Category Archives: San Francisco Politics

San Franciscans: THIS is YOUR Commander of Emergency Sevices!

Don’t think a disaster like New Orleans can happen to you?
Here’s the full quote of qualifications for Annemarie Conroy, a good pal* of failed Mayor Frank Jordan and Token Republican in San Francisco Government:
Annemarie Conroy holds a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of California at Berkeley and a Juris Doctorate from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. She was admitted to the California State Bar in December 1989.
Doesn’t that make you feel good? An ENGLISH MAJOR who has the good grace of being a Republican and a friend of a powerful past mayor is now in charge of recovery from one of the three top threats to the US (the others being a terrorist attack in NYC and a big ass storm in New Orleans. I think those happened already).
More importantly it shows how you as a San Franciscan are very vulernable to a political hack for your survival. This has been the problem in San Francisco for some time now – people never get hired or fired for work performance – it’s all about appeasing people with big paying jobs, regardless of the impact. That’s why we have Tony Hall, a former supervisor, “running” Treasure Island, and why Ms. Conroy, the former head of Treasure Island, is now running Emergency Services.
It’s all well and good when the money’s flowing and life is swell that we give these well-padded politcos more money to do nothing. The problem is we pay when a real disaster happens. Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of hiring Ms. Conroy, we’d hired someone who’s got experience running relief and diaster ops for a big city or small country? Maybe somoene who has a bit more in the smarts department than a Cal degree in English?
Perish the thought. But that’s why it’s time we push forward and get some solar rechargers and satphones for our police, fire, and Mayor, and for citizens. We can’t rely on Ms. Conroy to be concerned with much else besides her pension and her paycheck, and she certainly doesn’t have a background that warrants her appointment to this job. But I’m sure appeasing the former Supervisor helps so when we’re all staring at the rubble, we can at least be confident Little Annemarie got her good paying job.
UPDATE: Some have suggested a solar powered or charged cell phone is “expensive” or “not feasible.” To prove them wrong, I direct you all to this link at Apple’s online store. It’s for a pocket solar powered iPod charger, one of many types of solar chargers you can get for iPods and cell phones.
None of this has to be difficult, expensive , or line the pockets of some big stupid meathead-run company like Halliburton. It’s called “getting things done” and it’s a novel concept, I know, but we gotta try. Can’t hurt, can it?
UPDATE II, ELECTRIC BOOGALOO: Apparently the anxiety I have over this political appintment is shared by others. Since the news of Hurricane Katrina, the number of people hitting this site + posting off of Google with search terms involving “Annemarie Conroy” and “patronage” and “disaster” (or variations therein) have caused a minispike in traffic.
For some historical background, take a look at an old article from 1999 that details her previous patronage appointment and give you an idea of so-called “liberal” San Francisco works.
Where’s a paper ready to go on a crusade for All That Is Good and True when you need it the most? How about we put aside the tut-tuts being aimed at Bush and instead focus on making SF the best possible place for civil defense and relief at the local level? Too bad Willie Brown blew all the money during the boom on his buddies…but that’s another column….
FINAL UPDATE (REALLY): Today, the SF Board of Supervisors announced a full on audit of the department, realizing that FEMA (AKA FEEBL) can’t be relied on, and that we have got to have our act together as best we can.
*Actually she’s a relative. This was meant to be a joke.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Some Straight Talk from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom You May Have Missed

“Re-thinking” and “strategizin’ ” are popular topics amongst political types to the left of G. W. Bush. This past week members of the Young Democrats of America held their national convention in San Francisco, and the talk was punctuated with some hard realizations doing “business as usual” wasn’t going to cut it anymore. Good.
What struck me most, though was the coverage of the event in the local press barely made mention of their own mayor’s remarks, and those that did gave it short shrift, presumably because he’s not on the “politically orthodox” side of politics.
Which is unfortunate. That’s because in a time when you have so many Democratic politicians in Washington DC running around thinking they’re in charge of things, when they’re not, and you have lifetime political hacks from D.C. running around, grabbing corporate cash and attacking party chairman Howard Dean for daring to act like, well, a Democrat, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s remarks were a breath of fresh air.
