Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco.  The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees.  In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission.  The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions.  It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide.  San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively.  With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid.  That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere.  While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”

(more…)

8 Washington and the Infinite Sadness – These People Against the “Wall on the Waterfront” Were on the Cusp of Victory in 2012

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

But they sure didn’t look it back in 2012.

They looked so, so sad.

Click to expand

I hadn’t realized the intensity of their movement until this night at the  San Francisco Public Library on Page Street in the Upper Haight area.

And then, in 2013, they won, big-time.

So what’s next for 8 Washington – what’ll happen with the parcel?

I know not.

Oh, so here’s what the national media doesn’t know about the sainted San Francisco Planning Commission:

It’s a political organization run by the Mayor of San Francisco.

So, is it  really”thoughtful,” “considered,” and “professional?”

Perhaps not.

Here’s an example for you, national MSM.

The SFMTA is similar to Planning Commission except the SFMTA takes care of transit in SF.

The SFMTA recently had a big push to turn on parking meters on Sundays instead of having them flash “FREE PARKING” from Saturday night to Monday morning every week. (They had studies and everything.) So then people had to pay for parking meters on Sundays. Fine.

But then the Mayor of San Francisco said he didn’t like having meters charge for parking on Sundays. And then the SFMTA voted, unanimously, to make Sunday parking free again less than a year after deciding to charge for Sunday parking.

So similar things happen with the Planning Commish? Yes – it;s the same dynamic.

So, IRL, the SFMTA and the Planning Commission are captives of the Mayor of San Francisco. So that’s why builders donate money to and say nice things about the Mayor of San Francisco.

If you aren’t aware of this, national MSM, then you don’t understand what happened with the 8 Washington proposal, just saying.

Texas Governor Rick Perry to Address San Francisco on June 11th – Hosted by the Commonwealth Club

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

A special program on energy and politics

Photo: Texas Governor Rick Perry
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2014, 7:30 PM
Texas Governor Rick Perry: Energy Independence In America
InterContinental Mark Hopkins Hotel, San Francisco

 

Rick Perry, Governor, Texas

Greg Dalton, Founder and Host, Climate One, The Commonwealth Club – Moderator

Texas Governor Rick Perry believes his state is leading the way for America in creating energy independence by producing crude oil and electricity in many forms, including natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuel and hydroelectric generation. In a recent letter to President Obama, Governor Perry wrote that the current federal policies will “incapacitate – and possibly eliminate – critical sources of energy while stifling job creation and threatening American energy policy.” Governor Perry has been in public office for over two decades, including 14 years as governor. He served in the US. Air Force and is a graduate of Texas A&M University. He will discuss energy and his ideas on other political issues of the day, including his experiences as a Republican candidate on the 2012 presidential campaign trail and his view of the road ahead.

Location: InterContinental Mark Hopkins Hotel, One Nob Hill, at California and Mason Streets, San Francisco

Time: 6:45 p.m. check-in, 7:30 p.m. program
Cost: $25 non-members, $15 members, $10 students (with valid ID); Premium $45 non-members, $35 members
Also know: Part of The Club’s Series on Ethics and Accountability, underwritten by the Charles Travers Family. In association with Climate One.

Pro-Ukraine Message Defaced by Russians in the Avenues

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014

One supposes:

Click to expand

Snoop Dog + Joe Montana + Willie Brown + MC Hammer + Ronnie Lott + Diana Nyad + Airbnb = “No Guns Allowed” Campaign

Thursday, May 29th, 2014

Snoop Youth Football League? News to me.

Plus, an “auction of Snoop Dogg’s paintings?”

Tonight’s soiree should be quite an event.

