Posts Tagged ‘1021’

Point Counterpoint on the 2024 Olympics, Since San Francisco’s Bid Will End Tomorrow, Probably

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

Let’s start here:

“I truly believe this will advance our long-term interests,” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said. “We believe that San Francisco’s 2024 vision of the Olympics is 100 percent aligned with our priorities as we see them today, both as a city and as a region.”

Yeah, sure, hook Ed Lee up to a lie detector and you’d see that he actually believes this statement. Except that it’s not true. Unless he thinks that the 2024 Olympics are worth $10 billion or so of cost overruns. Some would benefit from those overruns but most would not. This process of exaggerating benefits and minimizing costs is what got us in trouble with the disastrous, expensive, deadly, scandal-marred America’s Cup, which, of course, San Francisco declined to repeat.

And I can’t help but think that “2024 vision” sounds a lot like Vision Zero 2024*, another promise that hasn’t a chance in the world of coming true.

“Our mantra really is, ‘Can we host an Olympics and leave the Bay Area better off for having done that?’ ” Strandberg said. “If we can’t, you should hold us to the standard. That’s what we think about every day as we lay out our plans.”

How on Earth would we be able to hold Mr. Strandberg “accountable” post 2024, when we’ll be billions and billions over $4.5 billion? How much skin does he have in the Game? Not much, not much at all.

“It’s not relevant to include Games that were put on by sovereign states like Russia or China and compare them to how you would do something in the United States,” he said. “We’d never look at the Chinese economic system or the Russian political system and say, ‘That’s how we do it here.’ So, why would we assume that is how we would do an Olympic Games here?”

(Sovereign states? Is that some kind of insult? Not really. I wonder what phrase he’s thinking about when he says sovereign state.) In any event, the better comparisons are with London 2012, which overran by about $10 billion and Chicago 2016, which would had overrun by a similar amount. Or Greece? Can we talk about Greece? No, all right. And the reason to include Russia and China has more to do with the IOC, which has a real problem dealing with democracies.

So that’s the SJMN bit. It’s well-written, by Elliott Almond and Mark Emmons

Moving on, to SF Moderates, which used to be called Plan C, which used to be a right side of the aisle political group for gay property owners. It’s expanded its membership lately, but it’s still decidedly on the right side of SF’s political aisle. Begin:

But what if we could defy the naysayers and make it happen? Mayor Ed Lee has initiated the effort, emphasizing that the $4.5 billion price tag will come from private donors. I learned from the Miracle on Ice and from the 2010 Giants and Ashkon that you don’t stop believing just because someone says you can’t win.

So why didn’t we sign up for another America’s Cup? Perhaps the naysayers were absolutely correct? Yep.

The issue for anti-Olympics lobbyists appears to be possible cost overruns, which have averaged over 200 percent per Olympics according to a recent study. The assumption is that taxpayers will be on the hook for the extra $9 billion in average cost overruns. That’s a fair concern.

Oh OK, well, yes, that’s the “concern.”

The requirement is a guarantee of public money to cover cost overruns. There are ways to deal with that if the final bill is the sole concern.

Uh, no there’s not. Are you talking about cost overrun insurance from that Aon company? That’s never going to work. If everybody thinks the taxpayers will be on the hook for $10 billion, then the premium for such a policy would be about $10 billion, right? And if it’s not, then it has a host of exceptions and deductibles and caps and then let’s have future taxpayers pay off the bill.

But, let’s consider another view. There are private donors ready to pump in $4.5 billion into our local economy. How often does that happen? If we say no to this money, are we in a better position to reduce poverty or curb homelessness?

Yes, without the 2024 Olympics, we’ll be in a better position. Were you born yesterday?

While the anti-Olympics lobby eagerly points to the America’s Cup as proof that the Olympics will be bad for San Francisco, what about the San Francisco Giants?

But that stadium was privately financed, right? The IOC would never allow a privately-financed 2024 Olympics.

I hope it doesn’t get derailed by another just say no campaign.

No no no no no. This deal will never work out in the long run. Let’s hope San Francisco loses tomorrow.

*With an admirable goal, but it’s never going to happen. Transportation deaths are a people problem, not an infrastructure problem. Fundamentally.

