Kelly challenges Cohen in D10

Kelly (top) and Cohen in 2010

After being narrowly edged out in the race for the District 10 seat on the Board of Supervisors four years ago, Potrero Hill political activist Tony Kelly says he will launch his campaign for the seat tomorrow [Wed/18], challenging incumbent Malia Cohen.

In 2010, after former Sup. Sophie Maxwell was termed out, the D10 race was a wide open contest that had low voter turnout and the squirreliest ranked-choice voting ending that the city has seen. On election night, former BART director Lynette Sweet finished first, followed by Kelly, a third place tie between Cohen and Marlene Tran, and Potrero Hill View publisher Steve Moss in fourth.

But the strong negative campaigning between Sweet and Moss, the leading fundraisers in the race, allowed the likable but then relatively unknown Cohen to vault into the lead on the strength of second- and third-place votes, finishing a few hundred votes in front of Kelly, who came in second.

Cohen has had a relatively unremarkable tenure on the board, spearheading few significant legislative pushes and being an ideological mixed bag on key votes. But she’ll likely retain the support of African American leaders and voters in Bayview and Hunters Point, and enjoy the always significant advantage of incumbency.

Kelly hopes to turn that advantage into a disadvantage, tying Cohen to City Hall economic development policies that have caused gentrification and displacement. “Too many San Franciscans face an uphill battle, especially here in District 10,” Kelly said in a statement announcing his candidacy. “Our district is part of one of the richest cities in the richest state in the richest country in the world, and yet our neighborhoods are home to the highest unemployment rates in the City, our homeowners are at risk of foreclosure, and our tenants at risk of evictions. This is unacceptable, and we must do better.”

Kelly and his supporters plan to file his official declaration of candidacy tomorrow at 12:30pm in the Department of Election office in the basement of City Hall.




Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:52 am

Saw that quote in the thread and got a chuckle.

Yes, we wouldn't want to jeopardize that 25% employee absentee rate.

Funny that Muni's budget has exploded over the last ten years while on-time performance has stayed the same. Yet many conclude more money will improve Muni....hmmmm.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:38 am

just absorbs any amount of cash with no improvement. We should be investing in our winners and not our losers.

How about private jitneys along the major arteries? Works fine in NYC.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:53 am

The MTA Board is the Big Loser. We need to be replacing it with a competent board so that we can throw money at Muni and it will result in rapid, reliable transit out the other end.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:14 am

bureaucrats instead of those who know how to run a business. So don't be shocked when it doesn't work out.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:27 am

...hasn't "exploded" in the last 10 years, it's been more like an implosion with the loss of state and federal transit funding. As my old boss Tim Redmond used to say, throwing money at government agencies doesn't necessarily improve performance, except when it comes to transit and schools, which both get better as their funding increases. 

Posted by steven on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

if the money goes directly to services. However, much of it goes to employees in the form of pension and healthcare benefits that are out of control.

Why do you think SEIU always supports more funding? Clue - it's not because they give a crap about services.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 1:31 pm

Compare 2004-5 to current, it HAS exploded.

As noted elsewhere, most of the additional money goes to the pay and benefits of grossly overpaid employees who do not get paid on merit. This is not a crime but it does not improve service in any way.

Frankly, if you do not follow this - then you are naïve or a victim of your "progressive" blinders.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

drivers. There's your problem right there.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 3:09 pm

she doesn't seem to be particularly talented for the job. I don't agree with them on everything but Weiner and Farrell seem to be more talented; or maybe they're just more aggressive or have more passion for the job.

All incumbents should be challenged.

Good luck Mr. Kelly - you seem reasonably sensible. ha.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:47 am
Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:02 am

She's just in over her head and doing what she's told. We can do better.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:23 am

to be trusted in positions of power. That's why we need to replace her with a NIMBY white male activist who thinks he knows better than everyone else how to run their lives.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 2:34 pm

Nobody could possibly be more qualified than a white male progressive!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 2:54 pm

That appears to indicate that they are not always that sophisticated in their voting decisions.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

thinking - which is "I have a super-sized ego which matches my gut and I know how to make decisions better than the rest of you idiots - which is why I never stop running for public office. I'm a very important man and sitting on the Board of Supervisors will confirm that for me."

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 1:58 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.