Category Archives: San Francisco Politics

Suggestions Regarding the June Primary in California and San Francisco For Your Review

People keep asking me “hey, who are you voting for in the June 3rd Primary” almost every day, it seems. Well maybe not, but when there’s an election without a lot on the line (unless you live in AD 17 where the Chiu/Campos slugfest is clogging your mailbox with BS), I do hear this more often than not.
So without any further ado, here are my humble opinions on the ballot we’re stuck with for June 3rd. Remember – for partisan offices, we now send the 2 candidates who receive the most votes in the primary – regardless of party.
This means that in places like San Francisco, which have an overwhelming number of voters registered Democratic and Decline to State, you could wind up with two Democrats vying for a job in Sacramento and no other parties represented. The same goes for heavily Republican areas that may wind up with two GOP candidates on the ballot, slugging it out.
Is this a smart idea or not? Personally I’m not sure, but if nothing else it ensures that political consultants who operate in areas dominated by one party have a job, no matter what, after June 2nd, so if nothing else this creates jobs, so, awesome.
Statewide Offices:
Governor: Jerry Brown. It’s the first time in ages we’ve had an adult in charge of California. That is all.
Lt. Governor: @darth on Twitter. The current LG has made no secret he hates his do-nothing job, he never shows up to work, and spends most of his time mouthing off at the Adult in Charge (Gov. Brown). At least @darth could tell better jokes on the gov’t dime, and he’d get a nice pension out of it.
Secretary of State: This is an “open” seat, as the incumbent is termed out. You can vote for Uncle Leland if you wanted (even though he’s been busted by the feds). This is a tough call: I ended up voting for Alex Padilla, but I also like David Cressman because he’s a reform minded guy. Either one would be fine.
Controller: This office does a lot of Important Things, but the one that most people care about the most is the Office of Unclaimed Property. The current officeholder is termed out, so basically the question is: who will ensure that money you’re owed goes to you quickly, easily and legally.
Despite my years in the political business, etc, I honestly didn’t know who to vote for. The only candidates I’d really heard of were Betty Yee (Current Board of Equalization member) and John Perez (former Speaker of the Assembly for a few years). I think I flipped a coin between the two.
Treasurer: This is a no brainer – John Chiang (the former Controller). Why? Because he did a really good job streamlining the aforementioned Office of Unclaimed Property. Having had significant dealings with this office, I can say the guy made it a lot easier and quicker to get back the money the gov’t has that’s legally yours. So yeah, move this guy over to the Treasurer’s office, and let’s see what he fixes there.
Attorney General: It sometimes feels like the other parties are phoning it in, because when a major party has as one of its potential nominees Orly Taitz, a wackadoodle from the Internet, you have to wonder. I voted for incumbent Kamala Harris because she’s going to win anyways, so why fight it?
Insurance Commissioner: This is one of the few times where you can vote for someone and actually feel good about it. Incumbent Dave Jones has been one of the few people who got elected to a statewide office because they wanted the job AND wanted to do some good.
Board of Equalization, District 2: I like Fiona Ma, but it seems like all she’s done for the last 12 years is run for one office after another, always looking to the next Government Gig while in office. I left this one blank. Shoulda written in someone.
Statewide Ballot Measures:
Proposition 41: This is a bond measure (aka borrowed money) for a measure to help with housing and homeless services for veterans. While I’m not a fan of voting for every single bond ever (since this bites us all in the ass when the massive interest is paid back), are you REALLY going to vote no on something for veterans? I voted Yes.
Proposition 42: I’m not sure why we have to vote on something this arcane as the enforcement of rules regarding public meetings etc., but when I read who is for it (State Sen. Mark Leno, among others) and read who was against it (one of these conspiracy nuts who things that a bus line is a tool of Satan), well it’s clear that one should vote YES.
State Assembly – San Francisco Districts

