Author Archives: gdewar

The Blue Angels began their practice runs today, and inevitably an elite squad of San Franciscans have to dump the haterade all over it because it “offends” them in some way. Blogs get flooded with the usual junk, and we have to listen to the equation “If we didn’t spend X dollars on the Blue Angels we could spend X dollars on [insert cause or whatever here]” over and over.
Meanwhile, most of us dig the Blue Angels. But I have a cure for at least some people who have to complain. If you must, do this – pretend the Blue Angels are the Viper force in the Battlestar Galactica episode “Exodus, Part 2” when the Galactica dropped through the sky, launched the Vipers, and helped kick some Cylon ass and save the humans.
There. See, feels kinda cool, doesn’t it? No need for the haterade now.

Once a week I plan on doing a short update about the Muni Rider Voter Guide to keep it in the public eye in this last month before the election. As we enter junk mail and advertising season, a lot of people will have a lot to say about Fix Muni Now (Prop. G) and many candidates will start saying all sorts of things about What They’d Do If Elected to Make Muni Better.
One thing to remember is that the Muni Rider Voter Guide was never in the business of issuing endorsements, so trying to tell people what was perceived they wanted to hear wouldn’t work. Candidates were free to answer as openly as they chose on a few questions that try to find out what (if anything) they know about Muni, and how they make tough decisions.
SFist reported a dust-up between two candidates in District 8 about their positions on Proposition G, the Fix Muni Now measure. Let’s look at what the hullabaloo is all about, and what we have on the record at the Muni Rider Voter Guide.
Rafael Mandelman, a candidate in District 8, was apparently upset that a mail piece contrasted his views on Prop. G with that of one of his opponents, Scott Weiner. Weiner claimed Mandelman was against the measure, Mandelman claimed he was “sort of” for it, but with reservations, etc etc.
Let’s look at his answer in the Muni Rider Voter Guide for some clarity, shall we? (Remember, there’s no advantage to placating the audience here):

5. What is the Fix Muni Now charter amendment? Do you support it? (Y/N) Why or why not?
Currently the City Charter provides that driver salaries shall be no less than the average for the two highest paying transit systems nationwide.  Proposition G would remove that provision, I support that change, and it will surely pass. I do have some concerns about the measure. First, proponents argue that by making salaries subject to collective bargaining, we will enable the MTA to secure work rule concessions from the TWU that could save as much as $30 million. Maybe, but that was the rationale for the charter changes in Proposition A three years ago, and at least in that respect, Proposition A was a failure.  Second, I would have preferred to see a broader package of reform on the ballot.  Finally, I am concerned that Proposition G creates an unfair burden for drivers, spelling out burdens of proof for arbitration proceedings that are more burdensome than for other city workers.

This answer, while not saying an explicit “yes” on G, sure sounds supportive. But by not mentioning the voted “No” on G when the SF Democratic Party was doling out endorsements, and was against it when asking for the SF Labor Council’s support, it creates the perception of trying to have it both ways – hence the attack. Mr. Mandelman has said he has had an “evolving” point of view.
I can appreciate that – before researching labor and management troubles for the Muni Death Spiral article I co-authored this year, I was 100% against this measure. Only after I did my own research, did I make the difficult, but necessary conclusion that running things “as-is” was not the best way to run a railroad, and support it. (Read my reasons by following the link, where I debunk many myths about the measure.)
That said, other progressive candidates have given thoughtful and direct answers as to why they are against Prop. G. While I respectfully disagree with their analyses as to why they are against it, I also appreciate the fact that they’re being as clear as possible.
We can agree to disagree and instead find other ways we can agree to fix Muni in the future. Plus, progressives have a tough time on this measure – while popular with the public, organized labor (on whom they rely for financial and organizational support) is dead set against it. Hey, I get it, and that’s fine. It’s no different than candidates being for or against a measure because their allies elsewhere are for or against something too.
So what have we learned today? In a close campaign, the hit pieces go a flying’ and the debates get heated on hot button issues like Muni. Sometimes candidates say all sorts of things in the heat of battle. However, at least on some Muni issues, the Muni Rider Voter Guide helps you, the voter, try and discern what they’re really saying, and compare the campaign rhetoric of today with was said in the past.
For candidates, the best bet is to simply be clear where they stand and not try and make everyone happy – that’s impossible in San Francisco. I would also caution those that are trying to use the “Muni issue” to make their campaigns look good – those of us who care about these issues (i.e. almost everyone in SF) will be looking very closely at what happens after the election too, and those that choose rhetoric over results will have a lot of explaining to do in 2014.

As it’s the campaign season once again, that means that the time honored tradition of political junk direct mail will be filling your mailboxes this fall. Most people just send this stuff straight to the recycle bin (at my apartment it never even makes it indoors as people just dump it in the recycle bin we have outside by our mailboxes), and that’s a shame. Mostly because unlike most people, I actually look at these things, not so much to be “informed” but rather to decode and debunk what it is they’re saying.
Unlike TV ads, which get analyzed extensively by the press, direct mail runs “under the radar” and often times it’s past election day before people realize what hit them. So, as I’ve done in the past, I like to scan these in and critique them on message, artwork, and the lie-o-meter, because I’m just that obsessive.
So what does this mean for you? Well the thing is despite having voted in one form or another for some time, because I’ve only lived in this particular residence for about a year and a half, I don’t get as much mail as some of you might. Thus, I’m asking for help in collecting samples from around the City of SF (particularly independent expenditures on behalf of causes and candidates) and anything that looks interesting or explicitly lame or just plain odd. Email me and let me know what you’ve got and I’ll make arrangements to pick it up or send you some $ for postage. Or, scan it in if you can and send me a JPG.
Thanks!

I’m no fan of Gavin Newsom, and that’s not exactly a state secret. 7 years of ruining Muni and showboaty, go-nowhere policies and big pay raises to city workers has left the city a mess. That said, when I saw the infamous convention video that appointed Lt. Gov put out over the weekend, I was just blown away by some of the big lies in this thing and even I found it rather unfair. You know when something’s up when even a big critic of the Mayor thinks the guy is being picked on unfairly.
Anyone can rip on Mayor Newsom with an endless array of provable facts. The fact that despite this, the Maldonado camapign felt a need to put a BIG ASS LIE in the middle of it made me realize that I’m going to have to write in someone for this because while I don’t like seeing Newsom get a promotion he doesn’t deserve, I sure as Hell can’t vote for Abel either.
The lie? Well in the video they mention the death of an SFPD officer in 2006. Then they cut to a video of Newsom being interviewed by Dan Noyes of ABC7 in San Francisco. It’s the famous “mad clap” video where he goes off on Noyes. You can find it at 4 minutes and 10 seconds in to the video (btw which has terrible editing. WTF?)
The problem is, Noyes wasn’t asking him in 2006 about the death of an SFPD officer. Instead it was shot in 2007, and Noyes was asking about the many allegations of Newsom’s alcohol abuse that were swirling around him as that and that other scandal were making its way out on the Series of Tubes.
Amazing. They had to edit a lie instead of just tell the truth. For no good reason. Yeah, we really want either one of these guys a heartbeat from the Governor’s office. Time to write in your favorite celebrities or something!