Hilarious: SF Olympics Boosters Register “NoSF2024” URLs to Suppress Debate – But Opposition Simply Uses “SFNo2024” Instead

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

Oh man, this is something.

So, local Olympics boosters are more or less contractually obligated to register URLs like if they want to have any hope of having a costly Sumer Olympics come to town in 2024. But they went further – they went and registered URLs that could be used by citizen opposition to having an expensive Olympics come to town.

I’ll tell you, Boston citizens use without any interference from the Boston boosters. But SF boosters registered NoSFOlympics .org and .com because they didn’t want the USOC in Colorado Springs to see the opposition.

Isn’t that sad?

Anyway, they must have registered a bunch of URLs, cause look, they also registered NoSF2024 and other names they could think of. See?


But they didn’t think to register and so that’s what the citizens ended up using.

And now guess what site all the USOC people are looking at now?

So what was the point of all this registration fooforall?

2024 Olympics Roundup: San Francisco “increasingly looking unlikely” – USOC Appears Skittish About Local Opposition

Tuesday, January 6th, 2015

Well, here you go:

Local opposition to San Francisco 2024 Olympic bid grows as USOC prepare to announce choice

A decision on which American city will be chosen to bid for the 2024 Olympics is set to be announced on Thursday (January 8) but it is increasingly looking unlikely that it will be San Francisco.

Bay Area activists have formed a coalition opposing a bid for the Games, which is sure to be a factor when the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) is due to meet at Denver International Airport to choose a city from a shortlist which also includes Boston, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. 

The SF No 2024 Olympics group, which includes SEIU Local 1021, San Francisco activist Tony Kelly, and former San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly…”

And now you ask, “What about Boston – they have a bigger citizen opposition movement, right?” Maybe so, but the one that the United State Olympic Committee frets about over in Colorado Springs is San Francisco’s. Let’s get the update from last month:

“San Francisco likely is the candidate the USOC would prefer under ideal circumstances, but the city’s fractious political atmosphere, venue questions and the number of other large Bay Area municipalities that would probably need to be involved diminishes the chance for that to happen. Public opposition in San Francisco is expected to be substantial.”

Does the USOC similarly cite the fractious political atmosphere or the public opposition in Boston? No, not at all.

Hey, do you know that the USOC has been conducting opinion polling of bay area residents? Yep. So the USOC knows on its own about the dangers of playing piñata with the giant hornet’s nest that is San Francisco politics.

This political risk is a bigger factor than, say, where are we going to build the big stadium, right? Right.

And you know what else the USOC is up to these days? It’s scouring the Web looking for public opposition to pop up in Frisco. So if, let’s say, a tiny local blog has a new post about, say, mounting opposition against hosting the 2024 Olympics, look who comes a running, all the way from Colorado Springs, 80903:

Capturedfsf copy

So it doesn’t matter what spinmeister Nate Ballard tells anybody, the USOC has its own independent information.

And what did the USOC find just recently? They found SF No 2024 Olympics. Ouch.

And speaking of the Internet, look who’s paying Google to get at the top of your search page when you search for something like “No SF Olympics.” That’s right, it’s Larry Baer and all the other Olympics boosters:

Capturefdfddd copy

Is this an effective use of Larry’s money? IDK.

And speaking of wasting Larry’s money, what’s up with this?

Rumor has it San Francisco is a front-runner for the American bid.

WTF to that. Did Nate Ballard just trick Heather Knight here? I can’t tell. And what’s “a” front-runner? Like top three out of four? So, odds-wise, LA’s got the best shot, then Boston, and then SF and so only poor, poor DC isn’t a front-runner? OK fine. But IRL, SF is not the front runner and SF is not a front runner.

And hey, did you know that Olympic Dreamers, the Olympics Movementarians bought up URLs like NoSFOlympics so that the citizen opposition wouldn’t be able to use them? Yep. They did this at the end of October. But the opposition simply used instead, right? So, the dreamers end up looking like assholes and there was zero percent chance that this scheme would work. (Let’s hope the person who reg’ed the URLs for cheap didn’t send a bill to Larry for $5000 marked Opposition Suppression.)