State Assembly, District 17: I don’t have a dog in this fight because I don’t live in the district. Two SF Supervisors who ran for re-election in 2012, but somehow didn’t like their jobs enough to serve out a full term are running: David Campos and David Chiu. This could result in a classic Democrat-on-Democrat fistfight in the fall if they both prevail. Either way if one of these people gets elected, Mayor Lee will appoint their replacement, so keep that in mind, regardless of your political leanings.
If I lived in this district I’d write in myself or something, because neither one really should be getting a promotion since they more or less lied when they ran for re-election. If you really want to take this seriously, why not vote for Chiu – at least he can work with an all-Southern California based leadership in the Legislature. Campos is running primarily to increase his pay or something, and will just be a grandstander like he did here in SF.
State Assembly, District 19: Vote for me. Yes, me. Write my name in. That is all.
Look I like Phil Ting and he’s a nice enough person, but his advocacy to rename the Bay Bridge after Willie Freakin’ Brown means I can’t vote for him this time around. He’s going to win anyways, so a few write in votes for me won’t hurt. Plus in some weird twist of fate I’d win, let’s just say I’d take the term “disrupt” to a whole new level in Sacramento.
US House – San Francisco
US House, District 12: Due to redistricting, all of San Francisco is now in one district, currently represented by Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Now, I like Mrs. Pelosi, and she’s had a long career in the House, but the sad truth is the likelihood of her EVER becoming Speaker again is slim to none. There’s plenty of reasons for this, some in her control, and some not. I raise this only because if things continue with the wackadoodles running the House as is, this isn’t going to end well for anyone and someone(s) need to be held accountable for this constant Democrat Fail we have on the House side of things.
I ended up voting for Pelosi only because there’s no one else with a real campaign to challenge her, but I did so knowing what’s going to happen in November. If you’re really upset about things like drones or whatever, then vote for Barry Hermanson. He is a nice guy and presses all the right lefty buttons, but he is also a perennial candidate, so don’t expect an October Surprise if he makes it to the finals in November.
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Proposition A: I voted “No” because it’s not clear from the Voter Guide how much the cost of this bond (aka borrowed money) would be passed on to renters. I’m sure it’s a good thing, and like, every person at City Hall endorsed it, but that also makes me a bit suspicious.
Proposition B: If the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions, then San Francisco is covered in cement and said Good Intentions. This is one of those well-meaning ballot measures (hey! let voters vote on every single thing ever near the water!) that has a lot of Unintended Consequences. Plus, the people behind it aren’t being truthful about their intentions. So, vote NO.
Put it another way: would you want that howler monkey colony known as the SFGate comments section micromanaging development in San Francisco? HELL NO, VOTE NO.
On an unrelated note, I wanted to also make a pitch for a friend of mine in Washington State who is running for their state House of Representatives in a suburban district south of Seattle. His name is Mike Sando, and he’s running for an open seat in the 33rd District up there. He’s a parent, a teacher & coach, a labor leader, and serves on the Enumclaw City Council, and worked in the Legislature for many years, so he knows how to actually Get Things Done in Olympia, and won’t need training wheels his first year in office.
I’ve known him for 20 years and know him to be a good guy, and that’s rare in politics these days.. You can read more about him at his Facebook page and if you are so inclined, send him a few dollars. House races in Washington state don’t cost a lot so even a donation of $20-$100 helps out a lot.

