The new board president

Chiu: Can he go for three?

The last time the San Francisco supervisors elected a new board president, the progressives got a swift kick in the ass. David Chiu, who had been elected to the top slot two years earlier with the unanimous support of progressives, disappointed some of his allies and wasn't going to get their votes. But he wanted to keep his job, so he turned to the conservatives -- and with the support of the folks on the right, he won another term. The he turned around and put the center-right folks in charge of some key committees. Price of the deal.

Now he's looking for a third two-year term -- but this time there aren't any easy alliances. Several of his colleagues are also in the running, from across the political spectrum. And nobody right now has the magical six votes.

Scott Wiener on one side, David Campos on the other, Jane Kim closer to Chiu ... somebody's going to have to back down or cut a deal. And that's where these things tend to get squirrly.

Me, I think Campos would be perfect for the job, not only because I agree with him most of the time but because he's reliable, fair, and cares about public empowerment and input. That wouldn't be to Chiu's advantage -- the two are likely to be facing off in a tough state Assembly contest when Tom Ammiano is termed out in two years, and the last thing Chiu would want is to have his rival in such a high-profile spot. So it's not likely either of those two will be voting for the other.

I haven't always agreed with Kim, but she's more on the progressive side than not, and she's really smart. You could see that as she took apart the city attorney's arguments during the Ross Mirkarimi debate. Wiener has one of the most ambitious legislative agendas of any current board member and has proven to be an effective (sometimes dangerously effective) politician.

Wiener can probably get votes from the most conservative side, Mark Farrell and Carmen Chu, and might be able to line up, say, Malia Cohen and possibly even newcomer London Breed. But that's not six -- and that assumes that Chiu doesn't make a play for those votes the way he did last time. Campos will get the progressives (John Avalos and likely Eric Mar), but that's not six either. And with Kim and Chiu going after some of the same people, nobody's going to come close in the first round.

That is, unless somebody cuts a series of backroom deals.

So my suggestion is this: Let's demand that all of them tell us up front who they would put on which committees. Sure, it looks like pandering if Wiener promises Budget and Finance Chair to Cohen, who then votes for him -- but that stuff is going to happen anyway, and I'd rather have it out in the open.







of a major loser, do please kindly elucidate for us how many years renting it would take?

For 25 years worth of rent, you could have bought the housing unit. and gotten a tax break. And enjoyed probably tenfold price appreciation.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 12:40 pm
Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

as a second loan or parental loan. It's possible if you really want it and are willing to make the sacrifices. But of course if you just want a no-brain job and fritter your funds away on "nightlife" them, sure, you'll probably remain at the bottom of the pile.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

Insensitive, elitist, classist, clueless commentator.

Plus you make lots of assumptions about someone whom you do not know. Not everyone wants to own his/her house for any number of reasons.

Your paternalism and prejudicial commentary are tiresome.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

just accurate, dispassionate description. Your commentary on this site fits all the non-insulting words I used.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

seeming inability to counter my facts and arguments. I'm not sure I perceive more than that.

But we are different. You see CCSF as a shining institution and I see a bankrupt academic basketcase. Their struggling fiscals appear to favor my categorization.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

It is a response to statements like this: "But of course if you just want a no-brain job and fritter your funds away on "nightlife" them, sure, you'll probably remain at the bottom of the pile."

Classist, elitist, paternalistic, for sure. And insulting and insensitive.

I could care less about how you may perceive me. Your self-described "facts and arguments" illustrate how little you perceive about the world.

Here's another description: self-absorbed and sociopathic with racist tendencies. How do you perceive that?

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

The entire public sector is reeling because of the consequences of libertarian capitalism. Educational economics are consigning a generation to debt peonage. UC has financialized their ability to raise tuition at will to fund their capital project. City College is on the right track holding down tuition increases as there is no real connection between fiscal health after an economic meltdown and educational quality.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

American imperative. Since the founding fathers, Amercans have retained a healthy distrust of big government, and what you see now is simply part of that trend.