All the deets:

“MEDIA ADVISORY: SNOOP DOGG, JOE MONTANA, RON CONWAY, DR. ROBERT “BIKO” BAKER & MORE COME TOGETHER TO DISCUSS GUN VIOLENCE

Leaders from Tech, Music, Sports, and Politics Support “No Guns Allowed”

Program at SF Press Conference on May 29

Special Guests Include Mayor Willie Brown, MC Hammer, Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott, Swimmer Diana Nyad and more 

San Francisco, CA - May 28, 2014 - Entertainment icon Snoop Dogg, NFL Hall-of-Famer Joe Montana, sf.citi founder Ron Conway and Executive Director, League of Young Voters Education Fund, Dr. Robert “Biko” Baker, will be the featured hosts at a May 29th benefit to raise money and awareness of the “No Guns Allowed” campaign. Other special guests to attend include former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, recording artist MC Hammer, Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott, swimmer Diana Nyad, and more.

The evening will be kicked off by a press conference discussing gun violence solutions, followed by a live auction of Snoop Dogg’s paintings and other exclusive items to benefit both the “No Guns Allowed” initiative and the Snoop Youth Football League.”

Ever more deets, after the jump

(more…)

CW Nevius Just Moved Here a Few Years Ago, But He’s Already Telling Us San Franciscans How to Vote – Prop B Redux Redux

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

CW Nevius, “a sportswriter from the United States” “known for his breezy writing style” has gone bonkers over Prop B, which will require Mayor Ed Lee and his appointees to disallow building height violations on the waterfront, you know, without voter approval.

I don’t know why he cares so much about this issue. Mayor Ed Lee, who embarrassingly campaigned for 8 Washington with Gavin Newsom, has learned his lesson and, in fact, isn’t even opposing Prop B, you know, officially. But Neve, well, I’m guessing he might do one or two more Prop B columns afore the election, and then he’ll do more about the forthcoming lawsuit against Prop B, oh well. You’d think Neve would come out and support simply having no height limits at all, if he’s so concerned about this issue.

Once more:

Richard and Barbara Stewart, the wealthy neighborhood NIMBYs who donated over $440,000 to stop the 8 Washington condominiums, are at it again. Official election contribution filings from this week show that the Stewarts have chipped in $143,750 in support of Proposition B, the ballot measure that would require a public vote on any potential structure on port land that exceeds current height limits.

OR, IN OTBER WORDS, THE BALLOT MEASURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE POLITICIANS AND THEIR APPOINTEES TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE ALREADY-EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE VOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO.

With the Stewarts’ help, the Yes on Prop. B alliance has raised nearly $230,000. Compare that to Prop. B opponents, whose total is a $47,633, according to documents filed at the San Francisco Ethics Commission on Thursday. So much for the lofty talk from Prop. B supporters about listening to the voice of the people.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, CW NEVIUS? ED LEE DIDN’T “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE” ABOUT 8 WASHINGTON AND NOW HE’S GETTING SPANKED BY THE VOTERS.

It sounds more like the voice of two people who live on the waterfront and want to protect their turf.

WELL, THAT’S THE SYSTEM, RIGHT NEVIUS?

So forget city government, the Port, the Planning Commission and elected officials.

WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE VOTERS MEANT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR HEIGHT LIMITS, NEVIUS?

If you want to build something along the San Francisco waterfront, it seems you’d better pay a visit to the Stewarts.

OR, WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS?

And here’s the kicker. A recent poll shows that Prop. B is in trouble.

WHAT’S THAT, IS THAT THE SOUND OF ANOTHER FLIP FROM THE EAST BAY’S #1 FLIP-FLOPPER? LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” DIDN’T YOU WRITE THAT JUST LAST MONTH, NEVE?

Still, a case can be made that this is either going to be a lot closer than a many deep thinkers expected or – and this would be a wonderful and surprising turn of events – it might actually lose.

ARE YOU CALLING YOURSELF A “DEEP THINKER,” NEVE? SURE SEEMS THAT WAY. LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” 

Begin with the structure that started the whole controversy – the Warriors new arena.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE OUR MAYOR AND FORMER MAYORS STARTED THIS “CONTROVERSY” BY GOING AROUND THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE VOTERS ONE TIME TOO MANY – IS THAT A POSSIBILITY, NEVE?

“At first blush, if you say, “Should we vote on everything?’ people are in favor,” said Eric Jaye, an adviser to the No on B group. “Then they think about it and say, How’s that going to work?’”

