Posts Tagged ‘election’

If District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Needs To Be Replaced Soon, Two People with Legitimacy are Abe Simmons and Kat Anderson

Monday, December 15th, 2014

First things first, you tell me how big a deal this is:

Supervisor Farrell directed to pay S.F. $190,000 for violation by John Coté

And don’t niss this part:

“Theoretically speaking, I think they then become the same campaign,” said John St. Croix, director of the Ethics Commission.

Kaboom. Did an effort (from Janet Reilly, or some other Reilly)…

FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order

…lead to this…

FPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.

…almost four long years later?

OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS:

1. Why does big news always seem to come out post meridiem on a Day of Frigg, you know, like on a Friday evening? Funny that.

2. Could this situation explain why Mark Farrell nominated (law student(!)) Katy Tang as interim Board of Supervisors President?

3. Is Mark Farrell going to serve out his second term? IDK.

4. If he doesn’t, who’s going to replace him? Mmmm…

The election that District 2 held four years ago was narrowly lost by Janet Reilly, but I can’t see her ever getting appointed D2 Supe in today’s political environment.

Now, what about the people who came in third and fourth, the people who myabe could have / should have formed an ANYBODY BUT JANET ranked-choice voting troika / three-way with Mark Farrell?

Meet Ivy Leaguer Abraham Simmons:

Does he still live in the District? IDK.

Now meet Stanfoo-educated Kat Anderson:

I’m thinking either of these two attorneys could slot right into the job.

You know, if necessary.

Here’s what people have been talking about over the weekend:

Agenda – December 16, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING and AGENDA
December 16, 2014, 5:00 P.M.
Room 400 City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco

[EXCERPT]

  • Discussion with City Attorney’s Office regarding potential litigation by the City Attorney’s Office against local committees, including Common Sense Voters, SF 2010; Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor, for violations of local campaign finance laws.  Possible Closed Session.  (Attachments: FPPC Stipulation, Decision and OrderFPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.)
    1. Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
    2. Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under California Government Code section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation:  San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114.  (Action.)
    3. Conference with Legal Counsel:  Anticipated litigation.  (Discussion.)
      Number of possible cases: 1
    4. If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.
    5. Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated litigation.   (Discussion and possible action.)
      Motion:  The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.

I suppose we’ll find out more tomorrow…

Beach Chalet Soccer Field Turf Protesters, Golden Gate Park – These People are Still Out There – They’re Not Giving Up

Monday, November 24th, 2014

Didn’t we just have an election on this topic just a few weeks ago?

I think so.

Here they are yesterday, still. Defeated, and yet not:

7J7C9868 copy

CALL: Defeat does not exist in this dojo, does it?
RESPONSE: No, Sensei!

Marquee of Historic BRIDGE THEATRE on Geary Repurposed to Promote Area Supervisor Mark Farrell – Meet Your New Baseball Academy

Friday, November 7th, 2014

This is the scene days after our most recent election – one hopes this promotional effort for the incumbent Supervisor won’t stick around* for too much longer.

In any event, you can never be too careful when your Conditional Use authorization is under such scrutiny.

Hey, guess how many NIMBY’s complained about the Bridge being turned into the brand-new San Francisco Baseball Academy? Zero.**

So, PLAY BALL, somehow, inside of an old 1930′s-style movie house:

20141106_115628 copy

On It Goes…

*It was part of my job to change the marquee at this Landmark-owned theatre, back in the day. That was no picnic. (Another part was to console the owners of cars that had been stolen from our parking lot. Back then, criminals wouldn’t  smash and grab – they’d steal the whole car. Ah mem’ries…)

**It’s the West Side, nobody cares. Target? Bring it. Chipotle? Coming soon, just up the street near Masonic. Combination Pizza Hut And Taco Bell? Maybe someday…

Is “Techies Who Vote” a Real Website? Like, Is This Real Life? – Here’s Its Hilarious Call To Action for Election Day

Tuesday, November 4th, 2014

WELL, HERE IT IS.

‘Why the 2014 Election Matters for SF Tech Workers – Elections matter. Tuesday’s election is extremely significant and symbolic for the tech community.”

WELL, MAKE UP YOUR MIND, DUDE – WILL IT BE SYMBOLIC OR WILL IT BE SIGNIFICANT? IN FACT, IT WON’T BE “EXTREMELY” ANYTHING.

Given all that’s been thrown at the tech community over the past year, Tuesday November 4 represents the one solitary day where the tech community can come together, exercise its electoral muscle and lets its growing voice be heard.

