|
|
|
Newsom’s Feud With Progressives Dominates June Ballot Handbook
by Paul Hogarth‚
Mar. 21‚ 2008
In recent months, Mayor Gavin Newsom has antagonized the progressive Board of Supervisors – and it’s on full display by reading the Voter Pamphlet for the June 2008 elections. The Mayor and progressives are on opposite sides of the two Bayview initiatives (Propositions F and G), but the bigger surprise is how Newsom and his Downtown allies are aggressively opposing Proposition E – a modest amendment to the PUC Commission. Prop E has broad ideological support among Supervisors, but the ballot arguments against it claim it’s another progressive “power grab.” Meanwhile, there is broad consensus across the spectrum to support the school parcel tax (Prop A), retiree health benefit reform (Prop B), and more diversity on commissions (Prop D.) But Newsom’s public feud with the Board will dominate the June ballot’s more contested fights.
It’s always helpful to read the ballot arguments before the voter handbook gets mailed, because it gives an idea of what propositions will be hotly contested. The paid arguments also show what political alliances have shaped for the upcoming election, what will be said in the campaign, and what it means for the future of local politics. While the voter pamphlet is still at the printers, its contents are now available for public view at City Hall.
Not surprisingly, Proposition G (Lennar’s plan to redevelop Bayview-Hunters Point) and its rival measure Proposition F (Supervisor Chris Daly’s move to require affordable housing development) have the largest number of ballot arguments – and it should be the most prominent battle in June. Most Prop G supporters have weighed in against Prop F, and vice versa.
Mayor Newsom, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Supervisor Sophie Maxwell have signed the official “Yes on G” ballot argument – which says “the time has come” to help “speed the cleanup of Hunters Point Shipyard and turn this environmental hazard into affordable homes, living wage jobs and parks for all San Franciscans.” Paid arguments for it include the Chamber of Commerce, SPUR, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Assessor Phil Ting and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.
But some Bayview residents also support Prop G. George Davis of the BVHP Senior Center has a paid argument, as do the Bayview Merchants Association and 11 tenants of the Alice Griffith Homes. While the public housing tenants say that Prop G gives them “hope” as the federal government turns its back, Lennar paid to submit their argument for the pamphlet. Sophie Maxwell has a paid argument for Prop G – which was signed by Rev. Aurelius Walker, Toye Moses, Linda Richardson (who ran against Maxwell in 2000), Lola Whittle and Angelo King.
The official “No on G” ballot argument is signed by the Sierra Club, the Harvey Milk Club, POWER, Chinese Progressive Association, the League of Conservation Voters and St. Peter’s Housing Committee – in other words, a coalition of progressives. “Prop G makes big promises but doesn’t deliver,” it says. “It’s a sweetheart deal for Lennar.” Longtime Bavyiew resident Espanola Jackson has a paid ballot argument (“G is for gentrification and greed”), as do the Sierra Club and SF Tomorrow.
“Yes on F” has the same players as “No on G” – including Bayview activist Francisco DaCosta, who resigned from the campaign after making anti-Semitic comments on a website (which was picked up by the Chronicle.) But the “Yes on G” camp has Rev. Aurelius Walker, who in 1999 while campaigning for Willie Brown said: “we cannot have a Queen – the mayor of the City. We need a King.” At the time, Brown was running against gay Supervisor Tom Ammiano.
Opponents of Prop F are the supporters of Prop G – but the “No on F” arguments heavily use Supervisor Daly as a foil. “Don’t let Chris Daly’s political ploy stop a neighborhood-backed plan,” said Mayor Newsom, Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, Assessor Phil Ting and activist James Bryant. “Don’t be fooled by Chris Daly,” says the SF Chamber of Commerce. The Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, which has a long history of opposing most development, ironically calls Prop F “an anti-development measure.”
The Bayview initiatives will be the high-profile measures on the local June ballot, but it’s noteworthy that labor unions have taken a pass. No major union signed a ballot argument – for or against, official or paid – on either Prop F or Prop G. It’s a sharp contrast from last November, when SEIU took the lead in passing Proposition A (Muni Reform.)
