Posts Tagged ‘committee’

News from Inside the America’s Cup: SFGov “is very unhappy with the promised financial bonanza being anything but.”

Friday, July 5th, 2013

So let’s hear from America’s Cup 2013 Safety Committee member Jim Farmer, QC [Her Majesty's Counsel learned* in the law]:

The City of San Francisco is very unhappy with the promised financial bonanza being anything but.”

Heretofore, everything that could have gone wrong with the 2013 America’s Cup has gone wrong. All we can do now is hope that no one else dies for the sake of Larry Ellison’s ego.

Oh well.

And is this America’s Cup going to be the last big thing Larry Ellison does before he dies?

Oh well.

So there’s this – it’s the kind of thing called Harsh Reality Time:

“Much of the vision, it is now apparent, has turned to custard.  Larry Ellison’s prediction that there would be a dozen or more challengers (up to 15 perhaps) looks absurd with only 3 challengers making it to the start line and one of them not yet ready to race.   The City of San Francisco is very unhappy with the promised financial bonanza being anything but.  The tragic death of Andrew Simpson when the first (and so far only) Artemis boat disintegrated as it collapsed has cast a pall over the Event from which even the spectacular speed of these boats is unlikely to clear away.

And there’s this:

“One has to hope most earnestly that there is no further disaster.  So far these boats have not yet raced in anger and that has to be the major concern.  Two boats, each sailing at over 40 knots and closing from opposing tacks at a mark at an effective combined speed of 80 knots, is not for the faint-hearted.  Getting crew down safely or out of the water from a boat that has capsized remains a serious challenge even for sailors who are well equipped, fit and trained to deal with that situation as best they can.  Fortunately, sanity prevailed with one of the Regatta Director’s safety recommendations being a prohibition on corporate guests sitting on the back of one of these racing machines.  How crazy was that idea in the first place?”

Oh, and there’s this:

“…it will be economics that will prevent the next edition of the Cup under Ellison’s control being a success.   Three challengers this time.  It is hard to see any of those challengers continuing with the same model of the Event next time.  Yes, there will be others who will be happy to do the A45 thing, as there were this time, but the question will be whether (billionaires aside) more than one or two will be able to go to the next stage – which is the America’s Cup after all.  And even the viability of the AC45 circuit must be uncertain.  The existing model of cities paying all the costs of each mini-event, including the cost of getting the 45s there, just didn’t work this time, with a number of planned events being cancelled because of lack of financial support.”

Anyway, the point is that Appointed Mayor and Willie Brown butt-boy Ed Lee knows that this venture is a big flop, but he’s afraid to say or do anything about it.

Oh well.

Monstrous Big Red, a ticking time bomb that went off a couple months ago:

*Pepe: “Wow, Papa Homer, you are so learn-ed.” Homer: “It’s pronounced “learned.’”

PRADA Makes a Mockery of the America’s Cup Safety Review Committee – Foiling Past Larry Ellison’s Paper Tiger

Monday, May 20th, 2013

Here’s the latest from the Larry Ellison People:

We appreciate the vote of confidence Mr. Bertelli, president of Luna Rossa Challenge, gave to the America’s Cup continuing as planned this summer on San Francisco Bay,”

Uh no. What you’re getting from Mr. Bertelli is NOT a vote of confidence.

In fact, it’s the opposite.

Let me show y0u. The Larry Ellison Safety Review Committee, which, of course, is reviewing, not investigating, oh no, never investigating, perish the thought, the safety issues created by, can you guess, anyone, anyone, that’s right, Larry Ellison, issued this statement last week:

“…teams have been asked to suspend all sailing in AC72 and AC45 catamarans until the middle of next week.”

Hey, how do you say “fuck you, Larry Ellison,” you know, en Italiano?

I think you say it like this:

Click to expand

Hey, is the SFPD doing a possible homicide investigation right about now? I think so. Think on that, Larry Ellison People. Think on that while trying to figure out how the very same “America’s Cup Family” that has brought us, already, the worst AC in history, is going to investigate itself, I’m sorry, review itself in a fair an impartial way.

