SF Gate just published a little examination of the District 9 supervisor race:
The front-runners to replace Supervisor Tom Ammiano are all well-known Latino men in their late 30s to mid-40s who have solid records, strong endorsements and similarly far-left political beliefs.
Police Commissioner and attorney David Campos, neighborhood activist Eric Quezada and school board President Mark Sanchez have nearly indistinguishable platforms.
Is it true? Are fortyish, revolutionary Latino dudes the rich old white dudes of the Mission? More importantly, will this be a real race? Link.
no way bro, old rich white dudes are RICH and they are WHITE.
We are talking about 3 sons of immigrants who have persevered in the face of racism, homophobia and your general backwards-ass anti-immigrant sentiments. These intelligent, caring and competent Latino men are a far cry from “old rich white dudes”. They are products and active participants (especially Eric Quezada’s 20 year Mission organizing experience) in the political and cultural organizing that has shaped and weaved the very fabric of the Mission District. The art, politics, flavor, culture, tolerance, progressivism, values, institutions, etc… all the stuff you like was born on the backs of revolutionaries.
Okay, you debunked my snarky bit, but what about the real questions? What sets the candidates apart? What will make this a real race?
Only one of these candidates has been elected to public office- Mark Sanchez.
Seems like another good opportunity to remind people to ask questions of the candidates on the d9debate.com website! The debate is next Tuesday at the Victoria Theatre (16th & Capp), 7.30PM. Ask your questions at http://d9debate.com/add_suggestion .
There is no choice. Everything is just going to be the same. I think Eric Storey is the only one worth voting for this time. But there is no chance he’ll win. He’ll just be demonized as some evil, white, outsider who hates minorities and immigrants.
I was born and raised in the Mission too, and I’ve seen all the changes and nothing convinces me that these “sons of the Mission and adversity” are going to do anything except blame the police and landlords for all the district’s ills for their entire term and then pass the torch to some clone. They like the Mission the way it is, they LOVE it. And this Eva Royale, she is just plain nutty. I don’t even know why there is an election. They should just determine the winner by playing “Rock,Paper, Scissors”. The results will be the same.
Actually, there are 2 choices in the D9 election.
CHOICE 1
one choice is to maintain the status quo.
while the 3 “frontrunners” (Campos, Quezada & Sanchez) may not be rich white dudes, they all ascribe in varying degrees to the mores of the current “progressive” political machine that runs the district (and BoS, and the city). The same can likely be said of the other 2 “progressive” candidates, (Royale and Valtin), perhaps to a lesser degree.
That said, ALL of them are chasing the political legacy of Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, et al. and from what i’ve observed, they’ll all toe that exact same party line, which has a lot more to do with political grand-standing than it does actual governing. “Solid accomplishments don’t count – it’s all about who is {more ‘progressive’}, not who makes any sense” – from the comments section in the SFGate article cited.
so, in my view – assuming you think the current “progressive” political machine is doing a good job managing the city, and that it represents you and your needs – it doesn’t really matter which of these 3 candidates you vote for, because they’re all the same: riding a pack of vague & undeliverable promises (made to people who really need their help), through a period of political do-nothing grand-standing, into a clear and directed focus on advancement of their own political careers. (ie “See ya SF…thanks for all the fun press opportunities!”)
(that said, if it were me voting in CHOICE 1 (AND I AM NOT VOTING IN CHOICE 1), i don’t think i could sleep unless i voted for Quezada. he’s been a real live “progressive” activist for years, so at least he’s telling the truth about his motives…which in my opinion is more than Campos and Sanchez can say for themselves.)
CHOICE 2
the other choice is for change.
the other choice is to say ENOUGH to the failed “progressive” experiment in SF. my view, that decision is not about promoting displacement, or gentrification, or racism, or anything proactively negative. it’s about DEMANDING that city government actually GOVERN, with ALL of the district’s residents in mind….and that city government SHOULD NOT be a soap box for grand-standing, rhetoric-driven, do-nothing political self interest.
We CAN have affordable housing, AND development.