WELL MAYBE THE MAYOR SHOULDN’T HAVE THE BACKERS OF 8 WASHINGTON FUND HIS PET PROJECTS. TO REPEAT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? WHY NOT HAVE THE BUILDERS RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS, WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD THING TO DO? RESPECT THE LIMITS AND THEN THERE’S NO NEED FOR ANY VOTE, RIGHT?

Well, I can give you the worst case scenario. If Prop. B wins it will be the second huge victory for the Art Agnos-Aaron Peskin-Golinger crowd. Developers aren’t stupid. If they really want to build something on the waterfront, they will have to recognize that that waterfront alliance has the political juice. Rather than put a potential development up for election and hope for the best, they will want to get the blessing of that faction, particularly the Stewarts. The result could be a series of backroom meetings where Agnos and others meet with the builders, work out an arrangement – with concessions to the alliance of course – and then put the brokered deal on the ballot with the group’s endorsement.

SO NEVIUS IS NOW AGAINST “BACKROOM MEETINGS?” REALLY? DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO ALL THE POLS ON THE RIGHT-SIDE-OF-THE-AISLE POLITICAL FACTION CW NEVIUS IS ALWAYS CHEERLEADING FOR?

Which sounds like you’re setting up a little back room protection racket to me. And yet there is a feeling that Prop. B is taking on water.

LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” 

If Prop. B loses it will be a bombshell – especially for Richard and Barbara Stewart.

ALL RIGHT, NEVIUS, WHATEVER YOU SAY…

Wealthy Whiny White People Have Managed to Partially Shut Down Part of Lombard – Mark Farrell’s F-U to Tourists – One Weird Trick

Tuesday, May 20th, 2014

This trial of shutting down Lombard Street to tourists looks unstoppable now.

Some rich property owners in Russian Hill have had their aesthetic sensibilities offended by those, those people known as tourists. So these richers want to gate off Lombard Street and make part of it a private.

Except they don’t want to pay for making it a private road. Oh. And the purpose of roads in California is so that people can use them – it’s like burned into the vehicle code or someplace.

So the next best thing for these white millionaires is this trial to cut down on tourism. And the way to get that is to turn an aesthetic issue into a safety issue.

For example here’s how this works when rich white property owners decide they don’t want telephone poles and MUNI wires lousing up their enclaves. Here we go, from “Report of Meeting with Supervisors Farrell and Chiu”

“Supervisor Farrell is also looking for ways to pitch it beyond aesthetics.”

So then the people who don’t want to see telephone poles and MUNI poles starting talking up the “safety issue.”

You see, ’cause if you tell the truth about your motives, then you give the rabble, the masses, the Proles a chance to undo your self-described “improvements.”

OTOH, if you say your concerns are about safety, then your biases will be given more deference if and when it comes time for higher authorities to give a stamp of approval. Of course, sometimes this safety argument works, sometimes it doesn’t:

1880: “There are too many Chinese working in San Francisco” – let’s do something about it

2014: “There are too many Chinese* visiting Hyde and Lombard” – let’s do something about it.

 Oh well.

One problem with district Supervisor elections is that a handful of property owners can have an outsized influence over matters that should be decided on a citywide basis. If tourists, all those millions past, present and future, threw house parties for Mark Farrell to raise money in, then maybe he’d consider what they want.

But they don’t, so he doesn’t.

Oh well.

*And Euros and upper-middle-class-and-lower domestic tourists as well, but just look at the worst case scenario photo here.

“IMPEACH OBAMA” – When I was a Lad, We had LaRouchies, But Now We have the “Michael Steger for Congress” People

Tuesday, May 20th, 2014

Waving away, awful friendly:

Click to expand

I tell you, they sure look like LaRouchies, you know, from a distance.

I seen them on Fell, Clement, and now above the 101.

Where will they turn up next?

San Francisco’s Appointed Mayor Ed Lee Talks About Raising the Minimum Wage, But Election Day Poll Workers Make Less Than That – Why?

Wednesday, May 14th, 2014

All right, c’mon, “Apply to be a Poll Worker!