Why I’m Not Running for Supervisor, Despite the Rumors

Several months ago, a rumor began about the possibility of me running for the Board of Supervisors in 2012. Naturally, this got the SF Internet Rumor Mill treatment for a while, and then as the months passed, quieted down. As many people still ask me if I’m running or not, I am saying today that the answer, sadly, is “no.”
I’ve entertained this notion as I have met people around the City, writing about City politics (particularly when it comes to Muni), who have encouraged me to run. The fact is I have a better understanding of how the SFMTA and Muni works than any other candidate, declared or not in the race for District 5, and I’m well aware of how the corruption, the lawmaking process and the money work at City Hall also. My only promise would be that I would never beholden to them, while others may or may not be.
If I was somehow elected, I’d owe no one anything and I would focus on getting things done at City Hall, not spending endless hours debating phony non-binding resolutions or catering to loud, small groups that too often get the ear of City Hall over Everyone Else.
As I began to research this, however, a few problems began to emerge. When I plotted a Google Map of every potential supporter of mine, a pattern emerged – many people did not live in the district (even if they lived in the Inner Sunset!). This is due in part to the fact that once again, the So-Called Progressives jammed a portion of the Inner Sunset into one of the most leftist districts in town. (Thanks for nothing, once again, guys!)
This has had the effect of dividing the Inner Sunset (for example I can walk a few blocks from my home and end up in District 7), and would put me at a disadvantage. Basically this means it doesn’t matter if the Appointed Incumbent can’t find the Inner Sunset on a map, because ultimately she can blow it off and still win election. Meanwhile, many voters would regard me as someone from the Farallon Islands, at best. So, this made me realize that right here, right now, this may not be a great idea.
The second, of course is money. Now that I no longer work in consulting, and have a little spare cash, I thought at first I’d be able to finance the startup capital to get the campaign going in a credible manner. However, much of my money is tied up right now in a couple of business ventures that are pending, so I can’t tap it like I thought. Plus – I had to ask myself how much I wanted to spend money on dead tree mail and online ads vs. health care or a vacation (an alien concept to me in recent years) or on things for my family. You can guess where I land on that.
More importantly, the Appointed Incumbent will have the billionaire 1% types and others who funded Ed Lee’s campaign last year AND the support of city labor unions who rely on the City for members to enhance their power. Going up against both of those without at least a solid base of support within a district meant that at best I’d raise “name ID” for a future run.
The prospect of that, and of having to spend most of my time at some forum answering the same questions in 1 minute or less made the prospect, at least for now, not worth it. Besides, when I do something I do it to win, not to “place” and would want to go to City Hall to do something, not just see myself on TV and blab on about stuff like most do.
Still, I have to say that many, many people came forward and offered support. I couldn’t possibly name them all here, but it was truly amazing to have people I never heard of tell me “do it!” and offer true support. I have also had many amazing offline conversations not just about the problems Our City faces, but how there seems to be a Silent Majority out there of folks just waiting to do their best and make SF once again the “City That Knows How.”
In recent times plenty of politicians have appropriated words like that, only to offer us more politics of the clubhouse and corruption. Needless to say, it’s nice to know not everyone thinks this is sustainable over the long term.
Finally, let me say this: I made the mistake in my early adulthood of getting as far away from San Francisco as I could, for whatever reason. While Washington DC and Seattle were nice places, it is only when I returned in 2000 that I realized this is where I belong, despite the nonsense. To paraphrase Mat Honan’s essay a while back, San Francisco has plenty of problems, but despite all that, I’d rather live here than elsewhere. If there’s some way I can continue to make things better, I want to go to there.*
For now, I’m going to keep on blogging, writing, and listening to the people about their daily lives and I’ll get involved when events warrant as a citizen. I want to thank again my friends, as well as the friends I didn’t know I had, for their support, and look forward to one day enlisting all of your help for something positive for Our Fair City.
PS: As for the 2012 race for Supervisor: I’m happy to have any candidate meet with me and tell me why they are the best person for the job, but they can’t use canned rhetoric or try and BS me. If one does emerge that warrants your vote, I’ll let you know.
PS2: While I may not be running, you can watch this entertaining trailer about a friend of mine in Seattle who challenged the Establishment back in 2001 (the pre Twitter/Facebook era) that’s coming out soon. Although my effort might have been a bit better organized, it would have retained an anti-Establishment tone. Also, you really should support my friend Kevin Montgomery and get him to run in District 9.
*Does anyone get this joke?

Even This Close to the Deadline, We Might Be Able to Save the Inner Sunset at City Hall

Watching the twists and turns of the San Francisco Redisricting Commission as they create new district maps for the Board of Supervisors has been like watching several well-meaning people play ping pong all at once, on meth in the dark. Things happen so fast, and change so dynamically, usually with no MSM coverage, by the time you think you know what’s going on, things have changed. Again. And again. AND…well you get the idea.
It was just about a week ago when I looked at what was the latest map, and it partially corrected the injustice committed on residents of the Inner Sunset by partisan progressive interests 10+ years ago-forcing part of the neighborhood into District 5, while cutting out many of the blocks of the Inner Sunset and put them into District 7. This injustice had the following effects:
– Many of us were forced into a district that elected Matt Gonzalez and Ross Mirkarimi, both “progressives,’ who paid more attention to more politically correct parts of the district. It also ensured that anyone from the Inner Sunset would have a harder time getting elected, since people in say, the Western Addition probably regard the Inner Sunset as they do the Farallon Islands – far, far away.
– The residents of the Inner Sunset were divided into two districts, making contact with the appropriate Board member confusing. Also, as I’ve stated before, this meant trying to get two busy Supervisors to attend a neighborhood meeting to express concerns. In Allegedly Sophisticated and Smart San Francisco, this is stupid.
Just recently there seemed to be a fix in teh works that would have at least contained more of the Inner Sunset in District 5, thus solving at least part of the problem. Unfortunately just a few days ago, the Commission decided to roll back the borders, citing the ‘traditional’ borders from 2002.
NEWS FLASH, Commissioners: that “historical” border was a partisan gerrymander hack designed by partisan progressives to jam a few precincts in to try and “help” narrow progressive itnerests, the residents be damned. Relying on this precedent is, for all intents and purposes, bullshit.
There are two remaining meetings of the Commission – one is tonight at 6pm at City Hall, Room 406. The other is this Saturday, April 14th, at 10:00am in Room 400. Both should be televised at SFGovTV online and on cable, but you never can tell if it’s going to be live or just taped it seems. UPDATE: Our Friend Paul Hogarth says the live link should be this one at SFGOVTV online.
I am going to try and attend tonight but it is a close call since I have to go spend most of the day out of town and given the commuting foibles of going from county to county, might not make it.
However, there’s nothing stopping you from going. The one good thing about the Commission is that they will listen if people show up, and will try to do their best to accommodate people, without worrying about what a few political bosses think. So that’s a good thing.

