Follow Chris Daly's money
For a man who likes to pose as someone down with the poor, Chris Daly leads a very comfortable life, thank you very much. Actually, he should thank himself, since he decided how much that we, the taxpayers, were going to pay him. In 2002, the Supervisors proposed that their pay be raised. At the time, being a Supervisor was termed a part-time job, for which each was paid $37,585 (with benefits, that was actually $47,000). To put that in context, the median income in San Francisco is $61, 764 for full-time workers. But the Supes decided that wasn't enough, so they put Proposition J on the ballot, which technically changed their classification to "full-time" (even though their work-load remained part-time) and raised their compensation to $88,000 ($118,000 when you include benefits).
The proposition drafted by the Supes claimed that the salaries of similar elected officials in other cities and counties, and the consumer price index, should be used as justification for the whopping increase. Both Supervisors Daly and Gonzalez had a hand in the proposition's drafting, and it passed. Rather perversely, two years later, Supervisor Gonzalez voted to set the salary for members of the School Board at just $20,000. Gonzalez chose that figure specifically because it was one-half of the beginning wages of a teacher. Funny that Gonzalez, Daly and the other Supes thought that their Board position should be TWICE the median income, but that the other Board should be at 1/3 the median income. More perversely still, when he ran for Mayor, Gonzalez claimed on his website that, at $118,000, Supervisors such as he were "still the lowest paid public officials in the city". Er -- other than those members of the school board that he screwed.
But things this election get much curiouser. The word one keeps hearing bandied about by Daly supporters is that Rob Black is somehow tainted by receiving donations from "rich people who don't live in D6", according to one such True Believer. Now, The Daly Show hasn't endorsed any candidate, but we thought that sounded a bit off, so we did a little research. Candidates are required to disclose all donations, so a little sleuthing at the City's own website turned up the 16 biggest contributors to Chris Daly's campaign. Guess what? At least 15 of those 16 DON'T live in San Francisco! And all 16 of them are somewhere between "very well-off" and "stinking rich".
Here's the line-up:
Alexander Clemens, Barbary Coast Consulting
public relations, home address unknown
Donald Solem, Solem & Associates Consulting
public relations, MILL VALLEY
Calvin Yee, Consultant
consultant, SAN JOSE
Myra Chow, Myra Chow Consulting
consultant; MILL VALLEY
Jay Wallace, Platinum Advisors, LLC
lobbyist, MILL VALLEY
Gordon Fulton, TransSystems Corp.
unknown business type; BERKELEY
Darius Anderson, Platinum Advisors, LLC
lobbyist (and board member of the Willie Brown Center); SONOMA
Shas Arfania, Malcolm Drilling Co.
largest construction drilling company in the US; SAN MATEO
Edward Bucher, Consultant
consultant, SAN JOSE
Kirk Anderson, Gold Bridge Capital
investments, SAUSALITO
Phillip Tagami, California Commercial
investments, OAKLAND
James Gala, California Mortgage & Real Estate
property development, MORAGA
David Choo, California Mortgage & Real Estate
property development, OAKLAND
Mark Hyatt, KDF Communities
property development, NEWPORT COAST
Raymond Harper, KDF Communities
property development, NEWPORT BEACH
Paul Fruchborn, KDF Communities
property development, CORONA DEL MAR
Indeed, it's very likely that the one donor whose home address I couldn't locate -- Mr. Clemens -- doesn't live in District 6 either, which would mean that every single top contributor to Chris Daly is from out of the area! (Not to mention, rich.)
When you add to that the fact that Daly has a campaign war chest of $142,576, compared to Rob Black's $57,726, it's dramatically clear who's being bought by "rich people who don't live in D6".