We CAN make the streets safer AND provide proper, effective services to people in need.
We CAN protect/preserve the beautiful fabric of our hood AND realistically address the inevitable change that will happen over time.
My view, a moderate stance is the ONLY one that will preserve the hood. i am not saying “prevent change”… I am saying “preserve character and soul”. Without an honest, balanced view of the district, the gentrifiers / developers / displacers win. Without question, every time…the gentrifiers will overcome the “progressive” grass roots efforts, because honestly, money always wins.
so, if you DON’T think the current “progressive” political machine is doing a good job managing the city, that it DOESN’T represent you and your needs..and if you think a more realistic, less rhetoric-driven, more encompassing district representative is what you want, there’s only one choice in my view:
VOTE ERIC STOREY FOR D9 SUPERVISOR.
Thanks Zinzin.
Since Eric Story lacks both local cultural and political experience, the ideal choice:
Eric Quezada.
zinzin for write-in!
Hmm, how would that work? Do
we write “zinzin@missionmission” on the ballot?
I’ll go to the debate if zinzin promises to submit questions.
johnny0, you missed it. zinzin revealed his real identity in a previous comments thread.
Don’t forget that the Mission is barely 33% of D9. Portola is bigger, and primarily Chinese….and Bernal is just as big, primarily white.
Quezada, as a true activist, is only going to serve a small portion of the folks that live in the Mission. What about everyone else??
so i am not sure i agree that Story is less culturally or politically apt. less experienced, sure. but more willing to serve a wider swath of folks? i am betting yes.
that, in fact, is the main issue i have with all these “progressive” candidates. they focus only on the groups that – despite their need for real support – will provide fodder for political career building. i agree with guero’s comment…these guys LOVE the Mission the way it is, because it gives them a small, gullible constituency on which to build their hollow promises.
why else has 20 years of activism garnered almost no results?
that said, i can’t fault any “progressive” for voting Quezada. he’s a real activist no doubt, and the only respectable, non snake-oil politico candidate in that mix, imho.
i just think that, at best, his respectable but limited outlook isn’t suited to lead the whole district, because more than half the people will be left without any sort of voice.
oh, and probably 25% of the questions on the D9 website are ones i submitted. thanks Johnny0.
and EVERYONE should go to the debate!!
Ahhh, right, the Chron article.
driveways are targets
for debate, poop and taxes
pergola for sup
Maybe I should make another t-shirt…
http://burritojustice.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/say-no-to-poop-pergola-for-sup/
[...] Write-in candidate! [...]
aww. that’s sweet. or is it a shot? i can’t tell anymore….
seriously, anyone that would even THINK about voting for me (all 1 of you…and you don’t know me) should vote for STOREY.
but i’m starting a neighborhood group – CAPP STREET ASSOCIATION – and you’re all invited (even Josh & JimBeam). regardless of who wins the election, the Mission is worth fighting for, so i will try to help get organized. i have already had interesting talks with folks & existing orgs all over the political map. i will keep you posted.
GET SMART AND VOTE!
Well, I know Eric Quezada well, and I’ve been volunteering dozens of hours for his campaign – listen, let’s lose the political labels and look at facts. Eric Quezada is the real deal. He’s walked the walk for years. He doesn’t grandstand, he talks with and listens to people – and he’s been a highly effective community organizer, created affordable housing for hundreds of families, run strong crime prevention programs, youth opportunity programs, and led the city’s push for planning innovations that will protect neighborhoods. Just consider this: he’s the ONLY candidate who has actually done the work, in the district, for the community here, for years – decades in fact. He knows how to lead, and how to listen.
