With the close of the year upon us, I figured it was time for The Daly Blog to join the “year in review” fray. As sequel to last year’s progressive blockbuster, 2007 probably never could have lived up to the hype. With political hits fast and furious, it was still a banner year for our office’s legislation and a solid year overall for progressives at City Hall. And looking ahead, progressives appear to be in the driver’s seat going into the 2008 Battle for the Board. The struggle continues.

Progressive Sizzle, Not Fizzle
It’s no secret that Mayor’s races necessarily dominate the political landscape in election years and that progressives didn’t field a major challenge this year. Our political opponents tried to take advantage of this by declaring the demise of progressive politics in San Francisco. Even progressive commentator Randy Shaw of Beyond Chron parroted the downtown line in his own year in review earlier this month.

It is true that I made a significant effort this year to lay the groundwork for a progressive campaign for Mayor. I never hid the fact that the Progressive Convention was timed to allow a challenger to enter the race early enough to mount a serious run for the seat. My wife, after being lobbied by many Daly for Mayor enthusiasts and increasingly fearful of another Daly campaign, decided to take matters into her own hands and recruited Julian Davis to help her organize and lead the chants of “Run, Ross, Run,” as Ross took the stage.

Though the Convention did not draw a big-name challenger into the Mayor’s race, it did bring together15 progressive elected officials, including a majority of both the Board of Supervisors and School Board, and helped set the agenda for future political races and progressives at City Hall.

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. My decision not to run was one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve ever made. I will probably always harbor doubt about whether it was the right political decision. There is no question, however, that it was the right decision for my family and for me personally.

Moving Our Agenda Under the Dome
Not having a big-name challenger didn’t stop a slew of major legislative victories at the Board. At year’s end, the most prolific progressive legislators – Aaron Peskin, Jake McGoldrick, Ross Mirkarimi, and myself — passed 93 ordinances. Tom Ammiano and Gerardo Sandoval added another 19. Meanwhile the rest of the Board could only muster 35 between the 6 of them (including Carmen Chu), despite their direct access to the Administration and City resources.

Of course, these numbers don’t speak to the quality or significance of legislative victories. In the more subjective category of substantive policies, I count 15 for progressives and 2 for moderates with Bevan Dufty moving a supplemental appropriation for the Juvenile Probation Department and spearheading a new planning effort for AIDS/HIV services.

- Jake McGoldrick shepherded Healthy Saturdays in Golden Gate Park.

- Peskin gets final credit for the City budget and MUNI Charter reform.

- Sandoval completed a property transfer that delivered $850,000 for affordable housing and authored an appropriation for $5 million for first-time homebuyers.

- Ammiano moved municipal ID cards and Community Choice Aggregation along with Ross Mirkarimi.

- Ross also extended his foot patrol legislation and consolidated the City’s workforce development programs.

With Rachel Redondiez and John Avalos doing yeomen’s work in our office, we completed the Development Agreement for Trinity Plaza, appropriated over a million dollars for the Geneva Avenue Car Barn and greening projects on Alemany Boulevard, authorized the opening of Mint Plaza, appropriated over $28 million for affordable housing, sent $100,000 for hurricane relief to the coast of Nicaragua, and passed a series of significant campaign reforms.

Our office’s significant legislative victories cast a giant shadow on the Chronicle’s commemoration of my sudden political fall. It’s probably no surprise that none of these legislative accomplishments picked up much Chronicle ink. They blacked out that paid sick days was named as one of the nation’s ten best public policies of 2007. (It was #2.) They even buried news of the landmark agreement for development at Trinity Plaza on page B-5!

Unsung Heroine — Paterna Guintos
That’s ok though. The victory at Trinity Plaza was one of those that words could never do justice anyway. I deeply felt this when another of Trinity’s unsung heroes passed away two weeks ago. Shortly after the Trinity victory, Rachel Redondiez and I wrote about some of Trinity’s heroes, including Paterna Guintos who had lost her husband, Timoteo, just months earlier. Over the course of the 4-year struggle to save Trinity, Mrs. Guintos would do double duty taking care of her ailing husband and attending countless tenant and City Hall meetings and actions. Mrs. Guintos also fought for equity for her husband and other Filipino World War II veterans, as well as for healthcare and senior services. The bitterness of the victory at Trinity for Mrs. Guintos wasn’t limited to the loss of her husband. She also ultimately lost her home at Trinity as she could no longer make the rent with her check alone. While we were able to keep her in her housing a couple of extra months, Mrs. Guintos moved out of Trinity this summer. Through all of this, she kept up her advocacy and commitment to her neighbors and community. Paterna Guintos passed away this month, but her fighting spirit and “walk with a purpose” will be passed on to a future generation of activists. I will remember Mrs. Guintos’s belief in me as a defender of those in need – one even more resolute than my own belief in myself.

