(First published Monday, November 29, 2004, in the San Francisco Sentinel. Reposted with author’s permission.)

by Jim Meko

The furor stirred by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s motion to censure Supervisor Chris Daly wasn’t about profanity. The President of the United States barely flinched when his Vice President used the same four-letter admonition towards Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the U.S. Senate and a chorus of “amens” rose from their right-wing supporters when Cheney later said that the utterance “made him feel better.”

Profanity in politics is as American as apple pie. Senator John Burton, widely regarded as one of the state’s most effective politicians, is known for his rich four-letter vocabulary. Members of the current Board of Supervisors, of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s inner-circle and even Alioto-Pier’s esteemed aunt, the volcanic former Supervisor Angela Alioto, are all capable of incendiary rhetoric. No … this latest episode in the Trial of Chris Daly isn’t about profanity … it’s much more about power and politics.

The San Francisco Chronicle was blind-sided by the return of district elections. So wedded to the old downtown-dominated politics were they that in the 2000 race to represent District 6, a sea of displacement, poverty and homelessness that the Chronicle calls home, they chose to endorse Chris Dittenhafer, a last-minute transplant to the district without roots, ideas or support. In the runoff election that year, Chris Daly blew Dittenhafer away by a margin of four to one.

The Trial of Chris Daly began in short order. Discomfort was the original charge … an unease over what Daly brought to city hall. Daly’s first year resembled life in a dorm, with pizza boxes and junk food stacked high, late hours the norm and a panolopy of characters from the streets and alleys of the district cautiously feeling their way around the corridors of power.

Daly’s offense, from the vantage of the privileged class, was to bring hope to the disenfranchised.

No wonder Daly’s tenure on the Board has been “Chronicled” in more than two dozen editorials with headlines ranging from “Daly’s Incivility,” “A Walking Embarrassment,” “City Hall Civility” to “City Hall Incivility.” In some 40 op-ed page columns, the Chronicles’ right-wing propagandist Ken Garcia has excoriated Daly as a fool and a court jester, dangerous and unbalanced, a child of privilege, a so-called radical, a Bolshevik and the poster child for the downside of district elections. Whew! Speaking of civility …

District elections is what this is all about. District 6 encompasses some of the poorest folks in San Francisco, including the Tenderloin, South of Market’s 6th Street corridor and the North Mission. It’s only been a few short years since the days when Supervisors were elected citywide, and a Board dominated by the likes of Michael Yaki, Barbara Kaufmann and Amos Brown had little time for these dregs of society.

The charge against Daly is certainly not that he’s been ineffective. In fact Daly has one of the best records on the Board for the amount of legislation introduced — significant legislation — and an equally impressive record for getting it passed. The blowup two weeks ago between Daly and a paid lobbyist for real estate interests intent on gutting rent control was followed by a series of legislative maneuvers that ultimately led to the unanimous enactment of tougher condo conversion controls that strongly discouraged the eviction of seniors, those catastrophically ill or living with AIDS.

Daly supporters streamed into city hall all afternoon, as the censure motion was considered. Filipinos, SRO hotel dwellers, seniors, small business owners, the homeless, Transgenders and people living with AIDS, tenants rights advocates and environmentalists told the assembled Board that we like our Supervisor just the way he is. They have watched others, like Supervisor Bevan Dufty, vote once in support of them (the residents of Trinity Plaza who were facing eviction) and then turn right around and vote against them on second reading … and they count the number of members on the Board who pander to the Small Property Owners of San Francisco. District 6 doesn’t need polite albeit ineffective representation.

As Ken Garcia said, Daly is the poster child of district elections and if the privileged class continues this drumbeat of criticism, rest assured that when the polling looks favorable and the turnout looks light they’ll launch another effort for repeal to return the city to the comfortable days when downtown interests and developers, the Chronicle and the Committee on Jobs, called the shots … when Daly’s supporters are driven from the corridors of power, back to the streets and alleys from whence they came.

So the Trial of Chris Daly didn’t end last week when the censure motion failed by a vote of 8-2. That was just another skirmish. 40 more Ken Garcia columns from now, two dozen more editorials … it was amusing to watch Chronicle city hall beat reporter Rachel Gordon on cable news recently, trying to explain the failure of censure. “Daly brought dozens of supporters,” she began, and the Examiner’s Adriel Hampton snapped back, “I counted 70 of them.” The withering glare that Gordon cast back at Hampton was just downright uncivil.