The proposition drafted by the Supes claimed that the salaries of similar elected officials in other cities and counties, and the consumer price index, should be used as justification for the whopping increase. Both Supervisors Daly and Gonzalez had a hand in the proposition's drafting, and it passed. Rather perversely, two years later, Supervisor Gonzalez voted to set the salary for members of the School Board at just $20,000. Gonzalez chose that figure specifically because it was one-half of the beginning wages of a teacher. Funny that Gonzalez, Daly and the other Supes thought that their Board position should be TWICE the median income, but that the other Board should be at 1/3 the median income. More perversely still, when he ran for Mayor, Gonzalez claimed on his website that, at $118,000, Supervisors such as he were "still the lowest paid public officials in the city". Er -- other than those members of the school board that he screwed.
But things this election get much curiouser. The word one keeps hearing bandied about by Daly supporters is that Rob Black is somehow tainted by receiving donations from "rich people who don't live in D6", according to one such True Believer. Now, The Daly Show hasn't endorsed any candidate, but we thought that sounded a bit off, so we did a little research. Candidates are required to disclose all donations, so a little sleuthing at the City's own website turned up the 16 biggest contributors to Chris Daly's campaign. Guess what? At least 15 of those 16 DON'T live in San Francisco! And all 16 of them are somewhere between "very well-off" and "stinking rich".
Here's the line-up:
Alexander Clemens, Barbary Coast Consulting
public relations, home address unknown
Donald Solem, Solem & Associates Consulting
public relations, MILL VALLEY
Calvin Yee, Consultant
consultant, SAN JOSE
Myra Chow, Myra Chow Consulting
consultant; MILL VALLEY
Jay Wallace, Platinum Advisors, LLC
lobbyist, MILL VALLEY
Gordon Fulton, TransSystems Corp.
unknown business type; BERKELEY
Darius Anderson, Platinum Advisors, LLC
lobbyist (and board member of the Willie Brown Center); SONOMA
Shas Arfania, Malcolm Drilling Co.
largest construction drilling company in the US; SAN MATEO
Edward Bucher, Consultant
consultant, SAN JOSE
Kirk Anderson, Gold Bridge Capital
investments, SAUSALITO
Phillip Tagami, California Commercial
investments, OAKLAND
James Gala, California Mortgage & Real Estate
property development, MORAGA
David Choo, California Mortgage & Real Estate
property development, OAKLAND
Mark Hyatt, KDF Communities
property development, NEWPORT COAST
Raymond Harper, KDF Communities
property development, NEWPORT BEACH
Paul Fruchborn, KDF Communities
property development, CORONA DEL MAR
Indeed, it's very likely that the one donor whose home address I couldn't locate -- Mr. Clemens -- doesn't live in District 6 either, which would mean that every single top contributor to Chris Daly is from out of the area! (Not to mention, rich.)
When you add to that the fact that Daly has a campaign war chest of $142,576, compared to Rob Black's $57,726, it's dramatically clear who's being bought by "rich people who don't live in D6".
posted by the clicker at 10:43 PM
12 Comments:
Thank you, Mr. Tendernob for another great post!
As far as outspending on campaigns go (I've heard Daly supporters say that there are mailers 6 to 1 against him) I live in D6 and I've received the following contacts:
Black:
1 mailer
2 emails (in the last week)
Daly:
1 mailer
5 phone calls (starting in early september)
2 e-mails (I think I only got one more because I after the first one I immediately wrote back that I'd rather vote for Saddam Hussein than Chris - which isn't entirely true. I'd probably write in someone else's name if those were the only two choices)
Overall, it seems to me that Chris' campaign has been better organized. That makes it doubly ironic that he is so unresponsive and surly as a supervisor.
If he put 1/10 of the effort during his term to reaching out to constituents that he has during the past month, I might have voted for him.
If Mr. Black were doing all his own spending you might have a point. The trouble is that most of the money being spent on Mr. Black's behalf has taken the form of independent expenditures, including some by parties who have not identified themselves. The Bay Guardian, available at www.sfbg.com, has posted extensive coverage of this problem.