Hey, doesn’t the Safety Review Committee have a whole mess of conflicts? Would you like me to list them for you? (Pillow Talk: “Hey Honey, do you think…”)

And that Artemis “Big Red” AC72 _didn’t_ fold up, as reported, “like a taco shell?”  So how did it fold up? Like a chalupa? Oh, what’s that, it didn’t fold up at all? Is that what you’re saying?   

The former Big Red upon San Francisco Bay, as seen last year, a ticking time bomb that went off this month, more expensive than some of the jetliners that flew above it, and more expensive and about as tall as some jetliners are long. And yet if you were killed flying to Vegas there’d be a big big investigation, right? And what’s the response from the Larry Ellison People? It’s if you want to make an omelette, you’re going to have to break some eggs.   

Now let’s hear from an AC72 crew member:

“I hope like hell that whoever survives this thing and wins it changes the boat class to anything safer than these God-forsaken death traps.”

News Release: “San Francisco Democrats elect Mary Jung chair, as newly elected DCCC members take office”

Friday, July 27th, 2012

Should a one-party town have its elected officials reflect “unity and common purpose?”

That’s the Question of the Day.

(I’ll bet PG&E lobbyist Willie Brown would answer in the affirmative.)

Deets below.

Wednesday evening, 455 Golden Gate Avenue:

Click to expand

“San Francisco Democrats elect Mary Jung chair, as newly elected DCCC members take office
Committee reflects ‘unity and common purpose’ in 2012 to re-elect Obama, help Pelosi reclaim Speakership, and make a difference on key state ballot measures
SAN FRANCISCO (July 27, 2012) — California Democratic Party Chair John Burton administered the oath of office to the newly elected members of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee Wednesday night at the first general meeting of the local Democratic Party’s governing board following the June 5th Primary Election.  

Veteran Democratic activist Mary Jung was unanimously elected to serve as the San Francisco Democratic Party’s chair, and several DCCC members were elected to fill leadership roles that will be critical to the local party’s success heading into the November 2012 General Election.  Top priorities discussed at the public meeting include re-electing President Obama, returning the Speakership to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi by helping reclaim a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and pushing to expand the number of Democratic voters citywide.  

“I’m honored to serve as Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, and I look forward to working hard with my fellow Democrats in an election year with so much at stake,” said Party Chair Mary Jung.    ”San Francisco Democrats elected a terrific team to lead our county central committee, and I think it reflects a spirit of unity and common purpose.  I’m confident in our ability to help return President Obama to the White House, make Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Speaker again, re-elect Senator Feinstein, and pass Gov. Brown’s revenue measure so California can maintain vital public services, restore quality education for all, and support our most vulnerable.”

Other officers elected at the general meeting held at the California State Office Building’s Milton Marks Auditorium on Golden Gate Avenue are: First Vice-Chair (Finance) Zoe Dunning; Second Vice-Chair (Issues) Alix Rosenthal; Third Vice-Chair (Voter Registration) Trevor McNeil; Fourth Vice-Chair (Club Chartering and Development) Leah Pimentel; Recording Secretary Kat Anderson; Treasurer Tom Hsieh; Corresponding Secretary Matt Dorsey; and Parliamentarian Arlo Hale Smith.  Rafael Mandelman will serve on the DCCC’s Slate Card Committee along with the Chair and Treasurer.  A committee tasked with proposing party bylaw changes to incorporate requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which assures public access and participation in local government public meetings, will include David Chiu, Arlo Hale Smith, Matt Dorsey and Hene Kelly.  That ad hoc committee will seek to fully harmonize local party bylaws with relevant provisions of state law to address concerns that the election of six members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to the DCCC may occasionally trigger Brown Act requirements. 

The committee also adopted two resolutions: one in support of placing AB 1648, a campaign finance reform measure known as the DISCLOSE Act, on the California ballot; and another expressing the Democratic Party’s support for City College of San Francisco.  