It Gets Even Better
Progressives are poised for a very strong 2008. The Affordable Housing Charter Amendment is likely to move to the November 2008 ballot. Affordable housing is one of the defining issues for progressives. Along with protecting rent control, building affordable housing is necessary to deliver our progressive vision for San Francisco – one that truly embraces and protects the diversity of our City. It’s also a vision and an issue that is embraced by an overwhelming majority of San Franciscans while being opposed by some of our political foes. This means that it is not just a winner on the ballot, it also serves to differentiate progressives from downtown’s moderates. This is going to be important in November of 2008 as the Battle for the Board is on.

The Battle for the Board
The cast of district-based, progressive candidates running for Supervisor next year is especially strong. In 2008 we have the opportunity to bring new progressive ideas, energy and activism to the Board. Some of our brightest stars have already started building their campaign operations in districts across the City. I previously blogged about Eric Quezada in District 9, and Eric Mar, David Chiu, and John Avalos join him as especially strong, district-based progressive candidates.

With the package of campaign reforms that have taken effect, many of our opponents’ dirty tricks are neutralized. Independent expenditure committees are required to report their expenditures for mass mailings. Push polls are regulated, and paid signature gatherers need to wear badges identifying them as such. Most importantly, significant improvements have been made to the public financing program for Supervisor.

Participants in the program will now have access to $87,500 in public funds with $52,500 in matching contributions from San Francisco residents. If other candidates and/or independent expenditure committees bust the expenditure ceiling of $140,000 in the race, candidates can continue to access an equal amount of public financing for each qualified dollar raised up to what the opposition spends. This provision will strongly discourage independent expenditures in Supervisor races and will likely prevent what happened in the 2006 District 6 race. As of December 31^st, Eric Quezada and John Avalos have already raised the qualifying contributions to participate in this public financing program. Eric Mar is very close and David Chiu will qualify quickly when he begins his operation.

With big money neutralized, a cast of uninspiring downtown characters reminiscent of 2000, and such strong progressive candidates, don’t be surprised to see another progressive sweep in the Battle for the Board. With a new progressive majority on the Board, 8 years of experience under our belts, and a lame-duck Mayor, many great things are in store!

I hope that you have a very happy New Year. I am certainly looking forward to it, as the struggle continues to make San Francisco a better place for us all.

In the first half of this year C.W. Nevius only waded into San Francisco politics on occasion. Of this handful of columns, most were aimed either to mitigate the fallout from the Newsom/Rippey-Tourk scandal or to bash me, although he did manage to work in one somewhat favorable column on embattled Supervisor Ed Jew.

But on July 24^th, Nevius discovered San Francisco’s most vexing and politically charged issue – homelessness. Supposedly looking for coyotes in Golden Gate Park, Nevius instead found hypodermic needles and homeless encampments. His sensationalistic column generated hundreds of responses from the Chronicle’s most reactionary readers and launched 35 columns focused on homelessness in fewer than 5 months — catapulting our ho-hum columnist onto the paper’s front pages. While successfully stirring up the worst in Chronicle readers, Nevius probably hit his low point when he ambushed one of San Francisco’s most saintly, Sister Bernie Galvin.

While sensationalistic coverage of homelessness in San Francisco is nothing new, C.W. Nevius’s barrage of the last 5 months even surpasses what we saw during the million-dollar Care Not Cash campaign in 2002. I have to admit, I never really read Nevius that closely until I noticed something about his backhanded column on the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment on Thursday. I always thought that the connection between homelessness and housing went without saying; given, you know, the definition of homelessness.

But after a solid 5 months of wailing away, Nevius was able to write an entire column on the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment without even mentioning homelessness! Never mind that the resources dedicated by the Charter Amendment could build tens of thousands of new affordable housing units – many of them supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.

But what’s even more intriguing is a review of Nevius’s columns on homelessness. The only one that made housing even a minor focus was his hit-piece on Sister Bernie.