CCSF's tuition fees are not close to being fiscally viable, which is why CCSF is laying after staff despite yet another bailout from the taxpayers.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:24 am

Jason Grant Garza here ... please read ... and

then watch ...

and then KNOW I went to DAVID CHIU for his CIVIL GIDEON and have the paperwork ... venture to GUESS how LONG before I got the DEADEND STEER to the SF Bar Association ??? Would you care to see that FAILURE after sending them some of the videos of youtube ??? I have that paperwork also.

then go right here to an article written entitled : A Christmas Story for Our Time and read the comments ...

Today is 12/30/2012 ... Mr. Nobody for BOARD PRESIDENT ... there is no ACCOUNTABILITY nor HUMANITY.

And if you DO NOT believe me ... go AHEAD an elect one of the FOUR SUPERVISORS found GUILTY by the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE case # 11048 that seems to have fallen off the radar after ROSS witch hunt, and MY NURSE RATCH CASE FAILURE before ETHICS. then click on the case to find FOUR named supervisors ... Mar, Cohen, Chiu and the fabulous Mr. Wiener ... here is the link


"Telling the TRUTH during TIMES of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a REVOLUTIONARY Act." George Orwell

"A Nation of Fools deserve what it gets." Jason Garza

"They hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe." Oren Jude

"Can Not Wait to live to see the day when EVERY politician is STRANGLED with the endtails of every PRIEST. " Oscar Wilde

Let the Games and ILLUSION continue ...

and if you think I do not KNOW how the GAMES are PLAYED ...

Shall I show you all the INHUMANITY in BRINGING the TRUTH forward ???

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 8:01 am

I'd like someone who puts the city first -ahead of their own career. And by "city" I mean the majority of the city who aren't millionaires. Campos, Avalos, or even Mar would fit the bill.

Unfortunately I don't think they have the votes. But neither does that ideologue Scott Weiner. That means the board will likely settle on the continued mediocrity of David Chiu -if he wants it.

Weiner gets: Farrell, Chu, Weiner, Cohen, and maybe Breed. But that's still only 5 at most.

Campos gets maybe 4 at most: Campos, Avalos, and maybe Mar and Kim on a good day.

The only people who would really pick Chiu first are Chiu, Yee, and maybe Kim. But progressives won't get their first pick, they'll fall behind Chiu as a backup. Or if Chiu doesn't want it, then Kim.

Of course that means that unlike last time, Chiu will win on progressive votes instead of moderate votes. He will owe the mods nothing unlike last time.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

offer "support" and "promises" to them and whomever supports them.

Essentially the whites and the asians will carve this up, sidelining the blacks and hispanics. You may not believe those who claim that asians are the model minority but, at least in this town, they sure know how the game is played.

Chiu handsomely got this position and deftly finessed the mayoral transition while the left "fumbled". Mess with him at your peril. The left has been sidelined now that Daly and the self-destructive SMirk have gone.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

What you mean is that certain politicians without any political values other than their own continuation have cut deals with the wealthiest in the City to leverage resources to control government to unlock greater resources.

That only works with a certain set of operators and self promoters who are not grounded in any political positions, it is not an property of any ethnicity.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

Getting things done requires making deals and compromizes, which is why people like you have no influence over the process. Even Redmond gets that - the end has to justify the emansd.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:26 am

Exactly what "things" are you trying to "get done?"

Put progressives in power and they will "get things done" -things like rent control, domestic partner benefits, raising the minimum wage, health care, sick leave, transparency in government, fair elections. These are some of the "things" progressives have "gotten done."

Put in power business "moderates" who are in fact not moderate at all, and they will also "get things done"... like cut pensions and services, allow private capital to gentrify neighborhoods, and pursue redistribution of wealth in an upwards direction by giving away public money to millionaires.

Everybody in politics is ideological. What "things" you "get done" all depend on the ideology you have. Just don't insult my intelligence by telling me that one side doesn't have an ideology.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:08 am

whether you like what gets done. Obviously you think rent control is "good" and development is bad. While I'd say the exact opposite.