(This post was first published on March 3, 2005.)

The budget is the single most important vote at City Hall each year. The $5 billion plan sets all of the City’s priorities and programs. Much is made of the tail end of the budget process that occurs at the Board of Supervisors, when in late spring, the Board has a public airing of the budget. Public hearings regularly feature hundreds of San Franciscans making hours of public testimony. In the last three difficult years, we’ve heard about the catastrophic impacts of budget cuts to health clinics, AIDS programs, mental health services, kids programs and senior services. Neighborhoods have weighed in to ask us to preserve their recreation directors and gardeners. All of the stories have been compelling, and the Board has done decent work to reappropriate dollars to the important priorities identified by the public.

But there’s a whole other side to the budget that gets very little attention. The Mayor’s Office, together with the Controller, develops revenue projections every year on which the City’s budget is based. These projections look at trends in the economy as well as the existing tax law to approximate the City’s take from the business tax, property tax, hotel tax and other fees and taxes collected by the City. Everyone knows that we have been in a recession and that these revenues have suffered because of it. But the fact that unbridled greed of some of San Francisco’s largest corporations has cost the City hundreds of millions more is a story that often doesn’t get told in the SF Chronicle. And that’s largely because the SF Chronicle IS one of those greedy corporations sucking San Francisco’s lifeblood – the revenue flowing into our budget.

In 2001, San Francisco settled the business tax lawsuit brought by the "Filthy 52" who argued that our split roll business tax was unconstitutional (it was an 8 to 3 vote with Supervisors Gonzalez and Sandoval joining me in opposition). Luminaries such as Bechtel, Chevron, Gap, General Motors, the SF Giants, Macy’s, McKesson, PacBell, PG&E, Providian, Safeway, Schwab, and Shorenstein joined the Hearst Corporation (SF Chronicle) as plaintiffs. This settlement has cost San Francisco $60 million so far (with Macy’s outstanding) in addition to the $20 million we’ve lost each year in gross receipts tax.

Since the settlement there have been 2 efforts to get this revenue back for San Francisco services. The first effort, November 2002’s Proposition L, spearheaded by Supervisors and organized labor would have raised the real estate transfer tax on properties over $1 million to the levels charged in Oakland. The second effort, November 2004’s Proposition K, led by Mayor Newsom, would have closed business tax loopholes on partnerships and would have instituted a modest 0.1% gross receipts tax on businesses. It is not surprising that the SF Chronicle opposed progressive Supes and labor on Prop L. It seems as if they oppose everything we do. But given their obsequious coverage of the Mayor in his first year, you would think that the Chronicle would have been more supportive of Prop K. In this case, their bottom line and pro-corporate agenda interrupted their otherwise constant fawning over the new Mayor, editorializing against the business tax days before the election.

To add insult to injury the Hearst Corporation has appealed for a reduction of over $64 million in property assessments for 2002 and 2003. In doing so, the Chronicle joins Shorenstein (Bank of America building), the Embarcadero Center, and the San Francisco Giants in one of the most significant raids on revenues in the history of the City. There has been no mention of this appeal in the pages of the Chronicle and the other cases have been largely relegated to Matier & Ross. So far their best coverage has been in the sports section ! There has been no mention of this multi-million dollar issue on the editorial page of the Chronicle. However, since the Fall they have found room on those pages for a political hit on the Assessor and 3 more for this elected.

I have always known that the Chronicle was out to get public officials who want to make sure that downtown pays their fair share. But I didn’t realize how systemic their campaign was until Jim Meko did a little internet research on me.

Daly’s tenure on the Board has been "Chronicled" in more than two dozen editorials with headlines ranging from "Daly’s Incivility," "A Walking Embarrassment," "City Hall Civility" to "City Hall Incivility." In some 40 op-ed page columns, the Chronicles’ right-wing propagandist Ken Garcia has excoriated Daly as a fool and a court jester, dangerous and unbalanced, a child of privilege, a so-called radical, a Bolshevik and the poster child for the downside of district elections.

Thanks, Jim. But why has the Chronicle been so systematic in their vilification? Are they so threatened by officials who stand up for community services and the social safety net in our budget? Are they so threatened when electeds talk about downtown paying their fair share? You bet they are. But the Chronicle needs to realize that with their disproportionate influence on public perception comes an added level of responsibility to the people of San Francisco. And when they bend their content and editorial line to forward their own corporate interest, their paper is no better than any another political circular.

