Antonini, quarterback for development interests, wins the game

Under pressure, Antonini scrambles and throws and ... touchdown! The Developers are now in the lead.

If there was any doubt about the loyalty to developers of Planning Commissioner Michael Antonini, he put them to rest yesterday shortly after finally winning reappointment to a fourth, four-year on a 6-5 vote by the Board of Supervisors. Afterward, in comments to Examiner reporter Joshua Sabatini, Antonini likened his role on the commission to that of a successful football team's quarterback.

“You want to knock out the quarterback for the other team,” Antonini said. “It's a tribute in a way – backhanded.”

The five supervisors who opposed Antonini – Sups. David Chiu, John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar, and Jane Kim, the board's most progressive members – seemed to understand that Antonini saw himself playing for the developers and big corporations that see San Francisco mostly as a place to make money, even at the expense of eastern neighborhoods and the city's long-term interests.

The voting record of this Republican dentist – an elected member of the San Francisco Republican County Central Committee who advocates for right-wing causes (such as crackdowns on the homeless) and candidates – makes clear which team Antonini plays for, and it isn't the same team as the vast majority of people in San Francisco, where Republicans constitute less than 10 percent of the electorate.

It says a great deal about the corporatist politics of Mayor Ed Lee for re-appointing him, as well as the politics and integrity of the swing votes, Sups. Malia Cohen and Christina Olague, the Lee appointee now running for election in District 5, one of the city's most progressive districts.

Both supervisors mouthed meaningless platitudes and justifications for their votes, but in reinstating the developers' quarterback just as the progressives were about to remove him from the game, one wonders what team they're playing for – or whether they even understand the dimensions of the game they have unexpectedly found themselves playing.

But Antonini clearly understands. And despite the ridiculous statements that Cohen and Olague made about holding him “accountable,” Antonini now has four more years to continue leading a team that is rapidly gentrifying San Francisco, making it more inviting to the Google-busers and Twitterati and their landlords, but less so for the average teacher, clerk, and social worker.


"The voting record of this Republican dentist – an elected member of the San Francisco Republican County Central Committee who advocates for right-wing causes (such as crackdowns on the homeless) and candidates – makes clear which team Antonini plays for, and it isn't the same team as the vast majority of people in San Francisco, where Republicans constitute less than 10 percent of the electorate."

Not surprising that the D8 stupidvisor voted for him. I guess that would please his disciples in the Castro and Noe Valley. Are other people in the Castro paying any attention to how this stupidvisor is voting?

Answer: No. No one's paying attention. They are too busy partying and texting.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

She thoroughly deserves to be booted out on her ass.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

We must celebrate all diversities in San Francisco - the political and the occupational!!

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

This article made a good point about Olague's integrity.

She knew that Progressive bullies like the SFBG would be right on her but she stood up to them to support the record of a former colleague that she knew well and didn't usually agree with. Too bad that she didn't have a similar strength of conviction about RCV.

Yeah..we know. The Supervisors that supported the SFBG position 'seemed to understand' while those on the other side 'mouthed meaningless platitudes' and made 'ridiculous statements'.

Could Steven T. Jones possibly be any more juvenile? I've seen grammar school websites where the students are more convincing journalists.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

Another victory! Winning!!

Posted by Lurker on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

fully mentioned that the reason Chiu was opposed, it was the Telegraph Hill yuppies. In the last Jones blog on the subject he quoted Chiu as saying that all the people who contacted him from his district were opposed to the republican dentist. Not mentioned by either is their taking orders from these yuppies. Jones does the bidding of Telegraph Hill yuppies while complaining.

Oddly the Green party which numbers in the dozens would be greeted with hazzas by the Guardian if one was appointed, while a member of another party of the same numbers gets whines?

Posted by matlock on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

Well yes, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers are a group of 1% millionaires who literally tried to block a new library even though the old one contained asbestos and had seismic issues.

But you'll never hear anything negative said about them written here, despite their wealth and habitual efforts to exert disproportionate power. That just isn't in the SFBG playbook.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 01, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

You seem to think it exists to stop stuff getting built. Which is really weird from the perspective of almost everyone.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 3:14 am

No, the sole purpose of the Planning Commission isn't "to get stuff built," it's to ensure that what gets built is in the public interest and to deny those projects that aren't. If people could just build whatever they wanted there would be no need for a commission, planning staff could just make sure projects meet basic minimum structural and design requirements and issue permits. The Planning Commission is a political body that is supposed to reflect this community's values and interests and to be a check on unfettered development.

Posted by steven on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 10:23 am

So your view on what the planning commission should do is skewed by that bias.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

What exactly are "developer interests"? Wanting to build more housing in a city with incredibly expensive housing? The bastards!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:09 am

ONLY to stop anything ever being built. IOW he has a 100% NIMBY'ist, negativist approach to change.

But at least he's taking a break from posting about juvenile topics like pot, nightclubs and burning man. Small mercies . .

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 7:28 am

All of development discussion in SF is heavily skewed to preventing.
Thats why it can be one single person that halts an entire project. There are no repercussions, and even the fees can be avoided by forming a faux neighborhood group.
Sue Hestor has been a master at this for decades. It's our fault, because we allow and encourage this behavior.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 9:36 am

way that NIMBY's make it more difficult and expensive is a serious drag on building prosperity in this city, and leads directly to the housing crisis.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 9:51 am

Cohen - no surprise there - just following Auntie Tomasophenia's footsteps.
Olague - no longer surprising - just fulfilling Willie's wishes.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 11:30 am

"The voting record of this Republican dentist"

If There's Anything I Can't Stand More Than Republicans, It's Dentists!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

Developers intentionally "overshoot" with their proposals, knowing that usually the "compromise" will be just about what they always wanted/expected. And it appears that they are taking all stakeholders' wishes into account. Antonini plays into this with a cynical attitude and gentrification and huge profits will continue in this real estate climate. One wonders if most of the Planning commissioners actually visit the sites/neighborhoods that are about to be altered--sometimes dramatically--to review the impacts.

Posted by Tiny Tim on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

W/o true meaningfully dialogue in planning we see only drum beating and backing into corners.

Antonioni is a rubber stamp for private interests.

He will not discuss barter or envision...

That was why he needed to be removed....

At least Miguel discussed....

Moore and sugaya are the only ones left that comprehend what planning is supposed to be about.

Which is why the city fails to design large scale for the future

Posted by Goodmaab50 on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 8:47 am

The reality is that Olague agreed with Antonini as often as not. I'd like to hear her explain how and why she differed with him on big projects. The problem city progs have is their official planning ideology---dense development, smart growth, transit-oriented development---is essentially pro development, which means building a lot of market-rate housing. How does that ideology differ from Republicans like Antonini?

Posted by Rob Anderson on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 9:15 am

The fact is Dr. Antonini looks at every issue individually. The "progressive" look at everything through their extreme ideology regardless of the situation and believe in diversity of everything but thought.

Posted by Guest Howard Epstein on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

Also from this author