Progressive Friends and Allies,

For the past 6.5 years, we have enjoyed strong progressive politics in San Francisco. Progressive San Francisco has delivered a new era of worker’s rights with the nation¹s highest minimum wage, universal health coverage, and paid sick days. Requiring significant amounts of affordable housing and other public benefits, we¹ve made development work for communities. We’ve set the agenda on workers’ rights, housing, health care, city services, transportation, and the environment. Our political opponents, even holding the office of Mayor, have been on the defensive.

Despite our political strength and its marquis standing in local political races, it’s clear that we’ve had difficulty engaging in this year’s Mayor’s race. Progressives share a principled critique of the personality-driven politics practiced by our opponents. We elevate the issues important to everyday people above our own political advancement and personal self-interest. We are right to do so. Unfortunately, this does not always translate well into the mainstream and corporate-controlled media.

For the better part of a year, I felt a great deal of responsibility to find a strong progressive candidate for Mayor, all the while acknowledging that I was not our best possible candidate. There were discussions, caucuses, lunches, and even a Progressive Convention aimed at compelling a progressive entry into the race. With news last week of the final potential candidate forgoing the race, I decided to take another look at making a run.

This past week Progressive San Francisco produced a flurry of activity about that possibility. I was heartened and inspired that so many were willing to step up in the face of significant odds. Dozens of you dropped what you were doing to spend hours on end with me this week. Hundreds pledged your support. The outpouring gave me hope that we do have what it takes to take back Room 200 and deliver social and economic justice to San Francisco.

However, I have decided not to file a candidacy for the Office of Mayor.

Given the negative, million-dollar campaign against me last year, there was never a question that this Mayor’s race would be brutal. The incumbent promised as much in a meeting this week. Our ideas are better, and I was committed to running a campaign about our issues. But most of us had reservations about whether we’d ever be able to achieve resonance on the issues against the tide of hits, personal attacks, and media hype of the Newsom vs. Daly personality clash.

Sarah and I arrived at last night’s meeting with the intention of announcing my entry into the race and were moved by everyone’s willingness to act on faith. When I called on progressives for support for a Mayoral run, progressives responded. But I also sensed that the reservations in the room were real. Progressives are certainly ready to vie for the

Mayor’s seat, but, unfortunately, I am not the right candidate.

There is some good news. Progressives are much stronger than we were the last time we didn’t field a challenger for Mayor. Back in ‘83, the progressive movement had not recovered from the Milk/Moscone assassinations and the subsequent repeal of district elections. Dianne Feinstein enjoyed great popularity after soundly squashing a recall effort. She went on to easily win reelection later that year.

Four years later it appeared as if downtown’s reign would continue with the front-running candidacy of John Molinari. His bid, however, was upset when Art Agnos united San Francisco’s left with a disciplined, sustained, and effective campaign.

We all know that electoral work is just a part of the overall effort we need to put forth. There is no substitute for the basics of organizing and serving our people so they can live with dignity. I will always remain committed to the struggle and to building progressive politics and people power in San Francisco for the years to come.

Solidarity,

Chris Daly

The double-standard dailies got significantly worked up this week raising an ethical question about my colleague Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. The committee to defend against the recall of Jake was the beneficiary of a fundraiser held by Barbary Coast Consulting the night before a controversial vote on a development project in the Mission. About $8,000 was raised. In the spirit of full disclosure, $100 was from me.

Make no mistake. Jake made a couple of bad votes on Tuesday. However, a quick review of the Ethics Commission’s campaign finance database yields some interesting information not reported in the corporate press. While employees for the project sponsor, Seven Hills Properties, donated $1500 to the McGoldrick effort, the very same employees have a long history of political contributions including $4000 to a candidate named Gavin Newsom. Don’t forget, it was Newsom’s Planning Department recommendation on which McGoldrick claims he based his vote. By the way, Seven Hills Properties has made political contributions to each Supervisor voting for their project — Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto-Pier, Ed Jew, Bevan Dufty, and Gerardo Sandoval.