An Amended Modest Proposal: Reform “Public Financing” of Campaigns The Easy Way

There’s a whole cottage industry revolving around “campaign reform,” and for the most part it’s produced a lot of nonsense, locally and nationally. However, I am daring to get in the game and make a few modest proposals of my own, not for the sake of helping one partisan side over the other, but instead to give voters a clear choice and to be able to understand for whom or what they are voting for.
Earlier this year, I proposed that anyone running for office in San Francisco in 2012 be asked to sign a pledge saying simply that if they won election (or re-election) to the office they campaigned for, they’d actually serve the full four year term they asked voters for.
This may sound a bit nitpicky, but look at what happened in 2008 – we had several people run for Supervisor who asked the voters to send them to serve as Supervisor. Halfway through their terms, these newcomers then decided they’d had enough, and ran for Mayor. So did a lot of other elected officials.
Not only did they spend a lot of their time away from their six-figure salaried jobs, they asked for taxpayer money to finance piles of junk mail. In fact, we had so many people last year running for Another Office, things pretty much shut down at City Hall, all at a time when we needed people on the job. Add to the fact that taxpayers subsidized most of the Mayoral races (and yet the guy with the Super PACs funded by the 1% won anyway) and it’s clear something is wrong here.
Today I amend my suggestion that candidates running in 2012 sign a pledge to serve out their full terms in office and not run for another during said term with this:
Any candidate that takes taxpayer money in 2012 to run for office in San Francisco should serve out their full term. If they do not, they should be forced to return the tax money they used in 2012 to run for office if they decide to run for another job (Assembly, State Senate, Dogcatcher, Sheriff, etc.)
I don’t think this is an unreasonable request. I’m sure the politicians will ignore it, as they do anything that demands accountability or gets in the way of taxpayer dollars to finance their career advancement. It’d be interesting to see who, if anyone makes such a pledge. San Francisco voters would certainly be the beneficiaries though, since now they at least can figure out who’s telling the truth when they say “vote for me in 2012” and who is not.

A Modest Proposal for Campaign 2012: Signed Pledges to Serve Full Terms in Office!

This year we have a lot of elections this year – everything from President down to Supervisor here in SF. You can expect the usual avalanche of junk mail, advertising, and whatnot everywhere you go. Today I’m making a modest proposal for Campaign 2012 focused on our local elections – a signed pledge by every candidate running for Supervisor in San Francisco stating that they intend to actually serve the full term of the office they claim to be seeking in 2012.
This may seem superfluous, but look back to just last year. We had several candidates for office who got elected in 2008 saying they wanted to serve as Supervisor or in some other capacity, but within a few years were spending most of their time running for Mayor. Not only did this mean they spent a lot of time not doing the job they were elected to do (and well paid for) but also spent taxpayer money to get that other big job.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people who are filling our boxes with junk mail and ads saying how they’re going to do all sorts of wonderful things as Supervisor to sign a pledge saying that they will actually do said job.
Obviously there’s nothing legal binding anyone to said agreement, but anyone breaking it sure would look shady, that’s for sure. Likewise, those who did honor it would restore some integrity to CIty Hall.
Here’s a suggested pledge:

I (state your name) am running for Supervisor in 2012. If elected by the voters of my district, I hearby pledge to serve the entire term in office.
I will not run for higher office during my term, nor will I raise money to run for another office during my term.
I will serve the people of San Francisco to the best of my abilities and will stay at City Hall during my four year term.
SIgned (state your name)

It’d be curious to see if anyone signed this pledge. I certainly would like to know if I vote for someone or volunteer on their campaign that they’d actually follow through, and not just use City Hall as a campaign office for another gig.
If you have suggestions for this proposed pledge, leave a comment in the section below. Thanks!