Here’s a quote, from the San Francisco Bay Guardian, that’s worth a look:
“I am not popular in my party,” he said. “What’s the point of winning if you can’t advance your principles? You can’t talk in ideals unless you are willing to manifest them…We need more clarity in our party,” Newsom said. “It’s about integrity.”
You’d think a statement like that, coming from the guy who’s had to take crap from wealthy, psueudo-Democratic battle-axe Dianne Feinstein, and who decided to stand on principle on an issue that was not going to get him any points in a future political career would be applauded, if not by the supposedly progressive Bay Guardian, then at least by the allegedly powerful “liberal blogosphere.”
While I can forgive the latter for not reporting and amplifying Newsom’s remarks since there’s no way for them to know what’s up without being able to read it somewhere, I have to take issue with the Guardian, both for their burial of what would seem to be a bold, progressive statement, and for their coverage of the event in general.
It becomes obvious in a situation like this that no matter what Mayor Newsom says, because he was Not The Politically Correct Person saying said statement, they had to bury it in a half-assed piece about the YD’s.
You almost get the sense that there’s such a determination to slam Mayor Newsom as “Willie Brown, Part Deux” (even though he’s not), they can’t even concede one little piece of decent coverage.
News flash: Mayor Newsom is not perfect, lefty folks. We know that. But trying to demonize the guy and being unable to concede on principle when he’s done some great things ultimately kills La Causa a hell of a lot better than the Ghost of Satan Willie Brown could or will. It shows an inability to grasp today’s political terrain, and a desire to return to what I call the “Bad Good Old Days” – when it was easy to be on
But there’s a bigger issue. You’d think that they’d send someone to, oh I don’t know, try and cover the issues at hand at said convention, and perhaps engage in a little reporting, maybe even quoting some people and attaching names to quotes. Even better, send a young person who’se politically savvy to try and bring the perspective of the people these folks are tryin’ to reach.
Instead the Guardian sent an old college professor whose experience with the Young Democrats dates back to the 1950s. That’s great. But nowhere in this coverage does any real history of the group get told, to place anything that happened at the convention itself in context.
The author clearly went over there with a presupposed concept in mind: the tired old saw of “How the 1960s are Still The Best Years for Activism Ever” and the new hack, “Oh You Democrats Didn’t Talk About The War As Much as I Deem You Should (Even Though I Didn’t Bother to Cover Most of the Convention Anyway).”
Hmm. Sounds like a bad country song. Oh, but I digress.
But to wind it up: Not only did the Guardian make a mis-step in under-reporting their own elected officials’ statements at a natinoal convention in their home town, they also blew a chance to do some real research and come up with a story that might have told the reader a little more about the proceedings and asked some hard questions.
Instead, we got yet another iteration of the old “60’s Great/Today Bad” rhetoric that makes me literally ill every time I hear it. The 60s have been over for some time now, folks. Smokin’ pot and marching a lot may have been the way to go back then. But to make a difference today, one has to get with the times, not try and re-enact the 60s the way those Civil War buffs do so on battlefields in the South.
UPDATE: It seems in my haste to post something, I made the mistake of not noting Pat Murphy’s coverage of said convention at his local news website, SF Sentinel that included coverage of Mayor Newsom’s remarks.
Many people have opinions of Pat Murphy’s work – whatever they say, I still find it a good local resource for many events that don’t always get covered by the Big Papers In Town, and Pat’s never shy about his opinions, or labeling them as such. Kudos to Pat for covering more of the Mayor’s speech.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Quick Hit- What LA Could Learn from San Francisco OR “Wild Night At City Hall!”

Now that our semi-acrimonious campaigns in Los Angeles are over, and now that the sniping at St. Tony has begun (can you even count how many people at the LA Times Blog are proclaiming Tony a “hopeless liberal” or the “Brown Menace” and he hasn’t even taken office yet???) it might be worth taking a look at what kinds of fun happen in a City Hall not dominated by “pay to play” or other nonsense.
This evening I was in San Francisco and stopped off at City Hall. Here’s what I found:
– County Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, continuing a precdedent set by his predecessor, hosted an art show at his Supervisorial offices in City Hall.