But in the end, moderates are the center and the majority. Progressives are leftist extremists just like the religious right is extremist the other way. Sf is different only because it doesn't have the latter - in SF you're either a centrist or a leftist. And mayoral elections tell us the ratio is about 60-40 for the moderates.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:13 am

Thanks for at least acknowledging that both sides have an ideology, rather than continuing to parrot the tripe that one side is ideological while the other is not. That's progress, I guess.

But your analysis, if it's a serious one, is too simplistic. It's true that so-called moderate candidates tend to win on a city wide level. But it's just as true that progressive *issues* generally win on a citywide level when put directly to a vote. You get these paradoxes that a mayoral candidate who's a ConservaDem wins, while most of his ballot endorsements (not to mention downticket candidate endorsements) go down in flames.

We can debate the reasons for that, but the point still stands. When San Franciscans repeatedly vote for pro-renter, pro-labor, and anti-developer initiatives on the ballot, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to say that they share what you think of as a "centrist" ideology... even if they happen to elect a mayor who does.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:56 am

Although I'd phrase it differently. it seems that most propositions pass in SF. So that applies whether it's an extension to rent control OR something that compels city workers to pay more into their pension plan and/or limits Muni pay scales (to give a couple of recent examples).

So my conclusion is that the average voter out there loves to vote "Yes" to something (anything) rather than "No". You see this in the careful wording of voter initiatives so it's always "for" something rather than "against" somthing, in much the same way as the anti-abortion people call themselves pro-life.

I see the Mayor's office, and to a lesser extent the BofS as a counter-weight to that tendency. The great unwashed out there have ideals but the politicians understand better the implications of going too far in either direction.

So it's not so much inconsistent that Lee's policies vary from what the prop elections indicate, but rather that our system has checks and balances. When it works right, we both get what we want - you get the strictest rent control in the nation and I get forests of high-rise tower blocks all over downtown and SOMA.

If nobody is getting everything they want, then maybe the system is working?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

Equitable compromise on development would mean that for every luxury condo built there would be an affordable unit built. Developers get everything they want and we get 1/10 on the side.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

homes would get built, either market-rate or BMR. The ratio chosen has to be the "sweet spot". Any less and developers are getting away with it, but any more and it suppresses supply as developers who cannot get their required ROI go elsewhere where they can.

Consider it the Laffer Curve of affordable housing setasides.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

Try putting a proposition on the ballot to repeal rent control (phrase it anyway you like). See what happens. The mid-market tax break failed. Community courts failed (that was really well worded -I thought it would pass, but no, voters were more discerning). Newsom's plan to kick progressives off the DCCC failed. Pension cuts failed. They only passed when progressives got on board with a plan that was juxtaposed against even worse cuts, which failed by the way.

As always there are exceptions -some progressive intiatives fail and a few conservative ones pass. But there is a definite pattern. It's not random. It can't be dismissed as a blanket tendency to vote yes.

And almost invariably, when progressive initiatives do fail and conservative ones pass, it's due to the pernicious influence of money. For conservatives to win at the ballot in this city, it requires *massively* outspending progressives -not 2-1, but 10-1 or even 100-1. And that, incidentally, is why conservative candidates win citywide. Because in smaller districts, you can potentially run grassroots campaigns that insulate candidates from the influence of big money (see Eric Mar). Much harder to do on a citywide level.

And before you try to repeat the cheap rhetorical point that progressives only see democracy as legitmate when they win, I just want to draw attention to your comments. Your comment about the "great unwashed" and the wise politicians knowing better than the plebes, reveals your utter contempt for democracy.

I admit that people- all people -can be manipulated. That's a given. But ultimately, I fundamentally believe in democracy -people should get what they want. I want a true sense of the electorate. Equalize the financial advantages, have public campaigns, and let the chips fall where they may.