Hey speaking of Larry Baer, his name is mud in the all-important South Bay, right? You know, where the Bay Area’s biggest city is, right? Take a look:

“Consumer tip: Do not start saving up money to buy those tickets for a 2024 Bay Area Olympics just yet. In fact, by my estimation, odds are 99-1 against the games ever happening here. Admittedly, those are unscientific odds. They are based solely on my four decades of covering the Olympic landscape. The actual odds could be much worse.”

And then, what, would San Jose residents get to vote on their participation? And Oakland too? How would we divvy up the overrun risk? It seems like an impossible task.

This just in: an artist’s conception of the dartboard in Larry Baer’s den:


Poor Chris Daly!

So, the Dream is dead. (Or if you paid Nate Ballard enough money to switch sides, he’d come up with something like, “Just like Sean Penn, SF2024 is a Dead Dream Walking.”)

And really, we shouldn’t compare our bid with those from autocracies like Russia (Sochi) or China (Beijing). I mean it would be impossible to spend more than $40 billion on the 2024 games in America. No no, the proper comparisons are with London 2012 and Chicago 2016. Let’s take a look.

London 2012, like SF 2024, had an initial bid of $4 billion something. Then it overran like a son of a bitch, something on the order of $10 billion. So, for SFGov officials to claim that the London Games ended in “surplus,” well, that’s just a fantasy. If London is the modern-practices lodestar, then would SF overrun by a similar amount?

And then Chicago. Well, the Mayor there also said he wouldn’t put taxpayers on the hook, but then he changed his mind when he finally figured out that the IOC insisted upon the taxpayers of Illinois being on the hook. Was Mayor Daley lying? That’s your call, but there was no way that the no taxpayer money commitment was ever going to happen. And then the Mayor of Chicago tried to fix things with an insurance policy from Aon? Yep. The problem with that was that the innocent taxpayers were still on the hook IRL. Oh, the policies had big deductibles and they had low caps? Well, how would that that have helped? And now, SF wants to use Aon for the same purpose? OK fine, whatevs.

All right, that’s your update.

(You know, what the Olympic Dreamers should do is make the case that it would be worth $10 billion in potential overruns to have the Olympics here. That would be the honest approach…)

Oh, It’s Here! – The Anti San Francisco Olympics Movement Has Arrived – “SF No 2024” Comes to Save Us Billions

Monday, January 5th, 2015

Here it is, The Letter, from SF No 2024 (TwitterFaceBook):

Dear Members of the United States Olympic Committee: With one week remaining before your committee votes to select a United States candidate city for the 2024 Summer Olympics, we wanted to introduce our coalition and its goals.

For some reason, SF No 2024 seems to think that the USOC will vote on January 5th, 2014. The USOC might end up doing that, but I don’t know why SF No 2024 is so confident that the decision will come today. [This means I think that they’re wrong wrong wrong.* JMO.]

And here it is, a letter from a coalition to the USOC in opposition to SF’s bid. The USOC has been waiting for this, wondering when opposition groups would start to develop. And here it is. This is bad news for local Olympics boosters, like Larry Baer, and the poeple who feed off of the boosters, like Nate Ballard

“As you know, San Francisco is planning to spend $4.5 billion to bring the
2024 Summer Olympic games to the Bay Area. We believe that money would
be better spent addressing our region’s most pressing social and
environmental priorities, such as…”

Well, San Francisco is “planning” on spending a lot more than $4.5 billion. I mean, area boosters know that it will end up costing us far more than that, so I wouldn’t give any credence to that figure, which is the generic bid amount, more or less, that the USOC wanted for all U.S. cities

And the other thing is that if we’re going to give credence to the $4.5 billion figure, then the official word is that we’ll get all that money back from our share of the IOC pie, from broadcast rights and from Coca Cola and from ticket sales. And then maybe we’ll end up with a “surplus,” or so they say. So, you can’t say that we should cancel our bid and instead spend the $4.5 billion on a host of other things. There aint no $4.5 billion to spend on local housing and transportation and whatnot without the Olympics coming to town.

No no, the danger is SF and the bay area being on the hook for cost overruns, which could amount to something like $10 billion on top of the $4.5 billion. So it’s that $10 billion extra that would rob money from whatever else people want SFGov to spend money on.

…our region’s progressive history or values….