This month, the art was the artwork of the militant 60’s Black Panther Party, founded in Oakland, CA by Huey Newton. Regardless of your personal politics, the poster and newspaper art created by the party’s “Ministry of Information” was rather unique, and, in light of what we know now about all involved, quite interesting to look at.
The showing itself was a lively affair, with Supervisor Mirkarimi’s offices packed full of San Francisco’s political elite, and average citizens. They had free drinks, free food, and it was a relaxed way for people to socialize and talk about whatever was on their mind. No speeches, no pompous BS, just a fun Friday for people in the District, and in the City.
Politicians could learn from Supervisor Mirkarimi (and his predecessor Matt Gonzalez) about the value of such an event. Rather than emphasize the holder of the office, it emphasized people in the district the office is supposed to represent. More importantly, no one was there lobbying or networking. People were just there talking to each other, which, in an acrimonious setting, can really help knock down some of the walls we like to build around each other with labels, name calling and p.r. innuendo.
I’m looking around and wondering what politicos in L.A. might emulate this and adapt it for the good of their district and their city…Councilmember-elect Bill Rosendahl? Maybe you’d be willing to give something like this a shot?
-Mayor Gavin Newsom was hosting some Big Press Deal at City Hall as well. Now, I have to admit I dropped the ball on finding out exactly what this was, because just as I was walking up to talk to the Mayor’s staff, I got a call I had to take (darn work intruding on blogging! D’oh!) but the news cameras were there, and you could hear all the talking and laughing from Mirkarimi’s event echoing through the marble-lined halls.
(In fact, my colleague on the phone assumed I was at a bar, not at City Hall, due to the noise).
Still, given how famous this guy has become, and due to the job he’s doing as Mayor (a million times better that Jimi Hahn, that’s for sure!) it was kinda fun to see the guy in action. All on a Friday Night.
-Finally, there was a DJ and a disco ball being set up in the City Hall Main Lobby. I had to ask WHAT was going on, and it turns out Burlinagme High School (just 20 minutes south on the Peninsula) was having their prom…at City Hall.
Now, most of you probably do not know I grew up in Burlingame, so I got a laugh out of this. However, I did not attend Burlingame High (which is where 1/2 of Burlingame and all of Hillsborough’s kids went) – I went to Mills High School in Millbrae instead (and it was cooler anyway).
And, not to brag, but our Senior Prom was at the War Memorial Opera House (across from City Hall) in 1986, and even cooler, at Bimbo’s 365 Club, one of SF’s institutions, in 1985! In your FACE, BHS!
Ok, enough parochial vulgarities. Back to my point. Think about this, readers: Can you imagine an art show (with free drinks), a natiaonlly known Mayor doing Something Importnat, and a high school prom being held at LA City Hall?
More importantly, why aren’t they?
Why can’t we all lighten up a little and put aside the barbs and heavy handed BS once in a while and reminds ourselves…it’s OK to like each other, and OK to just relax and enjoy a Friday, regardless of labels?
I leave this to the Powers That Be. Meanwhile, I plan on going back out in a bit to hang out with some friends, have a cocktail and enjoy what I like best about my home town. When I return to LA, I sure would like it if someone in civic life by then had figured out how to do this without a gun to their head. Bob Hertzberg hosts some fun parties, I bet.
Anyone listening?
UPDATE: Here’s a link to a story that details how busy City Hall is getting these days.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Crashing The Party With John Kerry and Janet Reilly in San Francisco!

NOTE: This entry originally appeared at my old blog, schadelmann.com, but has been archived here.
I’m at the Apple Store on Stockton St. in San Francisco, where they’re releasing OS X Tiger for Macintosh. It’s about 7:30pm and I just left an event at the historic Merchant’s Exchange Building in downtown San Francisco where Sen. John Kerry came out in support for Janet Reilly’s bid for State Assembly on San Francisco’s west side.