There are real differences despite the Chronicle’s simplistic piece — and Quezada is the one with real roots and accomplishment in the district, and a serious depth of knowledge and experience. He’s modest, approachable, and smart as a whip. I say this not just as his supporter, but as one who’s been around in SF politics a while, and I’ve seen a lot of politicians come and go. Eric is not a politician — but he is a real leader who’s done the work in the community. Take a look: http://www.ericquezada.com.
i agree with everything you said about Quezada. he’s the only “progressive” that doesn’t just reek of the worst kind of politics. you can tell in talking to him for even 5 minutes (as i have done). he’s the genuine article…sincere, honest, humble, smart.
but while he’s obviously a very talented activist and organizer, is he really willing to represent a broader constituency across the district on the BoS? is he willing to look the (more) gentrified future right in the face and find places for everyone in it, and not just dig his heels in and focus ONLY on issues facing lower income / disadvantaged / newly arrived folks?
isn’t a more broad viewpoint, one addressing more of the district, also more…reasonable for more people?
even without grandstanding – which i doubt we would see from the guy – a dogmatically “progressive” agenda focused ONLY on activism leaves a lot of the district out in the cold (again, still, as usual).
if someone with the real-work and activism record of Quezada could find just a wee bit of moderation in their agenda…throw mid-income families a bone (or god forbid home owners), consider that all cops and all landlords aren’t minions of satan, recognize that all development isn’t bad, consider that EVERYTHING CHANGES, recognize that positive homeless & immigrant rights issues can be undermined when applied dogmatically to people who are in fact dangerous to the community… they wold be THE PERFECT CANDIDATE.
unfortunately, i am not sure Quezada is that guy. he’s an amazing activist, and we need him and his skills badly…but as the District 9 Supe?
again, seems a little limited in viewpoint, a little too much the same for me personally.
what do you think he’ll do for middle income (opposed to low income) families in the district?
how do you think he’ll balance his activist history with a decidedly “upmarket” trend in the Mission?
how will he balance outreach to homeless / addicted / at risk folks with the clear need to make the Mission safer for everyone?
how will his Mission-focused work actually scale across the whole district?
what do you think he’ll do for homeowners?
how do you think he’ll foster & grow business in the district?
do you think he’d be behind cleaning up 16th & Mission (i think we can all agree on that one)?
what about Prop k?
zinzin:
“do you think he’d be behind cleaning up 16th & Mission (i think we can all agree on that one)?”
What exactly do you mean by ‘clean up’? Remove poor people from public space? Where would you like to ‘clean’ them ‘up’ to?
uh, no.
howsabout removing an entire ocean of crack dealers and prostitutes? howsabout preventing crack dealers from coming to SF from richmond to work that corner and then going home? howsabout putting the deranged bums that shit in the middle of the sidewalk into proper, effective services? howsabout making the SROs do their job, by housing folks in need of a transitional (or even long term) solution for getting off the fucking street…instead of being pay-by-the-hour whore houses and shooting galleries? i got homeless guys ON MY BLOCK that wont check into one of those places because “they’re not safe”. not because they can’t afford it…because they’re not safe. direct fucking quote.
THAT’S what i mean by “cleaning up 16th & Mission”.
or do all of these qualify as “poor people” in your “progressive” lala land? just out there tryin to make a living? keepin it real? that’s just bullshit, and it makes me fucking puke.
i have NEVER said anything about moving “poor people”.
truth is….”poor people”, along with “every other fucking people” ARE UNABLE TO SAFELY USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE OF THE BLIGHT AT 16TH AND MISSION.
but it’s really worst for “poor people”…and by “poor prople”, i mean “brown people”. truth is, it’s easy for rich white folks, or poor ones, to use the BART at 16th. their kids aren’t getting harassed by thugs on the corner, or on the bus. they’re not so fearful of the police that they can’t say anything when they get robbed. they have a choice to maybe drive, or take a cab, or do whatever the fuck they want for the most part.
the fact is, anyone who says there’s no need to clean up 16th & Mission has no fucking idea what “poor people” need, say or do…because they’re living in some imaginary “progressive” lala land where a working family that cowers in fear as they walk to public transpo is the same as a fucking thug crack dealer or a deranged homeless guy smoking crack and pissing on the sidewalk in broad daylight.
well, ya know what? it’s not the fucking same.
listen, i believe that everyone has a right to and deserves services…but man, regardless of your economic status or political bent….16th & Mission needs cleaning up,there’s not deying it…..and (pardon this part, but you really pushed my button here) only the most self-absorbed, oblivious, rhetoric-driven “progressive” ideologue would refuse to see it.