About the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee
San Francisco’s Democratic County Central Committee, or DCCC, is the governing body of the local Democratic Party as defined in California’s Government Code and Elections Code.  The DCCC is comprised of local Democrats elected by voters in each Assembly District, as well as partisan-level Democratic elected officials and nominees who serve as Ex-Officio Officers.  Current members elected from the 17th Assembly District are: John Avalos, David Campos, David Chiu, Malia Cohen, Petra DeJesus, Matt Dorsey, Bevan Dufty, Zoe Dunning, Leslie Katz, Rafael Mandelman, Carole Migden, Leah Pimentel, Alix Rosenthal, and Scott Wiener.  Members elected from the 19th Assembly District are: Kat Anderson, Kelly Dwyer, Bill Fazio, Tom Hsieh, Mary Jung, Hene Kelly, Meagan Levitan, Eric Mar, Trevor McNeil and Arlo Hale Smith.  Ex Officio members are: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, Attorney General Kamala Harris, State Senators Leland Yee and Mark Leno, and Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano. 

Additional information is available online at: http://www.sfdemocrats.org/

Supervisor Scott Wiener to Address San Francisco’s Streetlight Issue Today at 10 AM in City Hall

Monday, June 4th, 2012

Per Supervisor Scott Wiener:

On Monday, 10 AM, I’ll be holding a hearing in City Hall to discuss our streetlights and the need to improve them & make them more reliable.”

I suppose he’s talking about stuff like this and this, but I wonder why Market Street looks like this at night lately, with all the street lights off from the Financh to troubled Mid-Market to the Twitterloin and beyond:

Click to expand

(Hey, remember when our former man-child of a Mayor, that former scion, remember when he turned on a streetlight in the Twitterloin using his iPhone? Now, looking back, did that help at all? No it didn’t. Obviously not. But it made his day and he wanted to share. That’s what he thought was Governance. Oh well.)

Anyway, please, City Hall, turn off the dark.

Q&A: Why Does Area Republican Billionaire Ron Conway Support Mayor Ed Lee? The Answer from Anonymous: Twitter

Friday, November 4th, 2011

Don’t know who wrote this:

“Why does Ron Conway support Ed Lee?

The Twitter tax deal.

Also:

Political naïveté or influence peddling

Willie Brown

Ron’s increasingly involved in SF money politics

Ed’s gonna win; Ron backs winners early and throws the losers an anchor

Ron’s either buying influence or getting played, take your pick; he’s pouring money into a race that’s already a lock, behind a candidate just waiting for voters to confirm what everyone knows. If naïveté, Willie Brown is using the Twitter deal to pull Ron and his money on board an already winning campaign. If influence peddling, Ron’s using his money to buy himself some friends by backing the clear winner of the race early.

On the face of things, Ron’s a huge fan of the Twitter tax deal that Ed Lee supported after progressive-backed Supervisor Jane Kim surprisingly swung behind Twitter’s demands, making the deal possible. Word on the SF politico street is that the deal was primarily a supervisorial fight between the progressive forces of John Avalos and Chris Daly and the downtown interests getting somewhat behind the big tech scene, rather than being a mayor-driven initiative. It was no surprise that there was a long line of companies right behind Twitter looking to enlarge that financial hole Twitter forced open.

But here’s the political situation Ron has bought into: Willie wants Ed to get a smashing mandate and is seen as the power behind the throne at this point, having convinced a reluctant Ed to run for election after repeatedly promising he would not run. Willie even convinced Ed to break Ed’s deal with the Board to not run in exchange for being appointed in the first place. Considering two Supervisors are currently running for mayor, Ed’s name isn’t worth dirt in political SF. Unless you want something from the Mayor’s office, in which case, hello, buddy!

The other campaigns, especially Leland Yee and David Chiu turned their guns on Lee as soon as he entered, calling him a puppet and a liar in only slightly nicer terms. They failed; Ed survived. Ed is now holding steady at ~35% in the polls after a brief dip down to 30%, with about 40% undecided as of two weeks ago. It’d be shocking compared to the race before Ed entered, but this 4-5 serious candidate race may be over in a single round rather than using the rank choice voting system that was supposed to make this such an interesting cycle.”

On It Goes, after the jump

(more…)

Mayor Ed Lee is a Former Progressive at Best: Why is He Supported by Republican Party, Opposed by Democratic?