WHAT? SO THEN WHAT’S THIS, BROCEPHUS? IT’S “Leveraging the collective power of the tech sector as a force for civic action in San Francisco.” HAVE YOU HEARD OF THAT OUTFIT? MAYOR ED LEE SURE HAS. IN FACT, HE’S SO SMITTEN WITH MONEY FROM CON RONWAY AND OTHERS THAT ED LEE NOW IS FACING A CHALLENGE FROM A MEMBER OF HIS OWN POLITICAL FACTION IN HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY. AREN’T YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THIS? ALSO, BRO, MOST TECHIES LIVING IN SF DON’T ACTUALLY VOTE BY GOING TO THE POLLS ON A TUESDAY, SO IT’S HARDLY “ONE SOLITARY DAY” AT ALL…

So what’s at stake? In our recent 2014 voter’s guide…

SO WHO’S “OUR?” YOU MEAN “MY,” RIGHT? YOU’RE LIKE ONE DUDE, RIGHT BRO? 

…Techies Who Vote…

TECHIES?” ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? ISN’T THAT A PEJORATIVE TERM? IS THIS YOUR ATTEMPT AT REAPPROPRIATION? WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A “TECHIE?” IS THIS A PARODY WEBSITE?

David Campos voted against the tax breaks for tech companies setting up shop in the mid-market area…

GOOD. ‘CAUSE THAT’S CORPORATE WELFARE RIGHT? AND THE GENESIS OF THAT CORPORATE WELFARE COMES FROM A TIME BEFORE YOUR ARRIVAL IN THE 415, POSSIBLY – HERE YOU GO, DUDE, ENJOY.

“An independent report released by the SF City Controller this past week revealed…”

WELL, NUMBER ONE, THE REPORT COMES FROM THE VERY GOVERNMENT WHAT’S ALREADY BEEN CORRUPTED BY “TECHIES.” AND NUMBER TWO, ‘AS FOR THE TAX BREAK’S OVERALL IMPACT ON THE CITY’S ECONOMY, THE REPORT SAYS IT WAS PROBABLY ‘QUITE LIMITED.‘” SO WHERE’S YOUR MESSIAH NOW, DUDE?

…while revitalizing a depressed neighborhood in the mid-market area…

DO YOU THINK MID MARKET HAS BEEN REVITALIZED? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?

[BRO'S DAVID CHIU HAGIOGRAPHY OMITTED]

Proposition A is a transportation and Road Improvement (Bond) that provides $500 million to fund transportation projects and capital improvements for MUNI transit and for upgrading city streets.

NOPE. WHAT IT IS IS FREE MONEY FOR SFGOV – THERE’S NO OBLIGATION FOR ANY BODY TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON ANY PARTICULAR THING. WELCOME TO SF, BRO.

…our future as a world-class city.

ARE YOU A REAL PERSON DUDE? WHAT YOUNG PERSON TALKS LIKE THIS?

Proposition B is a population-Based Adjustment to General Fund Appropriation to Transportation Fund (Charter Amendment) that increases the voter-approved funding set aside for MUNI to reflect past ten years of population growth…

UH, THE SFMTA’S BUDGET HAS EASILY OUTPACED THE PAST TEN YEARS OF POPULATION GROWTH, RIGHT? DON’T YOU KNOW THAT?

OH, AND DUDE, YOU HAVE NO ENDORSEMENT FOR YOUR SEVEN READERS ON PROP E, THE SODA TAX? OH, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAVE “A DIRECT EFFECT ON TECH WORKERS?” WHAT? OF COURSE IT’LL HAVE AN EFFECT ON “TECHIES.” OBVS. AND YET YOU DO HAVE AN ENDORSEMENT, FOR YOUR SEVEN READERS, ON THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE? DO YOU THINK IT HAS A “DIRECT EFFECT ON TECH WORKERS?” SO DO “TECHIES” IN SF MAKE MINIMUM WAGE – ANY LAST ONE OF THEM?

ALL RIGHT, BROCEPHUS, IT’S BEEN REAL…

Campaign 2014: Here’s What 3.3 Pounds of Mail in a Mailbox Looks Like – Plus, David Chiu is Very Very Evil

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

(Yes, there is white powder on the LCD screen of this digital scale - why do you ask?*)

(And no, I don’t think David Chiu is evil, but man, you ought to see some of these fliers I’m getting…)

Anyway, here’s what I pulled out of the old mailbox yesterday – 52 ounces of garbage, plus, somewhere in there, a small check from State Farm, a diamond in the rough:

P1160921 copy

Now, granted, there was a B&H catalog in there, plus a Costco Connect magazine, but the bulk of the bulk was campaign 2014 flyers what cost more to mail than they cost to produce.

My poor letter carrier!

*It’s flour, fool, purchased in bespoke fashion [25 pounds at a time] from my local purveyor of comestibles [Amazon, Fuckin’ A, bubba, back when it was only $27 a bag - now it’s like $40 for some reason?] 

All Right, Supervisor David Chiu + The Prop E Soda Tax + Coke and Pepsi Money = ???