Why Is The Inner Sunset SF’s Perennially Politically Abused Neighborhood?

innersunsetfrakked.jpg
Here we go again.
As you may or may not know, after every census, legislative districts at all levels are redrawn to better reflect a growing and/or shifting population. Other times it’s to reflect the decline in population of an area. No matter what, how those districts are drawn are important, especially in a city like San Francisco. However, once again, it seems the Powers That Be at the Redistricting Task Force want to once again gerrymander the Hell out of the Inner Sunset neighborhood at the Board of Supervisors.
For ten years a strip of the Inner Sunset was tacked on to the former District 5, which was represented by Matt Gonzalez, and later Ross MIrkarimi. From what I’ve been told, this was a way to “ensure” the district was progressive. Never mind the fact that it created a strange division in a neighborhood, or disempowered community activists – it was serving the “Progressive” needs that came first. Whenever local leaders wanted to organize an event with local Supervisors, they had to find a time when both Supervisors Elsbernd and Mirkarimi could attend, since both represented the area. I remember moving literally across the street and down a block and finding myself in another district.
The proposed changes make things worse. Now, it’s proposed we divide the neighborhood into three districts. I’ve posted a zoom in view of the map, but you can go to the Redistricting Task Force websiteFour Corners (but with three districts!) as you step from one to the other.
The Inner Sunset has traditionally been identified as a westside neighborhood, and its interests align themselves with other contiguous neighborhoods. The political gerrymandering of this area to serve shallow interests that could care less about our neighborhood has to stop. I would hope that some adults would intervene and make some changes. In the meantime, email the commission and the politicals at City Hall and let them know you’re tired of seeing our neighborhood cut to pieces to serve the politicians’ needs, not ours.

OccupySF Continues to Disappoint. Maybe It Should be Called CampingSF Instead?

occupysflogo.jpgWTF, OccupySF?
Seriously. First I read this story where the “brave” Occupy Army went and harassed a locally owned business based on totally false information that made them look like complete idiots. Wow! Way to show solidarity with the 99%, gang! What’s next, beating up hot dog vendors in the Mission?
Second, I read a story in the Chronicle about the increasing number of homeless kids in SF public schools. (the story doesn’t mention the number of kids who may have a roof over their head, but still live in poverty). This, in a city of billionaires and innovation? Really? Even worse, these kids have to compete against kids in wealthy suburbs (who have all the advantages necessary) on standardized tests. You’d think that would inspire some direct action, perhaps at a billionaire party, or a corrupt fundraiser for the “Mayor” or one for Supervisors, or for anyone in the Political Establishment? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Instead, there’s just more infighting about whether to camp in the Mission, or whatever. Fortunately, the disorganization at City Hall is about the same at OccupyCampingSF, so no raids are forthcoming. Thank goodness the camping can continue.
I don’t disagree with some of the points the Occupy movement is supposed to be making – it’s a sick world we live in whereby profitable banks like Wells Fargo are getting huge tax rebates (and bailouts from taxpayers) and meanwhile I’m fighting off illegal charges to my dead dad’s estate by similar banks and the like, charged in the hopes I’m either too dumb or too frustrated to fight them. It’s even more frustrating to see needed projects get held up in bureaucratic limbo – but a stadium for billionaires gets a pass on CEQA and a billionare yacht race is being subsidized by a broke city.
Unfortunately once you leave echo chambers like blogs and IndyBay and other said media, the message ain’t getting through to the people who really are part of the true 99%. Anecdote: During the holidays I was at a suburban pizza place and the news was on some of the TVs. When the latest footage of Camping SF came on, I couldn’t help but overhear comments by folks, most of whom wrote the whole thing off as a bunch of kids playing protester. However, these people are also folks who are getting screwed over by a tax burden shifted from the wealthy to the 99%, who are paying more in taxes and getting less in services, and so on. They should be joining the movement (if they do in fact feel it’s in their interests) but they won’t because who wants to be around a bunch of smelly protesters bent on God Knows What?
In the end, this is becoming a clusterf*ck on all sides, and like most “protests” on the left, will go nowhere. That’s too bad , because another loud, unruly lot, the Tea Party folks, have practically “occupied” the GOP to the point where a joker like Herman Cain was considered a real candidate for President.
WTF, indeed.