And what of the fact that 16th and Mission isn’t even in D9?
sigh. that’s the worst part. it’s in D6 / Chris Daly land. and he likes things…uh…gritty.
i think that’s why it is the way it is. D6 has no interest in cleaning it up because it doesn’t effect them …they barely see it (that’s Chris Daly notwithstanding). and D9 doesn’t have to take responsibility for it because it’s in D6.
typical broken city government…why would anyone touch that difficult, overly-politicized hot potato if they didnt have to? look at the comment from mcas above…
clean up 16th & Mission?!?! HOW DARE YOU!!!!
give me a fucking break. and really, who gives a fuck about poor working families (or anyone else) in the mission anyways?
they don’t contribute to political parties, they don’t vote, they don’t complain…fuck em. let them slink past the hos & pimps & drug dealers on their way to work in the morning.
oh, and let’s herd all the deranged bums into the Mission too…same reasoning.
it’s “the most liberal” hood in “the most liberal” district in “the most liberal” city. they LIKE it that way.
i say bullshit. but, again, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE MISSION.
that said, given the clear influence the corner has on D9…. i think a D9 supe with a mind to clean it up could certainly hold some sway.
and THAT’S why we need a different point of view on the BoS.
Hell, the debate venue, the Victoria Theatre, itself isn’t even D9! (12 Galaxies would have been perfect, sigh… A debate with drinks, dare I dream?)
What are their position on improving schools? I have a 7-week old and now pay attention to such things. This map is not encouraging:
http://school-ratings.com/cities/San_Francisco.html
funny how a lot of these guys come up from serving on the board of edu (Ammiano, Sanchez)
if that inept, corrupt org is any indication….well, there ya go.
my guess is…none of them – regardless of intent – are going to do a damn thing to improve schools.
much bigger issue than D9.
so, zinzin:
Your rant really didn’t explain what you want to do to ‘clean up’ the 16th St. BART. Drug user or not, they have just as much right to be in the public space as you.
The cops could (and do) enforce the law around public drug use, public intoxication, and public defecation– I’ve seen it. I agree it’s a rough corner, too. Could the cops be more vigilant and have more of a visual presence? Maybe. I’ve seen the corner thin out whenever a cop walks by, for sure.
But a city that tells people they can’t sit on public benches because of how they look is not a place any of us would want to live. We already see the strong double-standards of public drinking/intoxication at work in the Mission– white in Dolores? OK. Black or brown outside your SRO? Not OK. White, hailing a cab in the middle of the street at 2 AM? Fine by me. Sitting on a public bench at 16th St. & Mission- under arrest. Is that really what you want?
actually, my rant explained EXACTLY what i want to do to clean up the corner, right in the first paragraph. you just don’t agree with me, so you refuse to see it, which I guess is fine.
my view there’s 3 things that will really solve problems:
1. proper, effective services for severely mentally ill and addicted people….i’m talking about folks who are obviously unable to take care of themselves. these don’t exist in SF. my view, entrance into such non-existent services should be mandatory, not optional. further my view, if someone enters into a mandatory program, and doesn’t finish, there should be consequences. i am no legislator, so i don’t know what’s appropriate, but there should be some real system for getting help, and taking responsibility once you become a danger to yourself and the community.
2. a realistic look at what’s going on in the SRO’s on that block. these are not “hotels”. they’re holding stations for drug & prostitution businesses. there’s no reason we have to tolerate that. now, i’m saying “realistic”. i’m not saying “turn it into a prison” or “disregard that many of the folks that stay at an SRO might pop a vein or turn a trick” or “impinge on people’s civil rights”.
these particular SROs are a blight, and ground-zero for issues on that corner….mis-managed and unsafe by any standard. there’s plenty of others in the hood that aren’t (there’s 2 directly on my block, the one over Bruno’s and the one at 20th & San Carlos…not a peep out of them, no sidewalk sales, no hookers calling out from doorways), so we don’t need to believe that status quo is all we can do for those properties.