Friday, October 14th, 2011

[UPDATE: Oh, it appears the chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, the Un-Peskin let's call her, agrees with me. She's threatening to file a complaint with the Ethics Commission(???) and/or sue(!) the SF Weekly. Apparently, she totally doesn't love Ed Lee, no way, as if! O.K. fine.]

Discuss:

The Democratic County Central Committee is up front about not supporting Mayor Ed Lee and/but the Republican County Central Committee isn’t up front about supporting Ed Lee.  

I think that’s right.

What kind of progressive goes in front of a roomful of bidnesspeople and talks about cutting taxes? A former progressive, that’s who.

What kind of progressive gives the performance of Mayor Willie Brown not just an “A,” but an “A+?” A former progressive, that’s who.

The latest:

Click to expand

As they say, Republicans Love Mayor Ed Lee.”

Oh No, Ed Lee! Rose Pak and Willie Brown Throw Down Against SF Ethics Commission in Sing Tao Daily!

Monday, August 8th, 2011

I don’t know what to make of this image below.

Is it a portion of yesterday’s Sing Tao Daily? (And, if so, wouldn’t that please Caroline Chen of the SF Weekly?)

And does it have some bons mots from Chinatown ward healer Rose Pak and former Mayor Willie Brown?

And does it concern their reactions to the San Francisco Ethics Commission coming down hard on defunct (or maybe not-so-defunct after allRun Ed Run and area attorney Enrique Pearce?

As always, You Make The Call.

Exhibit A, from Rose Pak, on the topic of the recent statements from San Francisco Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix:

“He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Snap!

And Exhibit B, from His Willieness*:

 ”Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.”

(Keep in mind when you hear allegations of constitutionality and whatnot, that Willie Brown went to UC Hastings School of Law and Enrique Pearce and Mayor Ed Lee both attended UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.)

See? Read it for yourself:

Oh, how about this crude translation? It’s the best I can do right now:

“In response to the letter from San Francisco Ethics Commission Director John St. Croix, supporters of Ed Lee for Mayor reprimanded St. Croix for actions being based on nothing. They also questioned his qualification for the position. 

Chinese Chamber of Commerce consultant Rose Pak described it the biggest joke of the world. She said it is full of nonsense. He didn’t know what he’s talking about. “He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Enrique Pearce had consulted St. Croix. However, the latter said differently afterwards. Besides, he didn’t provide written replies to questions that Progress for All raised or gave explanations, said Rose Pak. “I will be the first one not to comply. You don’t have the authority to formulate the law, which is not free to go by your interpretation.”

 Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.

Hey, what do you think? Is this an accurate translation? Tell me, tell me if you think the translation isn’t good.

*Speaking of Willie Brown (who still writes for the San Francisco Chronicle) and Rose Pak (who used to write for the San Francisco Chronicle), here’s a bit (in the San Francisco Chronicle) from Willie on Rose circa April 2011:

Holding court at the party for the opening of the new airport terminal, Rose was seated at the table with interim Mayor Ed Lee and his wife, Anita, and a host of other local officials.

“I want every one of you to call his office and tell him he should run for mayor,” Rose told the table. “And do it right away so that there’s no misunderstanding.”

Then she turned to the architect David Gensler.

“Didn’t you do this terminal?” she asked.

“Yes,” he said.

“Didn’t you remodel this terminal before?”

“Yes,” he said.

“Then your firm should raise a million dollars for his election campaign.”

Poor Gensler, he didn’t know what hit him.”

Oh No, Ed Lee! Bogus “Run Ed Run” Committee to Get Called On The Carpet on August 8th, 2011

Friday, August 5th, 2011

Oh, it’s on. It’s on the agenda for the next meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission:

Consideration of the Status of “Progress for All,” an entity registered as a General Purpose Committee in San Francisco. This organization is responsible for the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign and claims its primary purpose is to convince Mayor Ed Lee to run for election to the office that he currently holds. The Executive Director has instructed Progress for All to refile as a “Primarily Formed Committee” as its independent expenditures have the effect of promoting an Ed Lee candidacy to the voters. As a matter of policy, the Commission will discuss the status of Progress for All and possibly determine what, if any, policy and regulatory changes are necessary to address similar situations in the future. The Commission may also discuss whether to redraft, withdraw or update a prior informal advice letter to the Progress for All Committee. (Discussion and possible action.)”