My personal collection of anti-Daly or pro-Black mailers received here shows the following senders and "Total cost of this mailing" statements:
- Building Owners and Managers Association, $17,701.13.
- Golden Gate Restaurant Association PAC, $17,984.70.
- San Francisco Police Officers Association, no cost stated.
- San Francisco Association of Realtors, $9,805.
- UA Local 38 Cope Fund, Plumbers & Pipefitters, $15,000.
I think my collection is incomplete because I've read that there have been eight separate independent expenditure mailings against Daly.
That's $60,490.83 in countable independent spending right there, none of it out of the Black campaign chest, not counting the police mailer, which failed to state its cost. Also not counting the anonymous postcards with 24-cent stamps that we found on cars along our street some weeks ago. Not counting the cost of the various anti-Daly posters around town, nor the recently publicized Daly-Black poll, nor any of the other subtle and un-subtle anti-Daly shenanigans we've been seeing for the last several months.
Great post, and thanks for doing your homeword regarding Chris' war chest.
As they say, sunlight is the best antiseptic...
After I posted this, I discovered two more databases of contributions to Daly. These, combined with the first one yielded a total of 130 contributions of the maximum $500 amount (ergo $65,000).
Of those 130, at least 84 of them are from outside of San Francisco; 10 of those are from out-of-state! For example, at least 30 live in the East Bay, at least 12 live in Marin, and at least another 12 live on the Peninsula/South Bay. I could only verify that 16 of the 130 live in SF, although -- other than Daly and his wife (who each contributed $500), I can't find any that live in D6.
I haven't been able to determine where the rest of the contributors live, as often times, they're listed by a company name rather than an individual's name. For example, San Francisco Veterinary Specialties is listed as a donor in San Francisco. However, the director, who almost certainly was the one who made the decision to donate, lives in San Rafael, NOT SF.
I find it more than a little ironic that the Daly campaign tries to portray Rob Black as the "downtown candidate", when Daly should accurately be known as the "out-of-town candidate".
"If Mr. Black were doing all his own spending you might have a point. The trouble is that most of the money being spent on Mr. Black's behalf has taken the form of independent expenditures, including some by parties who have not identified themselves."
Martha, the problem is that you're conflating the fact that independent PACs are spending their money to send out mailers/post flyers criticizing Chris Daly and endorsing Rob Black, with "money being spent on Mr. Black's behalf". SFSOS, the POA and any other group is legally entitled to print and distribute literature criticizing and/or endorsing any candidate, so long as they aren't in collusion with that candidate. No evidence of any such collusion has been offered, so no laws have been broken. And I assure you: in the next week or so, we're going to be hit by a blizzard of criticisms of Rob Black / endorsements of Chris Daly from the PACs on his side.
"The Bay Guardian, available at www.sfbg.com, has posted extensive coverage of this problem."
Would this be the same Bay Guardian that spent its last issue attacking Rob Black and endorsing Chris Daly, putting him on their cover? How is that any different?
TenderNob, that's a nicely lawyerly distinction you've just made, and I agree that "on his behalf" could imply Black authorized or requested the spending, and I agree he has not publicly been shown to have done so. However, I'm sure you're willing to agree that when an independent big spender pays for a campaign effort that criticizes Daly and endorses Black, the intended result is to win votes for Black. No?
By the way, in my earlier tally I forgot to mention that there are said to be independent television expenditures supporting Black as well. Television time is reputed to cost big money.
"I'm sure you're willing to agree that when an independent big spender pays for a campaign effort that criticizes Daly and endorses Black, the intended result is to win votes for Black. No?"
Absolutely. The people behind those flyers want to see the end of Chris Daly, and they think that Rob Black will do a more balanced job in representing the various interests of people and businesses in D6. I'll readily admit that.
The main question seems to be -- have they broken any laws in doing so? So far, there's been a noisy whispering campaign to create the impression that ethics rules have been violated. I have nothing informed to add to that conversation, except I'd like to let the Ethics Commission do their job, rather than spreading rumors that are just as pointed in their intention of smearing Rob Black as the flyers in question are accused of trying to smear Chris Daly.
