It’s incredible to what extent the SF Chronicle will simply quote Mayor Gavin Newsom—without providing any context that would expose the irony of his statements. In Chuck Nevius’ October 4th column about the unwieldy number of local propositions, the Mayor laments how he “failed completely” at keeping the list short—although Newsom himself could have removed Propositions L or P. And in yesterday’s Chronicle story on Proposition B (the housing set-aside), the Mayor chided the Board of Supervisors for not redirecting more money to affordable housing—rather than placing a charter amendment on the ballot. Never mind that an 8-3 veto-proof majority of the Board redirected $33 million last year—only to have Newsom himself refuse to spend the money, and then de-appropriate it in the City budget. If the Chronicle’s going to favorably quote the Mayor (and editorialize in support of his positions), they owe it to their readers to at least provide an adequate context behind his statements.

Everyone agrees that San Francisco has too many local propositions this election—with a Voter Information Guide that feels like a phonebook. Chuck Nevius’ October 4th column in the Chronicle worried that with 22 ballot measures, cranky voters will simply vote “no” on everything—which could doom Proposition A, an $887 million bond measure to fix San Francisco General Hospital that everyone supports (but requires a two-thirds majority to pass.) Midway through the article, Nevius favorably quotes Newsom—who says: “I failed completely to keep other things off the ballot.”

Funny how the Mayor complains about this now—after he refused to take measures off the ballot himself. Proposition L, which funds the Community Justice Center, is a moot point because the Board of Supervisors already allocated the money. Newsom initially put it on to pressure the Board to fund it—which they did, knowing the voters would approve such a measure. Now the Mayor says he didn’t remove it because Supervisor Chris Daly threatened to de-fund it after a new Board gets sworn in. But even if progressives sweep the three contested Supervisor races, does anyone seriously believe that a six-vote majority would follow Daly’s lead on this issue?

Under the best-case scenario for progressives, next year’s Board will maintain the status quo. At least one progressive Supervisor candidate (District 3’s David Chiu) supports the Community Justice Center, so having Prop L on the ballot is irrelevant. As I’ve written before, the CJC is a proposal worth trying—if there are services to make it successful. But keeping it on the ballot when it’s already a done deal is precisely the kind of “political statement” that Newsom complains about when progressives promote symbolic measures.

Even worse is Proposition P—which Newsom put on the ballot in a “tit-for-tat” with Supervisor Jake McGoldrick over transit policy. McGoldrick wanted to take the MTA out of the Mayor’s control, so Newsom responded with a measure taking the SFCTA out of the Board of Supervisors’ hands. McGoldrick then removed his measure—but the Mayor did not, prompting McGoldrick to accuse Newsom of “breaking a deal.”

Now we’re stuck voting on a flawed transit initiative that the Mayor supports, but practically everyone else (including Newsom loyalist Michela Alioto-Pier) opposes. Again, it’s another measure that Newsom says he “failed completely” to keep off the ballot.

Yesterday’s Chronicle story on Proposition B (the affordable housing set-aside) naturally quoted Newsom as an opponent—who called it “ballot-box budgeting at its worst.” But the Mayor also went on to suggest that Prop B was unnecessary, because the Supervisors can already appropriate the money through the annual budget process. “There's nothing stopping the Board of Supervisors from redirecting money for more affordable housing,” he said. “Why didn't they redirect money to affordable housing this year if they care so much about it?”

Given the Mayor’s comments, the Chronicle should have provided its readers with a brief history lesson about why Prop B exists—and why its supporters feel it’s necessary. In April 2007, the Board Supervisors voted 8-3 to appropriate $33 million in affordable housing through the supplemental process. You can disagree with such a move, but under any normal reading of the City Charter the Mayor had two options: (a) sign it or (b) veto it. If he vetoed it, the Board could override it by a two-thirds vote—like they did on police foot patrols.

Instead, Newsom simply refused to spend the money—which I believe could have been challenged in court. He then submitted his own budget—which de-appropriated the money. Thus began an epic budget fight between Newsom and Chris Daly nobody wants to revisit, which culminated in the same eight Supervisors viewing it as necessary to pass a budget set-aside for housing.

Granted, Prop B is an annual budget allocation for the next 15 years—as opposed to a one-time appropriation through the supplemental process. Prop B opponents like the Mayor can argue it’s not wise to carve out such an amount in the City budget. Some have also complained that Prop B doesn’t provide enough for middle-class housing. But by chiding the Supervisors for not allocating more money for affordable housing, Newsom exposed himself to an obvious point: he violated our system of checks and balances, by refusing to honor a veto-proof majority of the legislative branch.

Any responsible publication would have pointed this out. The Chronicle’s entitled to agree with the Mayor on various political fights, but they shouldn’t let Newsom get away with making such statements at face value—without giving the appropriate context.