Attend one training class that will clearly explain Poll Worker duties.”

“All Poll Workers must arrive at the polling place no later than 6:00 a.m. on Election Day. Although the polls officially close at 8:00 p.m., Election Day does not end until all materials have been picked up (usually around 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m.). There will be meal breaks during the day. 

So let’s do the math:

Training in Civic Center before the election: 3 hours or so.

Game Day: 15.5 hours, less breaks = 8 hours straight time and let’s say 6.5 hours of OT at time-and-a-half

So what’s that, 3+8+6.5+3.25 = 20.75 effective hours of work?

Multiplying by the official City and County minimum wage of $10.74 yields $222.86 total pay.

And using the vaunted $15 per hour minimum promised by quasi-governmental spokesperson and noted Berkeleyite Randy Shaw, we arrive at $311.25.

And what is appointed Mayor Ed Lee offering these poor souls? Well apparently no pay at all for the mandatory training, and then:

“Depending on your assignment, Poll Workers are paid between $142 and $195  for working on Election Day.”

Is this a joke, you ask?

No, Gentle Reader, it’s not. They’re srsly.

I cry foul.

In any event, if you’re an inspector you can make  a bit more, but then you gotta deal with high school seniors with their Katy Perry and cell phones and whathaveyou. They’re intelligent, you know, but lazy. And if their work doesn’t add up the way it should shortly after 8 PM, well that’s tough cookies – you’ll hear the beep beeps from the waiting cars and then the kids are gone and you, the vaunted elections inspector, will be left to fix things up.

Anyway, you get something like this for your troubles …

…but you won’t get minimum wage.

Now why is that?

Writer CW Nevius Brings an East Bay Perspective to San Francisco Politics: He Fights for Prop B for No Obvious Reason

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

[UPDATE: Comes now John King to contradict poor CW Nevius: "The fact is, the creators of Prop. B make several valid points."]

Appointed head coach Ed Lee is calling for a punt, but head cheerleader CW Nevius is cheering for a Hail Mary on 4th down with 38 yards to go:

Let’s begin by saying this is a waste of time. I know, that’s not much of an incentive to read, but it is the hard truth.

SO WHEN DID YOU MOVE HERE FROM THE EAST BAY, NEVIUS – A COUPLE YEARS AGO? FINE, BUT WHAT’S THE “WASTE OF TIME?” ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WASTING _YOUR_ TIME TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN UPCOMING ELECTION? ISN’T THAT A BIT MUCH? LIKE, DO YOU THINK SAN FRANCISCANS WOULD PONDER MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER THE HELL YOU’RE FROM TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS THERE?

Proposition B is almost certainly going to pass. That’s the ordinance that will mandate an election on any construction on the waterfront that exceeds the existing height limit.

WELL THAT’S ONE WAY OF PHRASING IT, I SUPPOSE. BUT HOW ABOUT “PROP B WILL PREVENT POLITICIANS FROM IGNORING THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT,” YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?

It’s got a snappy slogan – “Let the people decide” – an enthusiastic base of supporters and the always compelling what-the-heck factor. Why not vote for it? What’s the harm? I believe the potential harm is greater than you think.

WELL, FAIR ENOUGH, NEVE. BUT I THINK YOUR SELF-APPOINTED ROLE OF BEING THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHMENT’S “MAN AT THE CHRONICLE” DOES MORE HARM THAN _YOU_ THINK – HOW ABOUT THAT? YOU JUST MOVED TO THE MOST CORRUPT BIG CITY WEST OF CHICAGO, BUT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE DOMINANT POLITICAL FACTION WHAT RULES THIS TOWN IS JUST HUNKY-DORY. BUT I DIGRESS. PLEASE DO GO ON, NEVE, EVEN IF IT IS A BIG WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS TIME.

Not that it matters. This is seen as such a slam dunk that not a single San Francisco politician is willing to stand up and oppose it. Someone ought to express some reservations.

I BELIEVE ED LEE HAS “EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS” REGARDING PROP B. ALSO, PROP B OPPONENTS HAVE DESCRIBED THE MAYOR AS BEING OPPOSED.