#Occupy is No Longer About Important Issues We Need To Deal With, It’s About Camping

occupysflogo.jpg(This is an expanded version of a post I did earlier this week.)
The #Occupy movement, be it in San Francisco, Oakland or elsewhere insists on having “no leaders” to distinguish themselves from The Man, Wall Street, etc. That’s lovely. However, this leaderless movement has created an unintended consequence: we’re no longer talking about issues of economic inequality, democracy, corporate accountability or other Really Big Problems, and how to fix them.
Instead, we’re mostly talking about a movement centered on camping in parks.
While there’s a core group of people who are committed to an Actual Cause, there’s a growing part of the encampments that are only about people wanting to camp in parks and be allowed to do whatever they want, laws and civility and cleanliness be damned.
Mike Aldax’s day with #occupysf made this clear – and that the growth of the “camp” has less to do with people working to bring up issues, and more to do with transients taking advantage of the situation for their own selfish needs (drugs, booze, etc.) Needless to say, this isn’t doing much to expand the people involved to include more of the Actual 99% they claim to represent.
I support the Occupy movement bringing up their issues and forcing people to confront what they’ve been in denial about, but it’s time to apply some creativity. We don’t have to have people camping in crappy tents in a park to continue to force local and national government to deal with the issues mentioned above. They also need to do some (gasp!) self-policing and tell those who are there to cause trouble to fuck off, and work with the police to keep the peace if they want to keep claiming the moral high ground.
The “shock and awe” movement of the initial Occupy movement is over – its time for Act II. Be creative. Don’t repeat the past like a Civil War re-enactment (looking at you, 21st century hippies). Blow minds, not with your funk, but with something that really shows why financial abuses by the few at the top harm the many, and why we who aren’t hipsters, hippies, or Those Not Part of the Left should give a damn.
Oh, and that “human microphone” thing? Cute, but the joke’s over. At this point it just sounds like a Protestant church overrun by angry white kids.
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s some additional insight from those who’ve seen this all before, and make some suggestions, which of course will be ignored by Occupy.
Final thought: How many of ‘em went to vote in the SF Mayoral election, where LITERALLY the “1%” bankrolled a campaign to protect their tax breaks and elect our “Mayor” ?
Oh, right. They were at the camp site.

Why I Like #OccupySF but Don’t Like the Symbolic Resolution A Certain Candidate for Mayor Proposes

I’ve made no secret in the past that I am a true “law and order” kind of guy, in that I believe both the state and the people need to abide by rules, created by the people, and enforced by the state, to ensure than tyranny by the mob does not rule.
That said, I don’t disagree with most of what the #occupysf folks are out there for. Even as a capitalist who technically should be on the side of those shi*tty big banks who bankrupted the world economy, I cannot abide by them. That is because at heart, I am a true capitalist, and I think those who manipulate government to allow for so-called “investments” that would not meet the standards of the shadiest Las Vegas Casino, much less what the SEC should allow, need to seriously STFU. Also, those shithead “banks” are fucking over real capitalists and have shit interest rates. So, yes, the #occupysf movement is making a point, and if it means some days in the park, whatever.
Today, however I talk about talk vs. action. In San Francisco we have a member of our Board of Supervisors (A county legislator for the rest of you outside our fair City and County, a unique blend of government in California), who is trying to ride the #occupy movemenet to City Hall as Mayor. That is his right, of course, but what I find offensive is the use of the most impotent weapon out there: the Non Binding Resolution.
What this means to you, the #occupy supporter in San Francsico, and to the millions of you outside of San Francisco who are ticked off at income inequality and at a political system that makes money #1 and the people #230002893203020320302 is that despite all the heat and light discussed tomorrow, at the Board of Supervisors meeting is that, no matter what, not a goddamned thing will change.
Yes, you’ll have a nice piece of paper with the City’s name on it supporting La Causa. A failed candidate for Mayor will have something to slap on some cheap dead tree in the last 7 days of the race. The Temp Mayor, who is truly the mayor of the 1% will have to either go nuclear in his response or save it for November 9th, post election. In the end, the “politics of feelings” will have won and a chance at stopping the localized version of corruption will be swept away, a la Oakland last week.
There is another option.
That option is to tell all the self-serving politicians who show up and talk liberal platitiudes at #occupysf and tell them to fuck the Hell off unless they do the following:
-They renounce Ed Lee, a puppet of the corporations who is doing what he is told and is well paid to do so
-They renounce things like a billionaire yacht race that gives away the City to the Billionaire 1% while they pay not a dime, all in the promise of “trickle down economics”
-They stop giving billionaires like Sean Parker tax breaks, while small businesses in our neighborhoods shutter because they can’t make payroll.
-They stop supporting a plan that kills public transit for the pathetic needs of a few so-called “non profits” and steers money away from the N-Judah, the 5-Fulton, the 38-Geary, the L-Taraval, the M-Ocean View and more.
It’s up to you #OccupySF and up to you, Liberal San Francisco. Don’t be bullshitted by dead tree mail or empty actions. It’s the votes that count and if after 10+ years of So-Called Progressives running the legislative branch of City government you can’t stop it?
It’s time to admit you lose.
And you and John Avalos can take your “symbolic resolution” to the nearest impotence clinic, as that is the best it will be.