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

[UPDATE: Marisa Lagos has the other side of the story - so put them together and it starts to make sense. Everybody wants some sweet sweet free cash from Coke and Pepsi, but nobody wants to admit they want some sweet sweet free cash from Coke and Pepsi…]

I don’t really “get” this one, I don’t understand what’s going on here.

But see if you can figure things oot, eh?

“San Franciscans United For The Soda Tax - Calls on David Chiu to Stop Coordination with Big Soda Industry

WHAT: A public call to action from San Franciscans United For The Soda Tax. The coalition will draw attention to the Chiu campaign’s coordination with the big soda industry and call on David Chiu to stop accepting campaign funds in opposition to the soda tax he claims to support.

WHO: San Franciscans United for the Soda Tax: Representative from the nurses; Adrienne Suffin, former SEIU Chapter President; Laura Thomas, Co-President, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club; Arthur Welton, San Francisco Young Democrats; Juan G. Berumen, affordable housing advocate and more

WHY: Over the course of the last month, David Chiu has coordinated with the big soda industry to steer thousands of dollars of soda industry money into his campaign.  The soda industry has funded $10,000 to the Chinese American Democratic Club, $7,500 to the Black Young Democrats and $2,500 to the Asian Pacific Democratic Club. Many of David Chiu’s strongest supporters, whom he proudly lists on his website and who are doing a lot of work on his behalf – the San Francisco Building Trades Council, the plumbers and the Teamsters – are opposed to the soda tax. San Franciscans United For The Soda Tax finds this hypocrisy on behalf of David Chiu appalling and is calling on him to cease accepting any resources from the Big Soda Industry.

WHERE: In an emailed press release, San Francisco.

WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 30th, 4:00 pm”

World Series Update: “FUCK SFMTA” – “Only in SF Do People Hate the Transit Agency More Than the Cops”

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

Word on the Street, via @SFNick, @robertol, and @kevinmonty:

 RT : Only in SF do people hate the transit agency more than the cops. (photo via )”

Capturedsddfff copy

Hey, how’s Prop A doing? The last polling I saw it wasn’t doing so hot, but that was a while ago.

Oh look, media coverage:

The Ides of “May”: The Language of the Mayor’s Pet $500 Million Bond “May” Alarm You

Meanwhile, the people at the SFMTA claim to be offering, “Excellent Transportation Choices.” And they ask the public for advice about MUNI can become “more perfect.”

Something’s gotta give here – I suppose we’ll find out next week…

Horrible SPUR Organization Supports the Billion Dollar “Prop A 2014,” But How Did “Prop A 2007″ Work Out?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2014

Work with me here, people.

Here’s what SPUR, San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal, promised for Prop A 2007

“…the strengthening of the MTA’s independence, the included labor reforms, the infusion of cash and the mandate to address global warming all make this a very important reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency and a positive step toward the improvement of Muni service. SPUR recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. A.

But here’s how things worked out IRL:

Muni’s mismanagement of Prop. A may hurt future funding tries by Will Reisman

Where the SFMTA’s Prop. A money has gone by Will Reisman

Now here we are in 2014. Here’s what SPUR, those horrible people behind Redevelopment, is saying about Prop A 2014:

“The city has done the hard work to gather stakeholders, assess needs and prioritize transportation expenditures.”

So, handing a blank check to the SFMTA for it to waste has something to do with “hard work?”

Really?

Hey SPUR, what about Prop A 2007? Weren’t you all wrong, so very wrong, about that?

So why would you expect Prop A 2014 to work out any better?

“FIREWALL” Starring Political Operative Nicole Derse, AirBNB, and Supervisor David Chiu – FIREWALL. FIREWALL, FIREWALL

Monday, October 20th, 2014

Messrs. Matier and Ross once again, Automatic For The People, Baby:

“Now we’ve learned that Chiu’s campaign consultant, Nicole Derse, is a partner in the consulting firm 50 + 1 Strategies. The firm was hired by Airbnb to recruit people who rent out their homes to lobby supervisors to support a bill friendly to the company. Derse tells us she’s never discussed Airbnb with Chiu and didn’t work on the lobbying effort. “We have a firewall between the two operations,” she said. For his part, Chiu said that “50 + 1 are not lobbyists. Early on, we sat down and set up a firewall…”

And here’s the movie poster:

Firewal

Today’s post was brought to you by the letter “F” (which stands for … FIREWALL. FIREWALL, FIREWALL, FIREWALL. FIREWALL, FIREWALL!)

Your new mantra is … FIREWALL!

Not “Chinese Wall,” oh no, that phrase is out with the trash, which was fucking news to me back in the Aughts, back about ten years ago. You see, it’s considered racist because, you know, I still don’t get why. The Great Wall of China stood the test of time right? Cf. Maginot Line, right? Oh, now I see why – it’s cause one judge decided to go off on the issue about a decade ago. Hey, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, now I can see how that was racist, you know some policy instigated by the SF Board of Supervisors because it was politically expedient, something David Chiu might sympathize with, but anyway. Actually, I still don’t get why Chinese Wall is racist.)