Although supporters continue to call the 8 Washington vote a landslide, citywide win, the numbers aren’t convincing.

UH, NO, THEY’RE _HIGHLY_ CONVINCING. OTHERWISE MARK FARRELL OR SCOTT WIENER OR ED LEE WOULD HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD AGAINST PROP B.  ALSO, IT’S NOT JUST “SUPPORTERS” WHO CONSIDER THAT VOTE A LANDSLIDE.

Just 27 percent of registered voters cast ballots, so you could say that almost three-fourths of voters couldn’t be bothered to mark a ballot.

THEREFORE WHAT? THE ELECTORATE IS THE ELECTORATE, NEVE – DEAL WITH THAT. YES, YOU’RE PARROTING THE PARTY LINE, ESPOUSED BY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT SPOKESPEOPLE IN ADDITION TO YOU, NEVE, BUT THE TURNOUT WAS WHAT THE TURNOUT WAS.

It did win across the city, but in places like the Marina and SoMa, turnout was barely 20 percent. And in Bayview and Ingleside it was closer to 10. Still, that’s enough when 50 percent of Telegraph Hill area voters turn out. That’s the strategy. Target an off-year election with low turnout, mobilize the base of voters who favor the position and then claim you’re surfing the new wave of public opinion.

BUT THERE _IS_ A NEW WAVE OF PUBLIC OPINION, RIGHT? SO YOU’RE DEAD WRONG THERE.

So if you liked 8 Washington, you’re going to love Prop B. It’s on a June ballot that will see low turnout, vociferous support from a dedicated core and Agnos haranguing anyone who dares to oppose it.

NEVIUS, DOES ANYBODY ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE EVER DO ANY “HARANGUING?” YOU MIGHT THINK NOT BUT MAYBE THEY DO, NEVE. AND DO YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN BARS TALKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT? ‘CAUSE YOU SURE SOUND LIKE YOU DO.

But since he’s already mad at me for calling his group the Flat Earth Society, I’d say this: First, if this is such a good idea, why stop there? Shouldn’t other neighborhoods be able to vote on height limitations?

UH, _ALL_ NEIGHBORHOODS JUST VOTED ON HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, RIGHT? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? DO YOU HAVE AN EDITOR? IT DOESN’T SEEM THAT WAY. WHY DO OTHER PEOPLE AT THE CHRON WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, WAY SMARTER THAN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EDITOR BUT YOU CAN JUST WRITE WHATEVER YOU WANT, REGARDLESS OF REALITY?

Or homeless shelters. Or Muni routes? Or whether the mayor should have soup or salad for lunch?

ALL RIGHT, NEVE, HERE WE GO. WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY RULES ABOUT WHAT THE MAYOR SHOULD EAT, DO WE? HOWEVER, WE _DO_ HAVE A RULE ABOUT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS NEAR THE WATERFRONT. THE CURRENT PROBLEM IS THAT THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING A DEVELOPER FROM DONATING A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT, SAY GIVING $25,000 TO SOMETHING HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE AMERICA’S CUP, YOU KNOW, TO “HELP OUT” OUR POOR POOR MAYOR AND THEN, LATER ON, WE’RE LEFT WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE DON’T KNOW WHY THE MAYOR PRESSURED HIS APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. I’LL TELL YOU, I WOULDN’T EVER DREAM OF MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER AND THEN START TELLING PEOPLE HOW TALL THEIR BUILDINGS SHOULD BE. HEY, WHY NOT THIS, NEVE, WHY DON’T YOU LOBBY FOR A VOTE TO RAISE THE HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT OR JUST GET RID OF THEM ALTOGETHER? WHY DON’T YOU BE DIRECT ABOUT THIS SITUATION, THE ONE YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT?

Elections are expensive and time consuming.

I SUPPOSE NEVE, BUT THE REASON WE HAVE THE PROPOSITION SYSTEM HAS TO DO WITH A WELL-PLACED CONCERN OVER POLITICAL CORRUPTION

They’re also a formula for gridlock. The Giants have prepared a terrific plan for a retail center on their parking lot A.