What you are talking about is qualitatively different. You believe that the elites know better, and should act as a "balance" on the people. Balance to you is balance between the interests of money and the interests of people, balance between democracy and plutocracy.

To me, that's not "balance." Balance is when the 99% get 99% of what they want, and the 1% get 1% of what they want.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

But then how do you explain that SFBG is predicated on the idea that SF is going in the wrong direction, that the esteemed "great unwashed" are neing displaced by more affluent folks, that tenants are being routinely evicted and driven out of town, that corporate high-rises festoon downtown and that the world here is going to hell in a handbasket?

If you are correct that SF is a progressive nirvana, then who do Tim., Eddie, Marcos, Lilli and other assorted lefties her endlessly whine about how bad things are here? Shouldn't you be gloating?

There's a disconnect here. Either you lefties hold all the aces, as you claim here, or they don't. Which is it?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

Is that while the people of San Francisco, left to their own devices, lean generally progressive, the government has been hijacked by those who have a disdain for democracy.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 9:43 pm

Both sides think that if given the chance to pitch their true belief to the idiots, the idiots will agree.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 12:04 am

Piss off matlock. You sound like a broken record, ignoring substance of what others say, and just parroting the same facile false equivalencies.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 10:26 pm

Conservative power is sufficient such that it can make offers to progressive elected officials that they cannot refuse. That's how a mafia works.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

Your failure to understand that concemns you to being ineffectual in achieving any change.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 8:20 am

Not me. Certainly not Greg in his above thoughtful, dispassionate, comment.

You must believe somehow that describing the unnecessary, but terrible, economic and social conditions of the present time and system is whining.

Maybe you'll move beyond your sheltered, discredited outlook in the new year.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 8:32 am

You'd kinda think that libertarians compulsively posting on a progressive website would qualify as whining...

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 9:28 am

differing views and accept that there are many points of view and valid ideas, even if you personally do not like them?

The left has historically always been intolerant of other viewpoints, most obviously seen when communism was briefly popular in some nations. Why do you give further evidence for that thesis by attacking anyone here who disagrees with you?

Is intolerance a "San Francisco value"?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 9:38 am

You were insulted? Good. That's what happens to boors who stay until well past leaving time -- especially when they weren't invited guests in the first place. Direct insults are a proven tactic for coping with such louts, and take less physical exertion than physically removing them.

Here's the facts:

Unlike most people here, you don't share the philosophical nature or societal aims of the SFBG editorial board and its readership. Instead, you typicallly seek to *disparage* those very values and goals, while also taking every available tack to criticize any plans for realizing them.

Nobody who reads this paper is interested in hearing you question their philosophy or values. The reason for that is because since your opinions are so widely divergent from theirs on every level -- honestly that seems to be your only real point -- but since your opinions are *so* widely divergent, there is honestly no basis to interpret your critique. You are like a satanic worshipper who's invited themselves to a book club, and you keep trying to pour pig blood on everbody.

Now, of course, you'll turn into the concern troll, or you will continue to prattle on about close-mindedness and censorship.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 11:27 am

I mean, sometimes such frank speech is in order.

I'm assuming that the real problem is posting copyrighted material, such as lyrics to the Fuck You! song.

Good one. Now can someone tell me what Roxy Music song that had me thinking of?

Posted by Or did the "troll" here on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

Dean Johnson passed away five years ago, I doubt that he's going to be suing anyone.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

Concern troll = "I mean, sometimes such frank speech is in order. I'm assuming that the real problem is posting copyrighted material, such as lyrics "

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

Hopefully I'll get the hang of it again.

marcos, that was me, not a concern troll. Feeling plucky in the new year?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 2:01 pm
Posted by matlock on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

... though I feel compelled to confess having had impure thoughts towards his Swedish girlfriend... like once... or twice...

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 3:39 pm

(and failing) to insult as a way of sidestepping the points made, presumably to bail out a losing position.