Kerry’s presence helped with the attendance rate, to be sure, but the clear star of the evening was Janet Reilly, who gave a great (and not too long) speech. A virtual who’s who of past and present elected officials were on hand in support of her candidacy, including Supervsiors Jake Mc Goldrick and Gerardo Sandoval, and City Attorney Dennis Hererra. Former California Assembly Speaker Leo McCarthy was also in attendance (and serves as the campaign’s chair) and various other past elected officials were there to show their support. It was quite an impressive crowd.
While Kerry’ presence was certainly appreciated by those who attended, his remarks were short and the crowd’s enthusiasm for McCarthy and Reilly was a lot stronger. You got the impression pretty quickly that despite the attacks of the partisan SF Weekly and SF Chronicle, Janet’s campaign is a strong, credible campaign, with a great candidate and some solid ideas for California’s future.
Los Angeles residents on the Westside might remember Janet from one of her previous jobs, as a press and community relations aide to former Mayor Richard Riordan. No doubt we’ll see her in L.A. at some point to re-connect with friends in Southern California and enlist support for her campaign, which is focusing on the decrepit state of health care in this country.
I’m about to get kicked off the comptuers at the Apple store so I have to cut this short…and Journalspace will be going offline at 9pm for maintenance so I will post more.
Overall though, this event was one of the best organized events I’ve been to in a while. I could literally check off in my head my own “Steps to a Successful Large Fundraising Event” while observing the preparations and the crowd.
Watching the large number of volunteers, who were well trained and got people in the doors quickly, as well as the flow of the event (no speeches droned on and on, not even Kerry’s as he’s prone to do), made it clear that Janet’s campaign is a force to be reckoned with in 2006, despite partisan sniping from our friends at the San Francisco Chronicle (who insisted the ticket price was $250 instead of the actual $25 price.)

Stem Cell Con Job or Why Are We Scrambling to Let A Deadbeat In Our Community?

I don’t know what is more irritating to me, as a taxpayer, to observe and make me cringe when it comes to the so-called “Stem Cell Research Initiative” voters, in their inimitable wisdom, passed in 2004 here in California.
Part of it is the actual law itself – but also, the way both the press and so-called “leaders” of local governments have chosen to overlook serious problems with this law.
Instead, they’ve chosen instead to shower an institute funded with $3 billion dollars of credit card spending with yet more “free” (aka “taxpayer funded” goodies). All for a scientific institute that is to be headed up by…a real estate developer with no experience in science, let alone stem cells.
Let’s start by taking a look at the law itself. Now, throughout the campaign, voters heard endless, heart-tugging emotional stories of those afflicted with terrible diseases. The initiative’s backers skillfully manipulated people, who want to do things to help others, to vote for this new law. People against the law were dismissed as ultra-right religious extremists (even though opposition came from people of diverse political views).
Like so many other initiatives, any real examination of the ramifications of the law were never fully examined. Then the thing passed. And suddenly, after the dust settled, we started to see a wave of “mea culpas” from the press like this one in the December San Francisco Chronticle, and another in the Bay Guardian.
Among the little details: the initiative is using borrowed money, $3 billion worth, and part of that has to go to paying of the debt created by the borrowing right away. So first thing we’re seeing these guys spend money on isn’t life-saving research – it’s bond debt. Out of $300 million in borrowed money in the first few years, as much as $200 million could go to…debt service. To paraphrase the Chronicle – this is like using part of a home loan to make the house payments. Now there’s a responsible way to manage money!
If the institute wants to stop spending money on stem cell research, they can. And if they want to spend it on wild parties, they can. And if you want to call your elected officials to bitch and demand a stop to such shenanigans…you can’t. They wrote the law so it’s almost impossible to enforce the same kind of oversight we demand on every other state program.
Best of all, the guy who wrote this thing, with all its faults, and vague promises of how the taxpayers will make their money back, just happens to be the guy in charge of the institute now and responds to queries about how he’ll run things with the words “trust me.”
That inspires a lot of confidence. Especially since he’s the one that wrote so many poison pills in the law that keep anyone from stopping him from using the state credit card any way he wants. No wonder he was the Governor’s choice for the job – we all know how much Gov. Doofinator loves spending on the taxpayer’s credit cards!