If your statement about Solem is true it's disturbing. Opposing rent control isn't the only way he's hurt poor people.
But if the stories about Black independent expenditures coming from the Republican Party are true, they're many times more disturbing.
"...But if the stories about Black independent expenditures coming from the Republican Party are true, they're many times more disturbing."
Why? Are Republicans invariably "the enemy"? Why do we always have to presume that, if a person is a Republican, they're our enemy? My parent's are both long-time Republicans. Needless to say, we've gotten in some arguments over the years about politics. Regardless, they're good hearted people, and they think that they want the best for others, just as we think we want the best for others. Both sides are so sure of having the moral high ground that we are constantly at loggerheads, like warring Islamic or Christian sects, each claiming to be more virtuous.
The fact is that there are Republicans who live in San Francisco, and even in D6. They have had NO ONE to address the issues that are important to them for god knows how long, in City Hall. Do we have to disenfranchise people just because they have different political views? What about moderate Democrats? What about the large number of Vietnamese people in my neighborhood who care nothing about politics, but just want their neighborhood to be safe and clean for their children? Do their needs not matter? Apparently not to Chris Daly.
Imagine if your family had lived in a predominantly red state like Idaho for generations, but that you were a progressive Democrat. How would you feel if your elected officials were all conservative Republicans, who you felt ignored your particular needs? Would you be satisfied with the excuse "well, you're living in the wrong place"? Or "we know better than you how things should be done"? Or "you're not one of us"?
I strongly believe that the main fault of politics in San Francisco -- and particularly in a diverse District like 6 -- is the presumption that only the so-called "progressive Democrat" view matters. We have our little experimental utopia here, and no one can interrupt the experiment by criticizing it, no matter how long they've lived here or how un-met their needs are, no matter how arrogant and obnoxious the elected offical.
No elected official is more polarized and polarizing than Chris Daly. Here's a guy who -- even though residents and business owners had been asking to try surveillance cameras at the most crime-ridden corners for years, and even though money was appropriated for a pilot program -- he singlehandedly removed the funding for the program because HE didn't want it. How many people have been robbed, or just have lived in unnecessary fear in the Tenderloin because Chris Daly "knew what was best for them, better than they did"?
The Republican Party is in no danger of taking over San Francisco. We haven't had a Republican Mayor here for more than 40 years, nor an overtly Republican Supe since god-knows-when. But we do have a long history of centrist Mayors, which should tell us something about San Francisco's make-up. We're not a political monoculture, we're a melting pot. Does Chris Daly represent the melting pot? No way. He represents a minority of his constituents at the far left, and at the bottom of the economic ladder. That may give some people a warm fuzzy, but it's neither wise nor fair to the majority.
Jerry -- in the first place, he's not YOUR Supervisor. He's everyone who lives, works and visits D6's Supervisor. Do you know how many people voted for Daly in 2002? Exactly 6,645 people. That's in a District where 70,000 people live, over 100,000 people work and 15 million people visit every year. 6,645 people! That's it!
Has Daly done everything he could to serve all of our different needs equally for the past 6 years? Not even slightly.
But to address your points individually:
"The City Charter prohibits supervisorial interference in
administration. That is the mayor's province."
You claim this four times, and it's absolute and utter nonsense. You have either been seriously misinformed, or you're making it up, In fact, the responsibilities of the Mayor are actually very few:
1. He has to sign or veto the budget.
2. He has to sign or veto bills.
3. Where there are vacancies for directors of public offices, he has to make appointments.
That's about it. Signatures and appoiontments.
Most of the other things that the Mayor does are ceremonial, or in the capacity as an ambassador for the City. He has the opportunity to advance certain causes, but he has few other responsibilities.