Let me just say here, that the people who signed their John and Joan Hancocks on this letter to the USOC are wingers for the most part, like they’re definitely from the left side of the aisle and they’re not from San Francisco’s dominant right side of the aisle political faction. Compare that with No Boston Olympics, which appears to be more broad-based. (So like, you won’t have any of the core members of SF No 2024 defecting to the pro-Olympics side the way somebody just did over at No Boston Olympics. No no, any Benedict Arnolds who get bought off by would have a high price to pay. I mean, they’d get ostracized, right?)

…above market rate housing … gentrify … waterfront property…

Well, here you go, here’s what we’ll be hearing about for the next ten years if the USOC and IOC pick the bay area for the 2024 Olympics.

The 2012 America’s Cup cost our city over $11.5 million, despite rosy
promises that the event would generate more than $100 million in revenues,
among other unfulfilled promises.

Yep yep yep. Well, except for the 2012 part – it was actually 2013. Not that that matters too much, but I’ll bet the person who made this error doesn’t live in San Francisco, just saying. And come to think of it, lots of people who signed the letter to the USOC live outside of SF in the North Bay. Mmmm…)

If your committee selects San Francisco as the U.S. host city for the 2024 Summer Games, we are prepared to take political action to ensure that Bay Area voters have a say in ensuring that no public funds are spent to host the 2024 Olympics in our region.

Bam! Is this threat credible. Oh, yes it is. Could such a vote win? Yes. Could that kind of thing spook the IOC. Yes. And actually, I could see even some Olympics boosters voting yes.

I’ll tell you, there’s no way the IOC will agree to a deal that doesn’t leave taxpayers on the hook for overruns. No way. So, if SF can’t make that kind of deal, then we’re looking at an embarrassing Denver 1972 situation. Which means that the IOC won’t want to pick SF, right? Which means that the USOC won’t want to pick SF, right?

So, to repeat, bam!

Oh, in other words:

…selecting San Francisco as the United States 2024 Summer
Games host city would jeopardize your efforts to bring the Olympics back to
the United States.

Yep. This kind of political risk will be highest in San Francisco. Then Boston And then Los Angeles. (Sorry, DC, you’re drawing dead. You’ll never get an Olympics. Sorry.)

Hey, who wants another threat to close things out? Here you go:

….the actions that we are prepared to take, in the event that the USOC selects San Francisco as its host city.

And I’ll just say, again, that this is a credible threat, coming from these people, backed with a little service worker money, and that’s all it would take to get a vote against SF2024 on the record.

(And yeah, some of these people are union activists, but they’re not construction union activists.)

And here they are, for the record:

Chris Daly, former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
SEIU Local 1021
Ed Kinchley, Co-Chair of SF Committee on Political Education (COPE), SEIU
Local 1021’s political action committee
Tony Kelly, southeast San Francisco community activist
Stephen Burdo, San Anselmo, Organizer, No SF 2024 Olympics
Kathleen Russell, San Rafael, Organizer, No SF 2024 Olympics
Dr. Elizabeth Fromer, President, Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association, Mission District
Matthew Kaftor, San Francisco, Co-Founder, More SF
Paul Taylor, San Francisco
William Mandell, San Francisco
Javier Briones, San Francisco
Richard Stone, San Francisco, The Zeitgeist Movement John Graham, San Francisco, Director, BetaCorp
Zhenya Spake, Mill Valley
Ann & Gene Spake, Mill Valley
Mark Coleman, Sausalito
Deborah Rose, Novato
Devin Hartnett, Oakland
Zachary Beachem, Hayward
… and a growing number of concerned Bay Area residents.

*UPDATE: Oh, now they’re saying January 8th will be the date of the vote. Well, that makes more sense. One assumes that the USOC has issued a release for the MSM and that an MSMer told the citizen opposition of the bay area.)

The “We Are CCSF” Alliance Tackles Deferred Maintenance Today: Weed Pulling, Recycling, Composting, Window Washing

Saturday, November 2nd, 2013

Of course making the effort is better than not making the effort:


SF City College Volunteers Tackle $1 Billion Project

San Francisco City College Chancellor, Students, Classified Employees And Faculty Take On The Problems Identified By The Community College Accreditation Commission

(SAN FRANCISCO, CA)— Over 100 community members, classified employees, students, faculty and administrators are coming together to take concrete action to address identified problems at the college.  Together, they are looking at the community college accreditation commission’s list of over 300 items that need to be fixed to maintain accreditation.  On the list is one billion dollars’ worth of deferred maintenance. The alliance, known as “We Are CCSF”, will take on some hard labor of pulling weeds, recycling, composting,  window washing and other activities on Saturday, Nov. 2, at 10 AM.

