.

*Today "the progressive alternative" in the mayor's race is John Avalos. He has only marginal support in the polls. He lost most of the gay vote by becoming the only straight politician to refer to gay people as "Queers."

*A few weeks ago, the Milk Clubbers sabotaged the effort by David Waggoner to be appointed to the Ethics Commission, by acting as if he "owned" the position.

*Not to mention the progressives' fumbling in regard to Care not Cash and Prop L (the civil-sidewalks law).

Yes, Rick, the whole city is having a good laugh.

And with good reason.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

Greg wrote this to h. brown: "The only part of your statement I deleted was the part where you said "Go Giants" for the umpteenth time, which had nothing to do with the topic at hand."

I've often wondered about that myself. It's h. brown's signature on all posts. Why would a so-called progressive constantly cheer-lead for a corporatist multi-millionaire-dollar sports team? And a team that refused to wear their Gigantes shirts recently when they played AZ, for example...(you know the topic).

I would think that a real progressive would cheer-lead for an independent, local sports team (something non-corporate, junior league or something). These days, there are too many so-called "progressives" supporting all types of corporations from sports teams, corporate box stores, corporate national/international grocery store chains (as opposed to a worker-worker cooperative or a farmer's market), etc. And of course politicians who also work for the corporations. The people I'm talking about don't seem to "get it." A person calling oneself a progressive does not mean you are one. It's quite a bit of work to be a real progressive. A real progressive does not support corporations in any form unless absolutely necessary, and it is not necessary to support the Gigantes.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 8:51 pm

It's official, a real progressive follows a set list of narrow rules and dictates. Anyone who doesn't follow these narrow rules to the letter is as bad or worse than Hitler.

Anyone who deviates from this narrow agenda can not be progressive because definitional politics is a narrow minded one worldism of open mindedness. Being open minded like a progressive is in practice closing the mind to bad speak and bad thoughts. The goal is to never let in any sort of real world good times that might negatively influence small minded authoritarianism.

Sieg heil the progressive cause of a narrower and narrower set of freedoms for all!

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 3:21 am

I think bringing up the Giants with every post makes it a legitimate subject of debate. What kind of father drags his daughter into his delusional internet rantings?

An insane one.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 11:57 am
Posted by Josh Wolf on Aug. 17, 2011 @ 5:18 pm

Giants won tonight!

Tomorrow we have Vogelsong going at 10am against the Marlins. I loved my hometown Cardinals when they were owned by an abusive beer baron and I love my Giants too cause I guess I must just love the game.

It's just not as easy as y'all might think to reach your depths of divine bitterness and self-hate. I guess I just have too much love for myself and my friends and my family.

Two things for you to chew on.

Adachi will win with your help.

The Giants will win without your help.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

What does my saying that real progressives should not support corporations whenever possible have to do with "self-hate" and "divine bitterness?" Did I offend your little sports team in your mind? So when someone tells the truth to you (that you don't want to hear) that person supposedly has "divine bitterness and self-hate?" How far down did you have to dive to dredge up that bull shit and who do you think you're kidding? What a pathetic cop-out on your part.

And I'm not voting for Adachi.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

The new mind progressive never acknowledges "truth." There is no truth, truth is for idiots, unless it is the religion of truthness. The post modernism of being a modern reader of George Orwell reader is that "truth" is subjective unless the truthing progressive is dispensing this truth.

Bow and pray to the truth of nothingness, not agreeing with the doctrine self appointed truthers is worse than Hitler.

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 3:29 am

Self hate ha ha ha!!! Is "go giants" at the end of every post what you bring to your daughter's marriage to that old man?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

I do believe Willie and Rose are laughing their asses off about now.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 1:07 am

I do believe Willie and Rose are laughing their asses off about now.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 1:07 am

What does my saying that real

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 1:08 am

Really,

Please expand. You too, Eric. And Marc, what are your views? Will the Guardian run an Adachi cover?

Giants at 10am from Florida.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 7:31 am

Where would I find something that discusses the causes of this whole mess? Where do I get something other than the Scott Walker narrative? Where else but a newspaper owned by a far-right Denver billionaire? Of course! Why didn't I think of that?

I read up to this point:
"But then, things took a turn for the worse in the mid-2000s, culminating in the economic collapse of 2008, which sent San Francisco’s portfolio into a tailspin. The pension investment fund took a $4 billion hit."

And that's all they say. After glossing over the causes, it's the same old pensions-Newsom-unions-blah-blah-blah.

But the causes are important. Someone *did* this after all. It wasn't just some random act of nature that made $4 billion disappear. Someone *caused* the crisis that caused pensions to take a $4 billion dollar hit. And who might that be? The corporate newspaper owned by a right wing Denver billionaire is silent on that point. But that point is crucial. Because if we know who caused it, then we might have an idea of where to go looking for that money.

I'll give you a hint: it sure as hell ain't the workers themselves. No, not even the admittedly overpaid cops and firefighters. This is what is so profoundly wrong with the Scott Walker/Jeff Adachi/Ed Lee narrative.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 3:01 pm

stock market hadn't gone south in 2008, then all the city workers could have enjoyed fabulously generous pensions forever without the taxpayers being on the hook for a trillion or so.