Here's what Wikipedia says about the job of Mayor of San Francisco:
"The mayor appoints people to positions in the city government with the consent of the Board of Supervisors, and for signing bills into law. The mayor may also veto theabill and return it to the board of supervisors for revision. If there is a vacancy in the Board of Supervisors or another city elected official, the mayor appoints a replacement to fill the vacancy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Francisco
Now compare that to the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Board of Supervisors:
Draft the budget, appropriating taxpayers' revenue to be disbursed in the manner of their determination. The BoS' influence in its control over the $5 billion budget cannot be overstated.
They also establish all new laws relating to the activities of the City, its inhabitants and visitors, other than those mandated by popular vote.
The Supervisors run the City by forming themselves into the following administrative groups:
the Budget and Finance Committee
the Land Use & Economic Development Committee
the Government Audit & Oversight Committee
the City Operations & Neighborhood Services Committee
the Rules Committee
the Select Committee on Ending Gun & Gang Violence
the City and School District Select Committee
the Local Agency Formation Commission
the San Francisco County Transportation Authority
the Airport Commission
The BoS operates on scales from macro to micro. For example, the awarding of contracts for companies doing work for the City, of drafting and passing or rejecting contracts with universities -- even the awarding of taxi and liquor licenses -- all handled by the BoS.
Also, the City specifically changed its policy in 2000 to better serve its different neighborhoods by setting up Districts for each Supe to represent. Along with that goes the increased responsibilities for addressing the issues specific to that District.
"The responsibility for our streets, MUNI, SFPD and Parks rests squarely in the lap of Mayor Gavin Newsom who has enjoyed 2.5 years of exclusive control over those agencies after 6 years as a supervisor setting policy
for those departments."
And how did Gavin Newsom "set policy for those departments" when he was a Supe, and now "have exclusive control over these agencies"? And how do you reconcile that with your claim that Daly has "no control over them", even though he had the exact same power as Newsom from 2000 through 2003? You can't have it both ways. That's called "special pleading".
And the Mayor does NOT "have exclusive control over MUNI, SFPD and Parks"; that's nonsense. He can appoint a chief for these groups, but that is all the control he has over them. The BoS, on the other hand, actually have influence over the way that these agencies run, such as with the Neighborhood Parks Council, which Daly sits on. Of course, sitting on it and actually doing anything with it are two different things, as Daly has only bothered to show up to one meeting of the NPC in the past year.
And here's one final example of how mistaken you are about the powers of the Mayor v/s the Board of Supervisors: in March, Daly sponsored a Board resolution calling for the Impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United States. Even if they don't have the power to actually force such a result, it's a graphic indication of how vast they BELIEVE their power to be. And you're expecting us to believe that Chris Daly is unable to get trash cans on every corner of the Tenderloin and arrange to have them emptied twice a week?! The mind reels!
Furthermore, I watched firsthand as our neighborhood took a turn for the worse in 2000-2001, after Daly took over, and it's been in decline ever since, while other, neighboring Districts have gotten along just fine.
"Rob Black is a former corporate lawyer for a Republican political firm. Black is associated with interests who wish to cleanse San Francisco of any counter culture or uniqueness and is advancing that agenda on the backs of the poorest. Don't be fooled by a campaign that would impress Karl Rove with its brazenness and detachment from political reality."
Hillary Rodham Clinton worked for a "Republican law firm"; it doesn't make her a Republican. Rob Black worked for the Clinton/Gore campaign and the Gore/Lieberman campaign, and for Jimmy Carter, and for Michaela Alioto-Pier -- ALL Democrats. That's FAR more important than what way the law firm he worked for at one time leaned.
"Black is associated with interests who wish to cleanse San Francisco of any counter culture or uniqueness and is advancing that agenda on the backs of the poorest."