WHO SHOULD DECIDE HOW “TERRIFIC” ANY PLAN FROM THE GIANTS IS, NEVIUS? YOU, THE NOT-TOO-BRILLIANT SPORTS JOCK? YOU, THE ONE WHO JUST LOVED THE _INITIAL_ AMERICA’S CUP PROPOSAL BACK WHEN YOU LIVED IN THE EAST BAY, REMEMBER? WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOUR WORD ON THIS?

Now they might have to prepare an election strategy.

FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT? PERHAPS THEY SHOULD LEAVE IF THEY DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE. (AND PERHAPS YOU, THE MIGHTY NEVIUS, SHOULD LEAVE IF YOU DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE.)

Second, the elections-for-everything meme short-circuits the political system.

FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?

We elect public officials and expect them to use their good judgment, regardless of the views of a small, rabid group.

DID WE “ELECT” ED LEE? NO WE DID NOT. HE WAS APPOINTED FOR, EFFECTIVELY, NINE YEARS, BASED UPON A PLEDGE HE MADE THAT TURNED OUT TO NO PLEDGE AT ALL, A BIG FAT LIE. AND IF THE GROUP YOU OPPOSE IS SO “SMALL,” HOW IS IT THAT THEIR PROPS KEEP WINNING?

There are those who want to compare Agnos’ small, dedicated core to the Tea Party, which also wants to take government out of our lives.

DOES ART AGNOS REALLY WANT TO “TAKE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES?” NO, NOT AT ALL.

But a better comparison would be Howard Jarvis‘ “people power” revolution in 1978. Jarvis became a national sensation when he championed Proposition 13, which clamped down on property taxes in California.

HEY NEVE! WERE YOU ABLE TO TRANSFER YOUR PROP 13 TO FRISCO COUNTY, YOU KNOW THE WAY SOME EMPTY NESTERS IN CALIFORNIA ARE ABLE TO DO? MMMM… BUT IF NOT, YOU’RE KIND OF GETTING SCREWED BY PROP 13 NEVE, IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT ALREADY.

The result was immediate and disastrous.

WELL, IN YOUR OPINION, NEVE. AT THE TIME, NANAS AND POP-POPS WERE BEING FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOMES ALL OVER THE STATE DUE TO REAL ESTATE INFLATION. SO, IRL, THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS DUE TO PROP 13. DON’T YOU KNOW THIS, NEVE? ISN’T THERE ANY NUANCE THERE BEWIXT YOUR EARS, NEVE?

Schools suffered, in particular, and only now is there a concerted effort to walk back some of the tax breaks for businesses, which are using the measure to game the tax system.

HEY NEVE, WHY NOT SUGGEST GETTING RID OF PROP 13 ALTOGETHER, IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH?

Prop. 13 was supposed to be exciting, innovative and life-affirming.

UH, CAN YOU LINK TO THESE QUOTES, NEVE? I THINK YOU’RE JUST MAKING UP ADJECTIVES IN ORDER TO CLOSE YOUR BIT. HEY, CAN I GET A RULING HERE, EDITOR? HELLO, ED? ANYBODY THERE?

Instead, it was just the product of lazy, simplistic rhetoric. So is Prop. B.

HEY NEVE, WHO AT THE CHRONICLE IS LAZIER AND SIMPLER THAN YOU? SERIOUSLY. YOU DON’T DO ALL THAT MUCH WORK AND YOU’RE NOT THAT SMART, RIGHT?

This isn’t the Arab Spring, it is spring break. I’d worry about the hangover.

I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT NEVE. IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. BY THIS POINT, POLS SHOULD KNOW IF THEY ABUSE THE VOTERS TOO MUCH, IF THEY PRESSURE THEIR APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE PRIOR VOTER RESULTS THEN THE VOTERS JUST MIGHT RISE UP AND TURN SOMETHING THAT WAS ADVISORY INTO SOMETHING MANDATORY.

WHAT COLOR IS THE SKY IN _YOUR_ WORLD, CW NEVIUS?