But then isn't that what stock markets do sometimes? That is, go down? Isn't that in the very nature of a speculation? Indeed, isn't that exactly why those who hate capitalism often criticize it?

So in other words, we have the paradox of being able to afford gold-plated pensions for public sector workers if and only if capitalism goes ever upwards and onwards?

The simple fact is that we'd be in this mess regardless of the vicissitudes of the stock market because it was structurally flawed - predicated on the near impossible best-case scenario of ever rising equities, ever-increasing taxation, wildly optimistic actuarial assumptions and a near-mendacious ccollusion of self-serving interests.

And the Examiner article does a good job of describing that. moreover it's hardly a SF problem. Cities, Counties, States and Nations across the globe have the same problem. You can't conveniently blame all that on a few hedge funds and investment banks - it's happening in places that didn't have any of those - like Greece and Portugal.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

Public sector pensions worked just fine for 70 years until the billionaires that are misreporting the story and financing the PR campaign and the initiatives got their wish and abolished Glass-Steagall in 1999.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 8:17 pm

Lemme make a wild-ass guess that the passage of SB 400 in 1999 had a helluva lot more to do with our current unfunded pension problems than the abolishment of Glass-Steagall...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 9:39 pm

Nice try Harry, but your argument is complete bullshit. The economy crashed because Wall Street finance capital and insurance firms lobbied to get rid of key restrictive regulations on their behavior and then wildly gamed the system on a rampant profit making binge and pyramid scheme, which those firms knew -full well- would eventually collapse the economy.

Then, once that collapse took place, they screwed the working class and homeowners replacing -none- of their lost wealth, while those banks and other finance firms got -trillions- of dollars in bailouts from the Bush and Obama administrations; bailouts from which they transferred NO money at all to workers and homeowners. They kept it all for themselves.

Rank and file workers aren't involved in the investment of their pensions (that's done for them by the same damned firms that just screwed them). And more importantly, workers did have one goddamned thing to do with that financial collapse, and should not by any stretch of the imagination be required to pay even -one- penny to clean up the mess.

The answer is to tax the hell out of the bastards that made all of the money from the pyramid scheme and federal bailout, in order to get this economy back on its feet and shore up all of the consumer home loans that have gone under; and -not- cut worker pay or benefits at all.

That, would get our economy back on track.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

..."Rank and file workers aren't involved in the investment of their pensions (that's done for them by the same damned firms that just screwed them)."

This isn't true but I can see how the statement fits your unique narrative.

Three members of the SFERS board are elected by City employees/retirees.
The SFERS board is charged with investing pension $.

Maybe you can email these SFERs members and ask them why they are still investing in Wall Street...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 9:57 pm

because otherwise he'd have to face the fact that is his own "progressive" politicians who have promised pensions that were never going to be affordable or sustainable.

Obviously he and they assumed that stocks never go down. When they did, they look around for a scapegoat, any scapegoat, other than his own flock.

Anyway, the gig is up. Eventually we're going to have to choose between public sector workers getting the same deal that the rest of us have - a fully-contributed DC plan. Or else endure a Chapter 9 bankruptcy that will impose that anyway.

I guess he may as well play for time, and pray for a booming stock market to bail him and his buddies out.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

First, this isn't just a downturn in the market, it is a collapse.

If it weren't for that collapse, and for the trillions spent on the wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, there would be no problem.

The rich want those wars?

The rich can pay for them.

And let's get back to the core issue.

Who can more easily afford to pay?

Middle class government rank and file workers, or millionaires and billionaires and corporations.

The answer is utterly obvious.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

than in my local fish market. The wars in the ME have nothing to do with SF's pension crisis because, had those wars not taken place, that money would not have been given to SF anyway.

And SF cannot directly tax "billionaires" as the City is not allowed to tax income, gains or wealth.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

Do you live on Mars?

Of course the wars drained money from San Francisco. You are a complete idiot if are not aware of such simple basics of public funding.

And there are plenty of ways to tax the rich locally.

Your continuing to purposely trumpet the falsehood that there aren't, when you must certainly know better, shows why your propaganda should axed.

But maybe I'm giving you too much credit.

Perhaps you simply get all of your news from Fox and are therefore clueless.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

Can you explain exactly how LOCAL tax revenues are funding the ME wars?

Can you explain how to tax a local billionaire given that the City cannot legally levy an income tax, a capital gains tax, a wealth tax or even raise their property tax above 2%?

I don't think you can.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

You honestly believe that nonsense you wrote?

I cannot believe that something so simple needs to be explained.

The U.S. government has spent -trillions- of our federal taxes on wars, and as a result has -cut- funding to both states and municipalities severely. And as the states' federal inputs have been cut, they have -drastically- cut state supports to municipalities.

You've got to be joking me that you don't understand this stuff.

As to taxing the rich locally, we've already had that discussion, and I'm not rehashing it every single time you make the same bogus bullshit claims.

Seriously man. Fox is en-ter-tain-ment.. Ok?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

of the money used to fund the wars would instead have been directed to SF had the war not taken place. You're merely assuming that.

And I notice that you again duck the mechanics of how to tax billionaires locally. Because you know that there is no effective mechanism to do so.

The idea that a handful of billionaires can bail out the City's mess is risible.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:06 pm