When it comes to progressive taxation or assessment appeals, you can be sure I am taking the Chronicle on directly. As we go into this budget season, let’s remember that to pass a true people’s budget, we need to stand up to the Chronicle and their cronies and make sure that downtown pays their fair share.

They really should sell The Chronicle at grocery store checkout stands. Maybe the headline writers can get a job with the Enquirer when the Chron folds. Same goes for the reporters.

In Wyatt Buchanan’s sensational story today, he writes, “After Daly’s comments last month implying that Newsom used cocaine… Peskin removed Daly from his seat as chairman of the board’s [sic] powerful Budget and Finance Committee.” Getting one’s facts wrong is one thing. Getting two facts wrong in one sentence is on a whole new level. Not only did I not imply that Newsom used cocaine — only that he “artfully dodged allegations” of cocaine use — I was removed from the Committee on June 15^th and delivered that speech 4 days later on June 19^th. Wyatt, don’t you remember writing that hit-piece about all of this for the following Sunday paper? You know what, yours is a more convincing story, don’t let simple facts get in your way!

As for nearly coming to blows with Supervisor Dufty, I guess their need to pathologize me is so great that they have make shit up. I haven’t started a fistfight in nearly 30 years and never even came within arms reach of him. Dufty, who endorsed Newsom for reelection, appeared at Newsom campaign events, and sided with Newsom on contested votes over and over, clearly tried to goad me into hitting him. I didn’t and never would.

(more…)

Supervisor Aaron Peskin promised a “no-drama budget” after removing me from my chair of the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee, but I’m afraid he may have delivered a no-compassion budget instead.

Despite my record of balancing difficult budgets while protecting the most vulnerable in 2 previous years, Peskin ducked for cover from the possibly illegal bullying of the Newsom reelection campaign. After removing me, Peskin installed himself as Chair and split the difference on just about every contentious issue the committee faced. In the process, Peskin left the least among us vulnerable to Newsom’s draconian service cuts and watered down our best efforts against the economic cleansing of our City.

Peskin’s committee left in place $22 million in cuts to affordable housing appropriated by the Board only months ago – the largest single program reduction ever. The committee recommended the closure of Buster’s Place, the City’s only 24-hour resource center for homeless people. They also left intact the closure of 14 psychiatric beds at S.F. General Hospital for the acutely mentally ill, cuts to public health nurses, and cuts to various other community programs.

While I was able to address Newsom’s terrible and hypocritical health cuts at the Beilenson Hearing, Tuesday’s first vote by the full Board of Supervisors on the budget provides my first opportunity to formally weigh in. This budget contains tens of millions of new dollars in streets, police, and Newsom’s pet projects that could be reappropriated to meet the basic needs of those whose lives rely on the services we provide.

Before voting on the budget, I ask a few simple questions…

Should we be sinking new dollars into roads increasingly traveled by SUV’s instead of building more affordable housing for working class families who would otherwise be forced out of the City?

Should we appropriate new monies for a quality of life court while closing our only 24-hour center for homeless people?

Should we be hiring additional police officers while we are firing public health nurses?

The answers should be crystal clear to any San Francisco progressive. I hope my colleagues stand up to Newsom’s bullies, and stand up for progressive San Francisco values.

Da Machine
During his first term, sweetheart deals for politically-connected developers were exchanged for political donations. High-paying jobs dangled in front of elected Supervisors, so that beholden appointees could occupy all-important Supe seats. Commissioners and department heads were selected not for expertise, but for their support of the political operation. Appointees and staffers populated the political campaigns. By the end of his first term, San Franciscans had all but revolted
against the incumbent, his pay to play politics, and political machine.

In the mainstream, corporate political world, Willie Brown had everything — everything, perhaps, but political cover from the main corporate paper, the San Francisco Chronicle. Maybe he still got their endorsement, but Chronicle coverage of The Machine helped turn San Franciscans against Willie.

In 1999 Tom Ammiano’s upstart campaign was unable to unseat the incumbent Mayor. However the run did set the stage for the following year’s Supervisor races, where progressives and neighborhood challengers to Willie’s handmaidens nearly made a clean sweep. Gavin Newsom survived, but the message was clear. The electorate was not going to tolerate the unbridled machine politics of downtown special interests.

(more…)