So fine, pick a different phrase. ANYTHING BUT “FIREWALL.” When you’re colluding about the Message of the Day, about How To Deal With Matier And Ross, work it out so that PERSON A says firewall and PERSON B says, I don’t know, ethics wall or sacred division, or something.

Just saying.

(Also, “50 + 1 Strategies” should probably change its name to 51 Strategies - why make people do math unnecessarily?)

Now, Ode to Firewall, that magical cure-all word what makes the pain go away

In India we`re all the rave
Discovered that its great as aftershave
Dropped in the sea just off Japan
Swapped 20 bottles for an aqua-walkman
Immunity from ridicule
Improves your brains if you`re a fool
And I read in the Middle East
They traded some for a hostage release
Now if you`re bald it`ll give you hair
If you got straight trousers it`ll give you flares
Feeling up you`ll get depressed
Out of style here`s a brand new dress

It was really vile weather
When we got to tarred and feathered
You could hear the six guns sound
As they chased us out of town

The stuff we sell is just the best
Passing all consumer test
Days of heaven nights of sin
Voodoo stick and sharks fin
When all around you seems like hell
Just one sip will make you well
Multipurpose in a jar
If you ain`t ill it`ll fix your car
In days of yore for all bad feelings
Washing socks and stripping ceilings
Nowadays its used medicinally
For all known human malady

It was really vile weather
When we got to tarred and feathered
You could hear the six guns sound
As they chased us out of town

Guaranteed don`t you know
Money back?
You`ll get a no!
It`s the one and only medicine show

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Dishonest Approach to Lauding Props A and B and Decrying Prop L

Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

Here we go:

Understanding This Year’s Transportation Ballot Measures by Tyler Frisbee

Proposition A, Proposition B and Proposition L present stark contrasts for our city’s future, and the November elections will give voters a chance to weigh in on whether they want to move our transportation system forwards or backwards.

EVERYTHING IN SF WILL BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL THESE PROPS FARE IN NOVEMBER – THIS IS A FACT. THERE ARE NO “STARK CONTRASTS FOR OUR CITY’S FUTURE.” I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE I’M NOT TRYING TO RAISE MONEY FROM YOU, GENTLE READER.

Proposition A renews current property bond taxes to fund over $52 million for better bikeways, including $22 million for Better Market Street, in addition to $68 million for pedestrian improvements, $22 million for signal upgrades, and $358 million to improve Muni. Since it’s simply renewing a current property bond, Proposition A won’t raise taxes, and it will result in a markedly better commute for all of us.

PROP A. AUTHORIZES “PASSTHROUGHS” SO IT WILL ALLOW YOUR LANDLORD TO RAISE YOUR RENT TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, RIGHT? NEGLECTING TO MENTION THIS POSSIBILITY IS DISHONEST.*

In the first year, Proposition B would mean an extra $6 million for Vision Zero projects and an additional $16 million to improve Muni.

AND IN ITS FIRST YEAR, PROP B WOULD MEAN _LESS_ MONEY FOR SAN FRANCISCO NON-PROFITS, RIGHT? DON’T YOU THINK YOUR MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW THAT? OH WHAT’S THAT, YOU’RE A MONOMANIACAL POLITICAL GROUP SO YOU DON’T CARE? OK FINE.

Proposition L is a policy declaration statement that rolls back San Francisco’s Transit-First policy, and would result in the City having to prioritize car traffic and parking above all other modes.

UH NOPE. ITS PASSAGE WOULD NOT FORCE THE CITY TO DO ANYTHING, IT’S BASICALLY A MEASURE OF HOW VOTERS ARE THINKING.

Proposition L would require the SFMTA to value “free-flowing traffic” as highly as human life when designing streets, and would take money away from Muni to build more parking garages.

AGAIN, THE SFMTA WILL BE “REQUIRED” TO DO NOTHING.

END OF LINE.

As for myself, I’m agin Prop A, as I want a better MUNI. Pouring more money down the SFMTA rat hole doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Hey, shouldn’t the head of MUNI be an elected position ala the DA’s Office? Where’s that proposition?

And I’m for Prop B. Some politically-connected non-profits are hopping mad about it, but I don’t care.

And Prop L doesn’t matter, so I don’t care about it. If it wins by a surprisingly large margin, it will end up being a face-punch to the SFMTA and its needy vassal, the SFBC.

*AND OH YEAH, THE SFMTA AND SFGOV PROVIDE THE SFBC WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR – DID YOU KNOW THAT, GENTLE READER? IT MIGHT BE NICE FOR THE SFBC TO POST A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT ON ITS OP-EDS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS ONE…