Approve of Occupy Oakland? Don’t Approve? Either Way, Jean Quan F*cked Up

Whether you support Occupy Oakland or if you think they should not be at Ogawa Plaza at night, there’s one thing everyone can agree on: “Mayor” Jean Quan is a complete f*ck up. Her lack of leadership, lack of accountability, and past failures regarding public safety came to a head and the result is that now people worldwide know just how much Oakland sucks.
Listening to Jean Quan’s babbling at the press conference, it was clear she was in way over her head, and resorted to invoking Bil Keane’s “Not Me” as often as she could. Apparently Ms. Quan (the same “Mayor” who can’t be bothered to maintain her home) had plenty of excuses, but never once said “the buck stops here” the way a real leader would.
Quan has never had a strong record on public safety to begin with, firing lots of Oakland police officers (only to have to re hire many once the crime rate soared) and the epidemic of violence plaguing the city, particularly African American citizens, has never been a priority for Quan to begin with. Heck one of her top advisors is a pro-criminal attorney (who, in an ironic twist, will represent protestors from Occupy Oakland).
Now, she’s found a new way to piss off everyone. For those who wanted the protestors out of the plaza at night, as per “the rules” she has failed miserably. The heavy handed response (which included critical wounding of an Iraq war vet) was way out of proportion, and inflamed the situation. Now, we have more people in the park, tensions are higher, and in response, last night Quan decided to let the protestors stay.
In other words, she was for beating them down before being against it. One day it’s a threat to the Republic if the protestors stay past 10pm, the next it’s peachy keen. What the f*ck? No matter which side you’re on, we can all agree that this isn’t how to run a city.
Quan’s non-management had an impact far beyond Oakland, however. Any plans by the SFPD to clear out the encampment at Justin Herman Plaza went out the window, because the last thing Temporary Mayor Lee’s political advisors were going to do was allow him to pour more gas on Quan’s flames. More importatnly, the images of Oakland went worldwide, and today we have people marching all over the world, protesting Quan’s incomptence and mishandling of a delicate situation.
Finally, a word about the ranked choice system that gave us Jean Quan in the Mayor’s office: it sucks. She never had much support, her election was due to a flawed system, and now, thanks to that, we have a so-called “mayor” who isn’t up to the job, and has no support.
One wonders what will happen on Election Day in SF as voters are subjected to this bullshit system and who might end up as Mayor. No matter what happens in November, I predict we in SF will show once again why we’re better than Oakland, and send RCV to the dustbin of history so we avoid the potential of a Jean Quan in office here at home.
UPDATE: Now Ms. Quan has completely capitulated to OccupyOakland. So basically all the violence and cracking veteran’s skulls were totally unecessary. She’s now pissed off everyone at City Hall and everyone at OccupyOakland because, well, she has no idea what the f*ck she’s doing. Time to resign, Jean, you’re just not up to the job.
Also, if you’d like to help out Scott Olsen, the vet critically injured by Quan’s indecisive “leadership, here’s a link to some resources so you can get involved.