While it’s no surprise that the Bayview measures are hotly contested, Proposition E – which requires PUC Commissioners to have minimum expertise – will also be a fight. Unlike prior Charter Amendments that took power away from the Mayor, Prop E would merely require that the Public Utilities Commissioners are qualified. Four Supervisors who span the ideological spectrum – Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell, Bevan Dufty and Sean Elsbernd – signed the official “yes” argument, calling it a “straightforward measure” that operates on “good government.”
But Newsom and Supervisor Alioto-Pier signed the official “No on E” argument, calling it another progressive power grab. They are joined by the Coalition of SF Neighbors, the Republican Party, SPUR, the SF Taxpayers Association, DCCC member Mary Jung, and Supervisor Carmen Chu. The Chamber of Commerce has a paid ballot argument against it that attacks Chris Daly – even though Daly was not one of Prop E’s sponsors, and cast the deciding vote to confirm mayoral appointee Dick Sklar to the PUC.
Part of the story behind Prop E was that the Mayor recently fired PUC chief Susan Leal, apparently because she wasn’t a “team player.” A former Supervisor, City Treasurer and open lesbian – who ran for Mayor in 2003 – Leal has an independent base apart from Newsom, which could explain why the SF Democratic Party, the Harvey Milk Club and the Alice Toklas Club all have a “Yes on E” paid argument.
Despite the Mayor's feud in the high-profile measures, other propositions have broad support.
There is strong consensus behind Proposition A, a parcel tax to fund public schools that would retain high-quality teachers in San Francisco. Mayor Newsom, the School Board, the Chamber of Commerce, United Educators of San Francisco and Parents for Public Schools all signed the official ballot argument in favor – citing the need to invest in education and the state’s draconian budget cuts. Only Howard Epstein from the SF Republican Party weighed in against it, citing the regressive nature of the tax.
Everyone supports Proposition B, which modifies retirement health benefits for City employees – so that those who worked less than five years don’t get lifetime perks that bankrupt the City. You know it’s a no-brainer when City employees and anti-tax advocate Barbara Meskunas agree, the Chamber of Commerce and the Labor Council do a joint argument in favor, Newsom and Peskin sign the official “yes” argument, and you have paid arguments from Asian-American, African-American and LGBT leaders.
The lone Prop B opponent is Republican gadfly Terrence Faulkner, who says that “minor city employee work rules should not be put in the City Charter” – and that these decisions should instead be made by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.
Every election cycle, Faulkner can be relied on to say “no” to local measures that share almost unanimous support. He also penned the main argument against Proposition D, which sets diversity goals for City Commissions – because it calls for “endless bean counting,” “the Attic Highwayman Procrustes would have loved it,” and (for some weird reason) brings up General Custer and the Battle of Little Big Horn.
Faulkner wrote the primary argument against Proposition H, which prohibits elected officials from soliciting campaign contributions from certain City contractors. After eulogizing the late William F. Buckley, Faulkner argues that Prop H defies the landmark Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo – without realizing that the plaintiff in Buckley and the late conservative pundit are not the same person. Mayor Newsom wrote the main ballot argument in favor of Prop H.
But Prop H is one arena where Faulkner may not be the lone ranger. The Harvey Milk Club also opposes Prop H, and San Francisco Tomorrow has a paid argument against it. “Prop H was placed on the ballot without review by the Ethics Commission,” it writes, “bypassing their important role as the ethical watchdog of the City.”
Finally, Proposition C would forfeit retirement benefits for City employees who are convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude.” Supervisor Sean Elsbernd is the official proponent, noting that 10 of the 11 Supervisors voted to put it on the ballot – and that it was necessary because a judge invalidated part of existing law. Chris Daly wrote the argument against it, because “moral turpitude has been defined in discriminatory ways by conservative judges.” The Harvey Milk Club chimed in against Prop C.
EMAIL THIS STORY
PRINT FRIENDLY
Copyright © 2005-2008
Beyond
Chron.org. All rights reserved.
RSS News Feed
|
|
May 10, 2008