"On the backs of the poorest"?! The problem is that the poorest are on the backs of the *working*class*, to the tune of $200 million a year, or $500 out of the tax dollars of every working person in San Francisco. And what has come of that endless expenditure? Waste, corruption, favoritism, and an EXPANDING population of homeless people (or at least until Care, not Cash cut that number). But you're right: San Francisco IS unique in that it has many times the number of homeless people per-capita than any other city in the US. And I suppose they all just spontaneously materialized one day.
And I don't care one whit about the "counter culture", whatever that means nowadays. As someone who was a hardcore, political punk in the early '80s, I think I know more than enough about the "counter culture" and its effects. What it has evolved into is a class of presumptuous, strident, self-righteous fools who believe that they and their favorite groups are entitled to be supported by everyone else.
"These attacks on my Supervisor have become tiresome. For you know nothing about reality. Or you refuse to speak the truth."
Ah, the wisdom of the "true believer". Everyone else is deluded except you. Amazing. If my "attacks have become tiresome", you can always tune them out.
"There's actually an easy solution. All of the soup kitchens and drug clinics and the like should be moved to Treasure Island along with the junkies and dealers..."
No thanks! I've lived in the Tenderloin for 10 years, quite long enough to see how the homeless, junkies and dealers trash their neighborhoods. Treasure Island would look like "Escape from New York" in less than a year. There's no reason why Treasure Island should be subjected to that fate.
"The mayor is supposed to control them all but even he doesn't control the cops. They control him. They do what they want, which is little or nothing."
Again, you're mistaken. The Mayor can appoint a Chief of Police (and Newsom's choice was better than any other Mayor's since god-knows-when), but he doesn't control the SFPD. But Chris Daly DOES control the budget for the SFPD, and he has not been willing to earmark the extra funds for foot patrols.
"Instead, Gavin Newsom hands control of Treasure Island over to his chief fundraiser (guy named Darius Anderson) who never in his life ever developed so much as a tree house."
Oh really? In fact, Mr. Anderson already oversees the RiverWest development in the Sacramento Delta of some 3,200 houses on 800 acres. He was also the Chief of Staff for the Yucaipa Companies for five years, which owns the Ralph's, Alpha Beta and Food4Less grocery store chains, during which time he was responsible for the development of hundreds of new grocery stories throughout the US. He also oversaw the development of the "Aquarium of the Bay" facility at Pier 39. Sounds a LITTLE more impressive and experienced than you're making him out to be.
Oh -- and by the way: guess who Chris Daly accepted a $500 campaign donation from? Darius Anderson.
TenderNob, I guess your new political friends haven't told you something the rest of us know: clever people with power send money to incumbents hoping to get something from them, whether they actually get anything or not. I'm sure one of your friends can recite you the full quote from Jesse Unruh in his California Legislature days about how "If you can't take their money...[fun part omitted]... and still vote against them, you don't belong up here."
Now, it's a little more telling who's willing to give to a challenger. Is there anyone you're proud of, who you feel has your own personal interests at heart, who has given to, or spent money to promote, Rob Black? Anyone, for example, likely to stand up for the rent control laws and protections against condo conversion that make it possible for you and me and other non-tycoons to live in this district?
Mr. Nob, I understand that conservatism's promises of order and security are a powerful draw for an ex-bohemian like yourself who took his experiments in unorthodoxy far enough to get hurt out there. It sounds like the traumas driving you to the right are too deep to find a cure any time soon. But if you can set aside the emotional factors for a moment, try and consider: in hard economic terms, what has the Republican Party, or the likes of SFSOS, ever done for you? What are they ever likely to do for you? Do they really want to help you, or are they only taking advantage of your zeal?
Martha -- I think you're stuck in "assumption mode", and have been for most of our exchanges here. Have you actually read anything that I've written with an open mind, or are you just casting about for any way to dismiss my views?
For example, in this post, you make statements like
"I guess your new political friends haven't told you"
and
"conservatism's promises of order and security are a powerful draw for an ex-bohemian like yourself who took his experiments in unorthodoxy far enough to get hurt out there."