It turns out that some of these unenthusiastic people were getting paid $11 an hour? That would explain a lot:

Click to expand

The gritty nitty:

“During the current Mayoral election cycle, two committees formed with the stated
intention of convincing Mayor Ed Lee to run for the office which he now holds. The
first, called “Progress for All” registered as a committee on May 18, 2011 (and refiled
on June 23) and is the sponsor of the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign. The second, called
“Support Drafting Ed Lee for Mayor 2011” registered as a committee on July 19. A
third group was also formed, but reportedly did not raise or spend any money and
therefore did not qualify as a committee.

State and local law provide definitions of types of committees and their filing
responsibilities. Initially, the scope of the activities of these committees was unclear.
In an informal advice letter date May 17, 2011, the Commission answered a
hypothetical question from Enrique Pearce, who would become a hired consultant for
Progress for All. However, the question posed in that letter is only tangential to the
policy question before the Commission. While it is clear that the citizens expect
political activity, particularly fundraising and spending, to be regulated, under which
state and local regulations are committees such as the two mentioned above most
appropriately placed?”

It goes on and on…

(more…)

Yet Another Japantown “Better” Neighborhood Plan (BNP) Meeting This Afternoon on Sutter Street – Catered by Bushi-Tei Bistro

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

I’ll give you this, the Powers That Be are doing a better job with the Japantown BNP this go-around owing, to me not seeing stuff about “no more highrises.”

And, for the first time, I see stuff about “other cultural” what-have-you.

(If that’s too cryptic that’s  all right. Basically, this whole process is a focus group for the City to get reactions about what it already wants to do. If you want to participate, well then be my guest.)

All the deets:

I mean, is it necessarily a good thing to “expand the Special Use District?”

I don’t know. (Last year, a couple Angry Young Men were pretty p.o.’ed about one meeting being “dominated” by aging white hakujin who live south of Geary. These AYM wondered why those residing on the wrong side of the Expressway were even included in a Japantown meeting…)

Anyway, ever more deets:

“Date: Sunday, July 31, 2011
Start Time: 12:30 pm   End Time: 3:00 pm

Phone: (415) 346-1239

More Infohttp://sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=1692

Location Details

Date: Sunday, July 31, 2011
Start Time: 12:30 pm End Time: 3:00 pm
(Time Zone: US/Pacific)

Location: Issei Memorial Hall at JCCCNC (map)

Category: Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan

A Community Vision: Sustainability and Renewal

Preserve, restore and enhance Japantown as a vital, prosperous, and livable community that authentically reflects, embodies and continues its cultural heritage and history into the future.

The Japantown Organizing Committee invites you to attend a series of community meetings. We need your input and guidance on their recommended changes to the 2009 draft neighborhood plan.

We will meet to discuss:

Important neighborhood planning

Development issues

Questions about Zoning

Before the end of 2011, the final Japantown community recommendations are scheduled for consideration by the San Francisco Planning Commission. Your help at these meetings is vital to shape the neighborhood recommendations to the Planning Commission.

Click here to download handouts for this meeting.

Phone: (415) 346-1239

More Info: http://sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=1692

Location Details

Issei Memorial Hall at JCCCNC
1840 Sutter Street
San Francisco CA 94115 US

“Linear Park?” Word from Japantown: The Webster Street Linear Park (WSLP) is NOT RECOMMENDED

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

What’s this? The first time I hear about a “linear park” and, already, the idea’s been killed.

That’s what I learned last night at the poorly-attended “Better” Neighborhood Project meeting. (For some reason the one they had earlier this month had a lot more people, oh well.)

Now last I heard, a few years ago, the powers that be were going to earthquake safe the Japantown parking garage on Post and then during construction people would be able to park their cars on the northbound lanes of excessively-wide Webster Street. But I suppose that got replaced with this linear park idea.

Anyway, here it is:

Click to expand

Oh, and here too. See the driveways and whatnot?

Anyway, that’s your Japantown BNP update.