Posts Tagged ‘Proposition B’’

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…)

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?

Here’s What Tonight’s World Series Viewing Party Will Look Like – But No Alcohol in Civic Center – Vote No on Prop B

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

You’re invited to come to Civic Center tonight to see Game Four of the World Series on a makeshift “Jumbotron.”

See you at 5:07 PM (or earlier, to get a good spot if you want to be able to actually see the action unobstructed.)

It’ll look like this, but probably with more Matt Cain than Timothy Leroy Lincecum on the screen:

Via RubyxCube - click to expand

The SFPD requests (more or less) that you transfer your alcohol to unmarked containers, thusly:

And, oh yes, speaking of the Rec and Park, Remember to Vote No on Proposition B (November 2012), the so-called “Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond”

Why?

Well, because Prop. B is too costly for San Francisco

And also because Reform is Needed at San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department.

Also because area lawyer Philip Alan Ginsburg would consider passage of Prop B (November 2012) an endorsement of how he’s running the RPD.

That’s why.

Now, let’s hear from San Francisco Mayor Ron Conway,* after the jump. (Spoiler: He wants you to go to Chipotle’s and spend your money before you blow town.)

PS: The after party will be in the Mission District – spread the word, bring fireworks.

*Poor Sony. It appears that any television-like contraption bigger than 100 inches now gets the generic term “jumbotron.”

Oh well.

Displays similar to the Jumbotron include:

(more…)

PWNED! Interim District Five Supervisor Christina Olague Gets NO ENDORSEMENT From Democratic Party

Thursday, August 16th, 2012

Wow. A supposed “leader” of the Run Ed Run Draft Ed Lee for Mayor movement, a person who was rewarded with a Supervisor position for selling out her progressive values, just got a big fat vote of NO CONFIDENCE last night, courtesy of the Democratic Party of San Francisco.

Kind of like this: 

Ah, let’s meet some of the candidates for D5 Supe. So we have, from left to right, Thoughtful, Thoughtful, OMG I’M SO PISSED OFF WHAT GIVES THESE, THESE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION ME, Thoughtful, and Thoughtful:

Photo by Luke Thomas of Fog City Journal

Let’s check in with the reaction from another candidate, one who is accumulating endorsements the past few weeks instead of, you know, losing them:

I just spoke w/ Julian Davis and he is THRILLED! Level playing field! RT @SFCitizen@mattdorsey No endorsement for District 5? HARSH!”

And here’s the rest of the official Dem Party endorsements from last night’s meeting

“SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 15, 2012) — The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee tonight voted on the party’s endorsements for local candidates and propositions that will appear on the Nov. 6, 2012 Consolidated General Election ballot.  The governing board of San Francisco’s Democratic Party voted to endorse the following: 

  • Board of Supervisors, District 1: Eric Mar
  • Board of Supervisors, District 3: David Chiu
  • Board of Supervisors, District 5: No Endorsement
  • Board of Supervisors, District 7: F.X. Crowley (#1), and Norman Yee (#2)
  • Board of Supervisors, District 9: David Campos
  • Board of Supervisors, District 11: John Avalos
  • Board of Education (four seats): Sandra Fewer, Matt Haney, Rachel Norton and Jill Wynns
  • Community College Board (four seats): Natalie Berg, Chris Jackson, Rafael Mandelman, Steve Ngo
  • BART Director, District 7: Lynette Sweet
  • BART Director, District 9: Tom Radulovich
  • Yes on Proposition A (City College Parcel Tax, District Measure)
  • Yes on Proposition B (Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond, Bond Measure)
  • Yes on Proposition C (Housing Trust Fund, Charter Amendment)
  • Yes on Proposition D (Consolidating Odd-Year Municipal Elections, Charter Amendment)
  • Yes on Proposition E (Gross Receipts Tax, Ordinance)
  • No on Proposition F (Water and Environment Plan, Ordinance)
  • Yes on Proposition G (Policy Opposing Corporate Personhood, Declaration of Policy)

Though comprehensive official minutes of the DCCC’s special meeting at California State Office Building’s Milton Marks Auditorium will be forthcoming, member and committee reports included several updates on: the upcoming fall campaign; the hiring of a new executive director; current party finances and fundraising plans, including an event centered on President Obama’s nomination acceptance speech; voter registration; the redesigned party website and expanded communications efforts; and amending practices to meet many standards codified in the Brown Act and S.F. Sunshine Ordinance.  The DCCC also voted on a vendor for its fall slate card program.  

Public comments included numerous speakers advocating individually and on their organizations’ behalf for local candidates and measures; a monthly update on Organizing for America; concerns that the California Democratic Party endorsed Proposition 35 without consideration to official opponents and concerns from the sex worker community.  Two speakers called on DCCC members to address themselves to community concerns that policies governing the Castro’s Rainbow Flag do not comport with Presidential proclamations and other exigencies that merit lowering the flag to half-mast when appropriate.  

The lone new business item was a resolution passed by a majority of DCCC members that condemned inflammatory and offensive anti-Muslim advertising on Muni vehicles, and called on city officials and MTA authorities to change policies to prohibit such hate speech in the future.

Members John Rizzo and Hene Kelly closed the meeting by memorializing the late Milton Marks III, a highly regarded Community College Board member and former DCCC colleague, who passed away Aug. 9 at the age of 52.  The meeting was adjourned in Marks’s honor.  

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 Mark Leno and Leland Yee, and Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano and Fiona Ma. 

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

Strategist Nate Ballard Takes a Victory Lap in the New York Times over Jeff Adachi’s Proposition B Going Down in Flames

Friday, November 5th, 2010

San Francisco’s Nate Ballard is being celebrated today in the New York Times. Check it:

“’Like it or not, unions are still the most potent political force in California,’” said Nathan Ballard, a Democratic strategist and former Gavin Newsom aide who once worked for the California Labor Federation. Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor, ‘persistently demonized the unions,’ Mr. Ballard said. ‘It was a miscalculation on her part. She greatly underestimated their influence.’”

So it would seem. A few months back, I certainly thought that Prop B would do a lot better than it did.

Click to expand

Proposition B‘s lopsided defeat will make people think twice before creating other initiatives that affect organized labor in the 415, it would seem.