Are you serious? Since when have I given the impression that ANY of the people involved in this campaign are my friends, or that I think of them as anything more than potential public servants?! Get real.
As for my supposedly being an "ex-bohemian" -- well, I think I could match my boho cred with anyone you might care to compare me to -- yourself perhaps. Just let me know if you want to compare lifestyles. And no, just being further Left than me does not make you more anti-establishment or less of a wage-slave, nor more sensible or "righteous".
It's a typical "progressive" tactic to try to dismiss others on the Left who have differing opinions by claiming that they're "heartless" or "conservative" or "sell-outs", but that doesn't cut it with me. I've been a hardcore political punk, back in the early '80s. I've been homeless, and got myself out of it through my own volition. I've gone back to the land, a la Thoreau at Walden Pond. I've moved to Europe and been quite the bohemian. I've been creatively self-employed for most of my life. I've volunteered for dozens of Democratic candidates over the past 25 years. I've donated about 5% of my net to charities every year for the past 25 years.
You speak of "order" like it was pejorative, just as you speak of everyone who is homeless as if they're inevitably "victims". You selectively choose my statements to refer to, but carefully avoid some of the thornier ones, like my points about the fact that there ARE homeless people who are simply looking for someone to take care of them when they're capable of taking care of themselves. How there's no mechanism for excluding those people from taking advantage of the public largess. How people move to SF who have neither hope nor intention of getting work or renting their own apartment, expressly because they know how generous the City is. How such people harm the legitimately needy by diverting resources. How the working class is saddled with the heaviest burden of providing for such people. It's like you skim over those parts as if they're distasteful and embarrassing, even though you know they're true.
"Now, it's a little more telling who's willing to give to a challenger. Is there anyone you're proud of, who you feel has your own personal interests at heart, who has given to, or spent money to promote, Rob Black?"
Absolutely. How about Richard & Rhoda Goldman, two of the more generous and progressive of philanthropists? How about Jerry and Toby Levine of the SF Arts Commission and so many other cultural resources? How about Eric Spiegelman of Cinemocracy?
"Anyone, for example, likely to stand up for the rent control laws and protections against condo conversion that make it possible for you and me and other non-tycoons to live in this district?"
Ah, the good old rent control bogeyman. Look -- rent control is in no danger of going anywhere. San Francisco has among the toughest anti-eviction laws in the US. And one person's "protection against condo conversions" is another's only opportunity to own their own home in San Francisco, through TIC.
I have friends who live in the Hamilton on O'Farrell at Leavenworth. How many other buildings in D6 offer condos for under $375,000? The Hamilton was just another 1920s hotel that had fallen on hard times and had dingy rooms being let by the week or month. Since going co-op, the place has been beautifully restored by its residents, and hundreds of former renters have now get to pay their monthly housing costs into their equity, rather than giving it to City Rents or one of the other mega-apartment management corporations, or absentee landlords, such as I have. I have absolutely no problem with that. My 15-unit building was on the market when we moved in, for $800,000. I would've loved it if enough of the othe tenants could've combined their resources with ours and we could've now owned our own home, rather than putting $90,000 into my landlord's pocket, as I've done.
"what has the Republican Party, or the likes of SFSOS, ever done for you? What are they ever likely to do for you? Do they really want to help you, or are they only taking advantage of your zeal?"
Your focusing on SFSOS is a red herring. They are but one group from all over the spectrum who is tired of Chris Daly's poor job performance. And a lot of the other groups critical of Daly are important commponents of the economic engine that employs hundreds of thousands of people here, and contributes hundreds of millions to our tax base. You don't want them calling all the shots when they affect your life; well -- they shouldn't have to endure Chris Daly calling all the shots for his favorite constituents, when his decisions affect their lives. We're a melting pot, not some far-Left utopian experiment, funded by people whom we insist upon demonizing, just because they don't conform to our opinions.
Post a Comment
<< Home