But the real story of unethical politics will not be published in the corporate papers. According to the Chronicle, Gavin Newsom has raised a $1.5 million “war-sized war chest” for his reelection. While there is mention of donations from a “core group of downtown businesses”, there is more focus on Newsom’s donations from Democratic party leaders, high society types, Hollywood actors, and even his ex-brother-in-law. In two runs for Mayor, Newsom has raised over $7.3 million. Much of this is from real estate developers, large corporations, big landlords, and others with business before the City. Gavin Newsom is bought and sold, but I guess that is just not news.

Last night’s vote at the Board on temporarily halting Lennar’s construction at the Hunters Point Shipyard to allow for an independent health assessment was a tough 5-6 loss. But the outpouring of support from the community, with close to 1000 people mobilizing to City Hall, and the emerging coalition between progressives and the African-American community was most uplifting and gives me much hope for the future of politics in San Francisco.

I am publishing my opening comments on the resolution at the end of this post. But in moving forward, perhaps some of my closing comments are more important. After hours of heart-wrenching testimony from hundreds of speakers, I talked about having always felt awkward about divisions between progressives and the African-American community in San Francisco, given my previous experiences in progressive politics under the leadership of the black community in both North Carolina and Philadelphia, PA. After last night, at least on the issue of environmental justice, it is clear that progressive politics is now being led by the African-American community. And this is the way it should be…

Last month United States Representative Jerrold Nadler held hearings on impacts of air quality in the wake of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the political dynamics of statements made by the Environmental Protection Agency.

For 3 hours bombarded by the public with boos, hisses and frequent interruptions, former EPA chief, Christine Todd Whitman faced charges that the EPA made public statements that gave people around Ground Zero a false sense of safety.

Years after the attacks and the clean-up efforts, the Office of Inspector General of the EPA determined the Agency did not have sufficient data and analyses to make the statement that the air was safe to breathe on September 18^th. It was the White House who intervened – instructing the EPA to give the public misleading information for political purposes.

I do not want to have to have a similar, post-mortem hearing here on the issue of air quality related to construction impacts at the Hunters Point Shipyard. We shouldn’t have to. In our wisdom several years ago, we adopted the Precautionary Principles – requiring public servants to take anticipatory action to prevent harm and through exploration and careful analysis select courses of action that present the least threat to all.

We have been hearing for months from large numbers of residents, students, and workers of the Bayview Hunters Point about their concerns about the construction-related dust at the Shipyard and health impacts that the dust and toxics in it, including asbestos, are having on members of the community. Their voice has been clear and strong, and their demand, for a temporary stoppage in Lennar’s construction so that an independent health assessment can be conducted is a most reasonable one, especially considering the history of problems with implementing the dust-mitigation plan that has included malfunctioning air monitors, a Notice of Violation from the Air Quality Management District, when the monitors started working, routine exceedances of the agreed-upon allowance of asbestos prevalence in the air – 16,000 fibers per cubic foot, and very poor communication of these exceedances to adjacent neighbors.

Not that there hasn’t been push-back – there has been. Keep in mind that we dealing with a very, very politically powerful, Florida-based developer. So politically connected, that they weren’t even recommended for this project by staff in the first place, but had to call in the votes at the Commission. Many believe that our City has become over-reliant on Lennar; allowing them to get away with more than they otherwise would. Eerily reminiscent of post-September 11^th, we hear from our Health Director that Lennar’s construction impacts on air quality are safe. Despite routine exceedances of the 16,000 fibers per cubic meter we set to shut down construction – 23,300 fibers per cubic meter last Friday, 33,900 only one week ago, 51,500 on July 2^nd. Nine exceedances in the past month alone! The air is safe to breathe, we are told.

Not good enough, colleagues. The World Health Organization reports that there is no evidence for a threshold for the carcinogenic effect of asbestos and that increased cancer risks have been observed in populations exposed to very low levels of asbestos. The science is clear. The greater the exposure to asbestos, the greater risk of cancer – particularly mesothelioma.

This doesn’t even account for the cumulative impacts of environmental injustice – exposure to other toxins and carcinogens from the power plants and dirty industry, diesel particulate, et cetera.

Colleagues, I called this item to the Full Board, because I believe this is a most serious issue – and one on which many of us will be judged for years to come. I want to be clear that this is not about me, but it is about hundreds and hundreds of people who have been impacted and are now looking to us for redress. To that end, I have a number of speakers that I would like to invite to tell their stories.