“We need to do everything in our collective power to ensure that City College stays open and accredited for current and future generations of students”, says Jill Kersey a classified employee at SF City College and a member of SEIU Local 1021. “This is an all-hands-on-deck  moment in the history of our college and our city. Together, we can do what must be done to help repair, rebuild, and restore our college.”

When:    SATURDAY, Nov. 2, 2013, 10 AM

Where:  City College of San Francisco, Ocean Campus [outside of Rosenberg Library]

Who:   SF City College Chancellor Dr. Arthur Q. Tyler, “We Are CCSF” alliance, Classified Employees, Students, Faculty, SEIU Local 1021, Coleman Advocates and other community organizations


“We Are CCSF” alliance includes community members, classified employees, students, administrators and faculty, including Students Making a Change, SEIU 1021 and Coleman Advocates. The mission for “We Are CCSF” is to “Repair what is broken at CCSF, Rebuild the  college to become a high functioning institution once again, and Restore public faith in the college’s capacity to effectively serve the people of San Francisco”.

News from SEIU 1021 About the BART and City of Oakland Strike of July 1, 2013 – “Expected to Stall Bay Area Today”

Monday, July 1st, 2013


CONTACT:  Anna Bakalis, SEIU 1021 (510) 387-5341 for City of OaklandCecille Isidro, SEIU 1021, (510) 289-8767 for BART in OaklandCarlos Rivera, SEIU 1021, (415) 260-7134 for BART in San Francisco

    SEIU 1021 Strike Expected to Stall Bay Area Today

 — More than 5,000 City of Oakland and BART Employees are expected to strike throughout the day. Workers will set up picket lines at 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza in front of Oakland City Hall at 7 AM.

WHO:            City of Oakland and BART workers officially go on strike, starting midnight July 1. Community supporters, elected officials and labor allies, join workers at the picket lines.

WHAT:            Workers, represented by SEIU Local 1021, are protesting unfair labor practices and demand greater investment in critical public services. The separate contracts for the City of Oakland and BART expired at midnight, June 30.

A press tent on Frank Ogawa Plaza with electricity and WiFi will be set up for media, starting at 7 AM. 

WHAT:            Mass Strike Begins

WHEN:            7 AM Monday, July 1

WHERE:          Oakland City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza

VISUALS:         Workers picketing, chanting in front of City Hall, near the 12th St BART station

Interviews with workers for the City of Oakland and BART are available at Frank Ogawa Plaza all day.

The following are key press conferences throughout the day in Oakland and SF:

4:30 AM – Civic Center BART Station-UN Plaza in San Francisco

7 AM– Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland

12 Noon – Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland/Community and Labor Solidarity Rally

5 PM – Civic Center BART Station-UN Plaza in San Francisco

7:30 PM – Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland. Press announcement regarding strike 


Eric Mar is En Route to Become Your District One Supervisor Once Again – His Reelection Campaign Kicks Off Today at City Hall

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Remember four years ago when I told you about how Eric Mar was En Route to Become District One Supervisor?

Well, it’s happening again. Deets below:

Click to expand

“Supervisor Eric Mar to File for Re-Election 

SAN FRANCISCO (March 21, 2012): Tomorrow morning, San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Eric Mar will file his re-election papers for the November 2012 election.

WHO: Supervisor Eric Mar and a small group of family, community leaders, and supporters, including UESF President Dennis Kelly, Richmond Democratic Club leader Hene Kelly, SEIU 1021 representative Michael Tong, Mar Family Association President Michael Mar, senior activist Vera Haile, USF student leader Alia Al-Sharif, and community leaders Gordon Mar, Charles Chow and Lin Shao Chin.

WHAT: Supervisor Eric Mar will file his re-election papers and begin his campaign to continue to represent District 1 on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Eric Mar will also hold a large Community Launch Rally on Saturday, April 21st at 12:00 pm at Rossi Playground in the Richmond.