Their answers to the problem are always the same. For starters, every single homeless person should be provided with permanent housing. Immediately.

Really? How would that work? And where would the millions and millions of dollars come from to make that a reality?

Ahem…

In the final tally, Nevius makes only 20 references to housing in his extensive coverage of homelessness, and over 65% of these columns make no mention of housing at all. This shows either a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about homeless issues or an attempt to get ahead by bashing some of our most vulnerable residents… or both.

On Tuesday I will be asking my colleagues to place the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment on next November’s ballot. There are lots of great arguments for the proposal including protecting San Francisco’s diversity, stopping the exodus of families, providing opportunities for our elders to live with dignity, and effectively addressing homelessness.

Today, I found one more reason in my inbox. Jim Sutton opposes it! Not that one couldn’t put two and two together to figure out that the City’s top Republican political fixer would oppose the measure. It’s just that he bothered to write the Supervisors…

From: jim sutton <jsutton@campaignlawyers.com>
Sent: Sun Dec 09 10:55:10 PST 2007
Subject: Please Oppose Sup. Daly’s Housing Amendment

Dear Supervisors,

I urge you to reject Supervisor Daly’s proposed charter amendment, which seeks to set aside as much as $2 billion over the next 15 years to build affordable housing in San Francisco. I agree that affordable housing is an urgent priority. But taking money from other priorities and tying the hands of our leaders with more set asides is not the way to address this problem. Please vote no!

Sincerely,
jim sutton

Matier & Ross get the story on this year’s budget… 6 months later.

In our first months in office in 2001, Matt Gonzalez announced his proposal to take over the Housing Authority. The proposal certainly had merit – a HUD audit found serious mismanagement and federal indictments rained on the agency’s Section 8 program. But I expressed concern to Matt about the political repercussions. Certainly Willie Brown’s political machine would counter with strong resistance and even accusations of racism, and besides, we didn’t seem to have the votes. Matt answered me, “Even if we don’t win, time will prove us right,” and forged ahead with my support. The principled but impolitic stance did not win enough votes on the Board of Supervisors, but it did provide a pillar for Matt’s energetic, populist campaign for Mayor 2 years later…

June was a rough month. Standing alone at the Board of Supervisors, I challenged Gavin Newsom, his “white bread budget,” and his $80 million giveaway to the Police Officers Association. Newsom cut my supplemental appropriation for affordable housing and programmed the monies into more police and pet projects. In a speech at the June 19^th Board meeting (that didn’t get the same attention that a speech a couple of hours later did), I took issue with both Newsom’s priorities and timing of making huge giveaways to campaign supporters during an election year. Newsom was blowing through enormous amounts of public money and, at the same time, racking up big endorsements for his reelection. However, in the newspaper editorials, it was only “Daly’s Political Games” taken to task, and at the Board of Supervisors, I was removed from the Chair of the Budget Committee. Nothing of Newsom’s maneuvering.

Queue ahead six months. Matier & Ross finally get the budget story. A cursory review of the Controller’s budget math shows Newsom blew through over $150 million of our money in only 8 months – with the largest chunk, $30 million, going to the all-powerful Police Officers Association and another $13 million to symbolically important firefighters. Not that the contract giveaways were just for tit-for-tat support of the Mayor’s reelection. They’re really gifts that keep on giving. This year the San Francisco Firefighters PAC ponied up the first $5000 for Gavin’s “Let’s Really Work Together Committee”. The POA followed with a $5000 check of their own. Firefighter President John Hanley told me that that was just the “cost of doing business”. And to think that I thought that heroes weren’t supposed to put themselves before others!

While it’s clear that the Mayor’s Office and the corporate press buried the story of Gavin’s drunken spending until after Elections counted all the ballots, the Mayor’s Budget Office released their budget instructions weeks earlier than normal this year. This may be a part of their attempt to block placement of the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment on next November’s ballot. They’ve painstakingly placed language of the increased burden of “$72 million in voter mandates” in every article and editorial on the subject – despite the fact that most of any increase in mandates comes just as a percentage of increased revenues to the City. When asked where the Mayor’s Office came up with $72 million anyway, Todd Rydstrom, Director of Budget & Analysis for the Controller, could only speculate that they added voter mandates and baswline growth line items which would produce a figure of only $65 million. Regardless, once again the Mayor is using the budget to run his political game. This time I hope that the rest of us are a bit more on top of it.