Now, I am sure the reporters here are congratulating themselves on a job well done for ‘exposing’ the innards of this law. But I have to wonder -where was all this investigative journalism before the people voted on it and why did so many people including celebrities, politicos, and pundits, sign on to this thing without reading the fine print?
It gives me little satisfaction to say “I told you so!” in this instance – I’d rather people have been a little more responsible, used their votes a bit more wisely, and demanded real answers to some questions before voting.
Now, it’s bad enough that voters passed a law with more loopholes, giveaways, and outright deceit as this one – but it is worse to see what so-called “leaders” of California’s cities are doing now to attract the Big, Taxpayer Funded Headquarters for this thing.
Reading the “bids” taxpayers’ representatives in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and elsehwere are simply astonishing. We have a situation where cities, in a desperate bid to get the institute in their home towns are trying to out-do each other with offers of free office rent, free gym memberships, free this, and free whatever. Anything at all to get the $3 billion dollar credit card in their home town.
Now, what’s really pathetic is that once again local elected officials are doing two dumb things local electeds do really well – make “investments” in vague promises, and never tell anyone where the money is coming from to pay for said “investments.”
The first is one we hear a lot. Whenever some large, and usually dumb, idea is presented to the public, elected officials use their favorite word when they want to “invest” in a vague promise with your money. They use the word “encourage.” Whenever you hear this word, you need to get out a guard dog and put it next to your wallet – because it usually means someone wants to take money away from you and piss it away on something really dumb or give it away to someone who already has billions of dollars.
In this case, cities are giving away all kinds of free things, including hundreds of thousands of square feet of real estate, money to pay for fancy offices, and money for things like gym memberships to get the Big Headquarters of the so-called “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” aka “The $3 Billion Credit Card You Have to Pay For.”
Every single time you read what elected officials have to say when asked why they’re giving away money in a time of budget crisis to this thing, they all say something along the lines of how spending this money is an “investment” that will “encourage” businesses to open up shop near said institute, and thus, trickle down the effect of all that spending into local tax coffers, and of course, “create jobs.” Now, there’s nothing in any of these deals that guarantees any of that. But you never hear that part. No one asks, and no one tells.
If there is one thing I wish I could accomplish in politics, it would be to spend the next ten years on a long rage PR campaign to put a stake in the heart of political “junkie logic” like this in public discourse. Why? Because it is 100%, pure, unadulterated bullshit. Let’s see why.
Now, let’s use our friend “metaphor” to deconstruct the political junkie logic in an easy to understand way, and see why any local elected official that engages in said logic needs to be asked to leave town:
Suppose you were asked to take a good portion of your take home pay and put it in an investment your new friend wants you to make. No one can show you the potential rate of return. In fact, no one can show you that there’s any return at all. Worse, when you ask how the investment will work, you’re attacked as being a coward, a liar, or just plain crazy. “Can’t you see how your ‘investment’ will ‘encourage’ people?” they say?
You keep asking “But if I give you my $40,000 of savings, how will I make the money back?” and your new friend keeps saying that your money won’t directly benefit you back – but it will encourage others to give money to you since you’re such a great person for making this investment, and you want to encourage others to do the same so you get your money back. You have no guarantees, and the person taking your money could disappear tomorrow -and you’d be left with nothing.
Now, if this sounds more like a “con” than a sound investment, you’d be right. If you did something like this, you’d go to jail. If you’re an elected official, you’re praised as someone who “creates opportunity” and is “pro-business.”
Meanwhile the countryside is littered with abandoned office space and industiral plants businesses got at the taxpayers’ expense, all in the name of “investing” in the community and the vague promise of “jobs” in the future. And guess what? Most of those elected officials got promotions from the voters anyway!
In the case of the Stem Cell Mafia Institute, the “winning” city may find itself in for a rude shock should they “win” the right to have this debt-creator in their backyard, paid for by more of their citizens’ money. See, there’s no rule in any of that well-written law that the money has to be spent locally. In fact, they’re mandated to spend money where research is being done now – anywhere. Even out of state.
And no company has put up its stockholders’ dividends or its own profits up and said “Hey, I’ll move to the city where the Institute is!” – because most companies aren’t so stupid as to invest in fairy tales. There’s also no guarantee that in the future the Stem Cell Mafia won’t come back and say “give us more or we’ll leave” after the big investment.