WHERE: San Francisco City Hall, Department of Elections, Room 48

WHEN: Thursday, March 22nd, 10:00 am”

OK then.

But once again, “Downtown” will put money up against him. Here’s the line-up per The Usual Suspects, San Francisco’s Political Home Page Since 1995:

Board of Supervisors – District 1 (Incumbent: Eric Mar)
Declared: Eric Mar
Rumored: David Lee, Rodney Fong

And once again, Downtown will lose. Maybe they’ll have better luck four years from now.

In the meantime, The Richmond will continue to heart Eric Mar:

Here’s Why London Breed Will Be Appointed District Five Supervisor Within a Week

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

This is just my WAG.*

Oh, Meet London Breed, courtesy of the Western Edition.

And Meet London Breed, through her own words, courtesy of the Twitter.

Now, let’s let Lee Hubbard of the Oakland Post Online take over:

“Among those reportedly interested in the District 5 seat are Julian Davis, president of the board of Booker T. Washington Community Service Center; Gabriel Haaland, political director of SEIU Local 1021; Phil Ginsburg, Recreation and Park Department Director; and Michael O’Connor, the co-owner of the Independent Music Hall. Breed, who directs the African American Cultural Center on Fulton Street, has expressed interest in the position.  She has a large segment of the Black activist community behind her, pushing Mayor Lee to appoint her as supervisor. “London is a woman who is definitely qualified to sit in that seat,” said Bridgette LeBlanc, with Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA).  ‘She is a native San Franciscan who was raised and works in the community. She is a leader who is electable, and she can build bridges.'”

OMG, it’s LB with the POTUS!

Here are the reasons:

1. She is the choice of Willie Brown.

2. She is the choice of Willie Brown. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking, but why should Chinatown power broker Rose Pak have any say in D5, which, historically, anyway, is/was, along with D10, an “African-American district?”

3. She is the choice of Willie Brown and she has waaaaaaaaay less baggage than recent mayoral appointee Mohammed Nuru. I mean, how could she have as many closet skeletons as he? So, he makes the cut and she doesn’t – would that make sense?

4. She is the choice of Willie Brown and as a matter of fact, about four years ago, Willie the Sorting Hat actually tried to place London into the Assembly(!), or into the Tri-Wizard Tournament or somewhere. That seemed a stretch at the time, but appointing LB as Supe doesn’t seem a stretch at all right here and right now. 

5. She is a 2008 “graduate” of Emerge California, which encourages women to run for elective office. And when I say “encourages,” I mean pressures. (Signing up for Emerge** is kind of like saying that you plan on running for office (or higher office) sooner rather than later.) Anyway, the questions Mayor Ed Lee’s people would have for London concern her commitment for becoming and maintaining her position as Supervisor, right? So, London, if not now, when? 

6. She is the Worst Case Scenario for San Francisco’s progressives, IMO. She would be a train wreck for them, actually. So as far as Ed Lee’s political faction is concerned, picking anybody else would be an unnecessary risk.

7. She is the choice of the Internet, más o menos.

Those are the reasons – the strongest are #1 and #6.

So, if I know my Ed Lee, London Breed will be the appointee.

Bank on it.

As that Omar Khalif guy recently said:

Ed Lee is going to pull a G. Newsom n D5 appointment. Keep yo eye on my sister.”

*Which means I’ve figured this out on my own, unlike say, a year and a half ago when I got a phone call telling me the game plan about how Mark Farrell was going to win in District 2, which he did. 

**And pay your money, but, srsly, it’s a pretty sweet deal, if you’re a woman planning on running for office soon, and if you’re not a Repub or a Green, and if you’re fortunate enough to get picked.

Supervisor John Avalos “Encouraged By Mayoral Election Numbers,” Declares “Victory for Progressive Agenda”

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

All the latest from the Avalos campaign, below.

Your Supervisor John Avalos on McAllister Street:

Click to expand


Avalos Campaign Speculates Final Tally Will Edge in Their Favor, Pleased With Direction They Turned Race

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Wednesday, November 9th — Mayoral candidate John Avalos responded to results from first round of votes, putting him in a strong second place.

“We are incredibly proud to have run a clean, issue-based campaign, with 99% of the work done by volunteers. We defied expectations, and to have come this far is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our volunteers,” Avalos says. “But we are equally proud of the fact that we were able to change the debate, to make sure that the issues that matter to the everyday people in this City are now on the table and are getting the attention they deserve. We are confident that the results will wind up in our favor; I think everyone is in for a surprise.”