If SFBG wanted to censor constructive criticism, then posts that don'tt parrot the "house progressive view" would presumably be removed. Since they are not excised, the assumption has to be that SFBG values free speech, constructive criticism and the right of reply.

Problem for you?

Posted by anon on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

and gone on to explain exactly *why* and *how* they are irreedeemably fucked, then to have them come back and claim to have not noticed being insulted... well then I imagine you've really stumbled onto something.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

have explained anything to anyone. But you do make more sense than Marcos, which isn't saying that much of course.

Posted by anon on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

The Guardian values page hits and the money it generates. By concern trolling on every thread here, what is it, five, six pages for the Tiny piece, all you are doing is giving the SFBG more money to promote their progressive blather. You are certainly not changing any minds, as nobody invited you into the conversation.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 5:37 pm

business basics by someone as clueless as you.

But it does explain why you troll here 24/7.

Posted by anon on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 5:58 pm

negative, bitter, cynical view of what SF is and should be. Redmond etc. are always opposed to what's going on - he is anti-this, anti-that. He never sees a new building he likes unless it's public. He admits to disliking anyone who is successful. He never supports any business success unless it is tiny and, preferably, not run by a straight white male.

Progressives actually hate progress. They want nothing to change. They are conservatives. And they whine incessantly and have no sense of humor, which is why they are foten also angry, spewing out obscenities, insults and abuse at anyone who criticizes their precious hopeless ideology.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 9:30 am

Generalize much?

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 10:02 am

Thank you, your position has been noted and logged, now go away and do something positive somewhere else.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 10:16 am

when there isn't much going on.

Posted by anon on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 4:07 pm

Aside from making committee assignments, the office of Board President doesn't amount to all that much. The person has to be together enough to run the meetings fairly and efficiently and I'll give David Chiu that but he is more or less tied to the Asian bloc and I don't like where the Ed Lee bloc is misleading us.

I dislike the entire idea of identity politics but it's going to be with for the foreseeable future. No reason not to call it what it is and that shouldn't make me a racist, a charge often lightly tossed out by some of the biggest racists around. Take Rose Pak for one, always insinuating that any opposition to her clique is racially motivated. Chiu is tied to her and he knows which side his bread is buttered on if he wants to move up in politics. So I would oppose his reappointment on that ground alone because I think it would be better for the city if we had a personnel change in the office. The Board should act as a counterbalance to the executive branch and the big money operatives off in the wings.

Malia Cohen's term in office has been unremarkable and I don't think she's done a heck of a lot for District 10. Jane Kim seems inconsistent to me. Norman Yee is an unknown factor who must get some BOS experience before stepping up to Board presidency and that applies to London Breed as well.The new mayoral appointee to my own District 4 will undoubtedly be a conservative and Asian person in probably the safest seat in town so I would feel even further disenfranchised in the unlikely event they were to be selected.

Who else might have an interest? John Avalos is popular and likable but apparently not up for it after running the mayoral race and I could support the capable Eric Mar but he doesn't seem interested either. Scott Weiner has in a very short time shown himself to be pretty divisive and I just don't trust his motivation. I definitely support David Campos for the job because he's a low key progressive not beholden to any particular cabal and I just feel that his heart's in the right place.

In the bigger picture the City Charter should be amended to curtail the game of musical chairs that the Mayor always runs when these sorts of things come up for consideration. The Charter currently gives the Mayor too much control over who gets what and that only leads to cronyism and insider pay to play patronage politics. That's so twentieth century.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

Other Guest... not so much.

I must say though... you're too kind to Malia Cohen. Truth is, there are a bunch of seat-warmers on the BOS... Cohen, Elsbernd, Carmen Chu, Farrell, MAP before him -any or all of the above could probably be replaced by Fiona Ma's pomeranian, and no one would notice.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 9:12 pm

something doen about pensions and benefoits, Muni salaries etc.

you may not like the more moderate Supes, but you can hardly accuse them of doing nothing. We'd be a communist city by now, but for them.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:28 am