Supervisors make the Chamber of Commerce happy


You want a sense of what's happened to politics at City Hall? Here you go: the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce is thrilled.

The Chamber just released its 2011 voting scorecard on the Board of Supervisors (which it calls the "Paychecks and Pink Slips Scorecard," as if most of the stuff the Chamber supports had anything to do with actual job creation), and guess what? The board is more pro-downtown than it has been in a while:

The 2011 year-end scorecard reveals marked improvement in city’s efforts to create jobs and grow the economy. Overall, the Board of Supervisors received a score of 82 percent (equivalent to a B - grade), up from 60 percent (or a D - grade) in 2010. Individual rankings also improved, with five supervisors increasing their scores by at least 15 percent since last year. In 2011, a solid majority of supervisors voted in favor of jobs, the economy and government efficiency more than 75 percent of the time.

The top performer: Sup. Scott Wiener, who voted with the Chamber 88 percent of the time. Second best: Supervisor David Chiu (82%). The worst (or best, depending how you see downtown's agenda of low taxes, reduced public services and minimual regulations) was Sup. John Avalos, who scored 56%.

The reality is that some of the Chamber's key votes were relatively noncontroversial things that everone on the board supported -- for example, a law sponsored by Sups. Ross Mirkarimi, Eric Mar, David Campos and Wiener making it easier for small cafes and restaurants to host live music and a measure restricting restaurant waste, both of which passed unanimously. There were some votes where nearly everyone opposed the Chamber -- the cell phone disclosure requirements and the ban on yellow pages. And on a couple of them, even Chamber darlings Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell were on the wrong side -- they voted against a tax exclusion for stock options because they wanted even greater tax reductions.

But on the key votes, you can see where the majority of the board lies: Six, sometimes seven votes with downtown, five, sometimes four with the rest of us. Not exactly a progressive majority. 


the last few elections, there has been a 60% or so vote for moderate, pro-business candidates?

And of course that was before Ross ceded his seat to a Lee appointee and then self-destructed? With strategies like that, the Chamber of Commerce really doesn't have to worry.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

What should we expect when the premise starts from the petulant, childlike goal of pissing off the COC.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

COC and business = bad! bad!

Public sector pension-mongs, sixties leftovers = good! good!

Black vs. white

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

He's the Austin Powers of liberal politics.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

Avalos lost, no matter how many times the progressives claim "the rest of us," the rest of us didn't elect your man child Avalos. Why do you keep trying to claim us?

What moronic anti sense.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

Either it was voter fraud, or the election was "bought", or there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, or the voters were duped, or the turnover was too low for there to be a mandate, or there are missing votes in the Bay, or the system disadvantages the "disadvantaged" and "people of color", blah blah.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

This pro business stance of the board wouldn't exist if the 2010 BOS election hadn't been stolen from Debra Walker. And Janet Reilly. Also Rafael Mandleman. Oh, yeah...don't forget Tony Kelly.

Posted by Steroidal Progressive on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

Related articles

  • The price of growth

    Development is booming in the eastern neighborhoods, but the money isn't there to cover the infrastructure needed to serve it

  • Mar calls for hearing on recycling center evictions

  • Homeless advocates fight Wiener's effort to close parks at night