In spite of entering the race late, and spending less than a quarter of the budget of the Lee campaign, Avalos saw a surge in both the polls and on the streets. His campaign had enormous grassroots support from a broad cross-section of San Franciscans, with over 90% of donations coming from everyday San Franciscans, and 85% being under $100. This is markedly different from other campaigns who relied on negative character attacks, hit pieces, television commercials, and the efforts of big-dollar unregulated independent expenditure committees to make up the difference.

“This campaign is about building unity, building connections within the community of people who have been left out of the political process. We have been proud and inspired to see people from the Tenants Union working side-by-side with people from the Bike Coalition, to see members of DogPAC working with community members from the Bayview,” says Rosi Reyes, campaign spokeswoman. “These connections are integral to ensuring a new era of progressive policymaking in San Francisco, and we believe it is just a glimmer of what is to come with an Avalos administration.”

In addition to generating enormous grassroots enthusiasm, Avalos garnered some of the most-coveted endorsements in town. He was endorsed by the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the San Francisco Democratic Party, the Harvey Milk LGBT Democractic Club, the San Francisco Bike Coalition, and the largest public-sector union, SEIU 1021. He was also endorsed by the United Educators of San Francisco, the California Nurses Association, and San Francisco Rising Action Fund, among many others.”

OMG, the Biggest Member of San Francisco’s “City Family,” the SEIU, Endorses Avalos & Yee, Also Dufty, Rejects Mayor Ed Lee

Monday, August 15th, 2011

[UPDATE: Explication here from Fog City Journal and the San Francisco Bay Guardian:

“The delegates were in support of both Supervisor John Avalos and State Senator Leland Yee, both progressives with strong labor credentials and records, both having been in SEIU at one time, and both friends. The delegates reasoned that with so many candidates in the race, neither could win without the others second votes, so they made a dual endorsement of them, asking members and supporters to vote their choice of first or second between them.”

So yes, I did read this wrong.]

All right, tell me if I’m reading this fresh release the wrong way:

“City Workers Endorse Yee for Mayor – SEIU 1021 reject Lee, back Yee in Mayor’s Race

SAN FRANCISCO – Senator Leland Yee has landed the first choice endorsement of the largest organization of city workers – Service Employees International Union (SEIU 1021) – in his campaign for San Francisco Mayor. The move by the 54,000 member union is a complete rejection of the city’s top official, interim Mayor Ed Lee.

The endorsement comes after Yee has landed virtually every major labor endorsement in the race, including the California Nurses Association, California School Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, Laborers International Union, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Communication Workers of America, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, among others.

Yee has also been endorsed by the major environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and San Francisco Tomorrow.

“I am proud to be the labor candidate in this race and honored to receive the endorsement from SEIU 1021 and our city’s workforce, who run our city and provide us essential services,” said Yee. “SEIU 1021 represents some of our lowest paid and hardest working employees, including healthcare workers, nurses, and janitors. Together, we have fought to ensure greater transparency and accountability at City Hall and within state government. I look forward to working with SEIU as we move San Francisco forward.”

“Clearly, Leland Yee is the best choice to stand up for working families,” said Jim Stearns, Yee’s campaign manager. “Unlike some candidates, Leland doesn’t believe public employees are the enemy and he’ll fight for good-paying jobs and benefits for those who provide essential services to San Francisco residents.”

SEIU 1021 also endorsed John Avalos as a first or second choice and Bevan Dufty as a third choice.

SEIU 1021 was founded in 2007 when 10 local unions came together in northern California to form one larger, more powerful union. SEIU 1021 represents public service workers in cities, counties, courts, schools, private non-profits, special districts, public health care, and nursing.


Yee immigrated to San Francisco at the age of 3. His father, a veteran, served in the US Army and the Merchant Marine, and his mother was a local seamstress. Yee graduated from the University of California – Berkeley, then earned a Ph.D. in Child Psychology, and later served in various mental health and school settings. He and his wife, Maxine, have raised four children who all attended San Francisco public schools. Yee has served in the State Legislature, Board of Supervisors and Board of Education.”