So while we can’t figure out how to pay for a few cops in L.A., we can find money to give away $177 million to a billionaire for speculative development, and we can find millions more to “give” to a taxpayer-financed credit card agency with no real fiscal oversight. We can’t vote ourselves taxes to pay for roads, schools, and whatnot but we can vote to borrow money and entrust it to a guy with no scientific background and let him play with it as he sees fit.
It’s time to end the madness. If there was even a small amount of common sense, civic leaders across California would not be letting themselves be played like this. They’d instead suggest that if the Stem Cell Mafia wants to pitch its circus tent in their neighborhood, they’d have to have written guarantees that they’d employ local people at decent wages.
They’d have to guarantee that the states taxpayers, who are paying for the credit card debt keeping the lights on, would share in the patents and royalties generated by any research. And they certainly wouldn’t’ compete against each other like hookers at a street corner – they’d work together, since all of California voted for the initiative, and all of California should benefit.
I realize what I just said was a fairy tale as well. But hey! A person has to dream, right?
(note: this article was originally published on March 29, 2005. However in the ensuing upgrade from one platform to another, it was lost. It is being republished as current events warrant a trip in the Political Wayback Machine.)

Remarkable Women Running in San Francisco

As we get to the end of this long and arduous election season I’m going to be posting as often as I can both short missives and links that seem relevant, as well as a few more articles about elections big and small in California. Today I’m focusing on two candidates in San Francisco who I think deserve a little bit of the spotlight in the crowded Supervisorial races this Tuesday.
Lately I’ve been traveling back and forth to San Francisco, helping out a candidate running under the City’s new Ranked Choice Voting system. It’s been an interesting experience, and I’ll be posting a more detailed pre-election analysis and a election post-mortem later on.
For now I’d like to focus attention on two candidates who I’d like to spotlight for their efforts. Both are friends of mine whom I believe would make great additions to the city’s Board of Supervisors (similar to a City Council in other major cities, but remember, San Francisco is a City and a county, hence the name difference) this year.
The other candidate who deserves some recognition in the blizzard of mailers, robo-calls, and election year hoopla is Christine Linnenbach who is running in San Francisco’s more conservative District 7. (Yes, you read that right – don’t believe FOX News’ BS – there are conservative and traditional areas of San Francisco, and Republicans have played major roles in City politics for years!)
I met Christine several years ago during a campaign for City office and found her to be one of the smartest people I’ve met when it comes to open-meeting laws, campaign finance disclosure, and neighborhood rights. During some of San Francisco’s most corrupt, special-interest policy-making years in the 1990s, Christine was a crusading attorney who successfully exposed sneaky deals surrounding the development of Sutro Tower.
Even though things got rather heated during that battle, she refused to give in to the pressures of powerful interests, and won significant battles on behalf of residents in the affected area. For her efforts, she was named a Local Hero by the Bay Guardian.
But it would be a mistake to try and pigeonhole Christine’s political agenda with standard political labels. Instead, it’d be more accurate to say that her ultimate goal is to ensure that the public’s interest comes first whenever legislation and regulations are considered at City Hall, instead of automatically defaulting to what well-paid lobbyists think should come first. That sounds simple, but any analysis of San Francisco decision-making in the last ten years indicates that it’s really a rather radical (in a good way) position, and one the City desperately needs in an era of difficult decisions regarding public policy and fiscal responsibility.
That’s why I’m urging people to send whatever support they can to Christine’s campaign in these last few days, so that again, no matter what happens, we’ll be sure to have her, like Susan, stay in the process and continue to move upward. That said, I think that there’s a chance Christine may surprise a lot of the political know-it-alls out there with the strength of her campaign’s message, and how it will play with District 7 voters.
Do your own reading on both candidates if you haven’t voted yet and I think you’ll find that both deserve your respect, if not your support. If you’re not from San Francisco, consider sending something in anyway, since our country needs young people, especially young women, who can start now at the local level so that one day they may be ready to compete for higher office. Either way, have fun with the election and be sure to vote on November 2nd.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com