3. full time 24/7 police presence on that block, with a goal of eliminating street deals and prostitution. very simple. no street deals of any kind tolerated in that corridor for a year. currently, the cops do what they can, given the environment (i mean political environment) they’re in. which is more or less nothing. they arrest sometimes, but there’s no intent on the part of the city to indict, so it’s a loser deal for them to step into too many potentially dangerous “quality of life” issues like prostitution, low level dealing, public drink, etc.
my bet is if we do any 2 of the above, the corner gets less rough.
other thing, i am NOT talking about “telling people they can’t sit on public benches because of how they look”. I’ve never said anything like that. a guy crapping in the middle of the sidewalk and smoking crack, or a guy passed out with a needle still in his vein right inside a kid’s playground, or an army of crack dealers & hos out on the street at 9am right in front of a BART station IS NOT THE SAME AS A GUY SITTING ON A BENCH.
i have no idea why “progressives” can’t look realistically at the world. everything is dogma. i just don’t understand it.
it’s true that they are all progressive candidates. the difference between them is who will be the most EFFECTIVE. I believe David Campos would be the most effective progressive supervisor for District 9, and I base my determination on his record as General Counsel for the SF Unified School District, Assistant City Attorney for SF with a history of fighting for the cause and with a demonstrated knowledge of the City’s departments, policies, and local laws (he has already spent YEARS advising the board of supervisors re: government ethics and public policy), and as a Police Commissioner.
For instance — all the candidates want more foot controls and want police reform. Who actually knows how the police department works inside and out and how to best effect change from a structural and systematic perspective? DAVID CAMPOS. He knows that police practices are directed by General Orders. He knows how the City operates and knows how to write laws to improve it.
His life story is the epitome of the American dream. He came across the border as an illegal immigrant and grew up in South Central LA. David Campos then made his way through Stanford and Harvard Law School (does that mean he’s elitist?? noo– to me, it means he’s very smart and very capable) and has dedicated his life to public interest law. VOTE DAVID CAMPOS!
um…this seems to be lifted directly from a campaign flyer. that said, please, please educate us using some specific examples or actual information….
so Campos has “a history of fighting for the cause”….fighting for what “cause”? is it one everyone in D9 can get behind?
if he “spent YEARS advising the board of supervisors re: government ethics and public policy”…why is the BoS still an inept crowd of infighting knuckleheads that can’t get anything done, and have turned SF into a failed “progressive” experiment?
and why is David Campos – taking credit for being a Police Commish – not being endorsed by the POA? How’s he going to work with the cops when they hate his guts?
i would LOVE to be educated on how Campos is anything other than a swindling self-interested politico who built his career delivering empty promises to the people who need him most, who will do nothing more than make our city a stage for “progressive” grand-standing as he cruises into whatever next office he can attain…
i mean, it was good enough for his mentor & endorser, Tom “the comedian” Ammiano, right?
that said, you might be right cyn…Campos might be the most “effective progressive candidate”.
my view, that ain’t saying much.
Zinzin, you keep decrying progressives, but your views are extremely progressive, and this is a good thing!
So how do we get 16th and Mission cleaned up? Go to Chris Daly and demand answers? Protest? What can we do to make it happen since the powers that be aren’t fixing things?
Zin Zin — I am not affiliated with the campaign except as an occasional volunteer. I am also a colleague of David’s at public law firm Meyers Nave.
You asked how Campos is not “just a self-interested politico?” He’s spent his life in public service. Believe me, a graduate of Harvard Law School could be making millions a year by now. Instead, he’s devoted his career to the practice of public law. Examples of how he has fought for the cause? Just to name a few:
* As General Counsel to the School District: He worked to desegregate San Francisco schools, successfully investigate corruption, and bring open government to the School District.
* Newsflash: THE SFPOA does not always endorse police commissioners are tough and push for tougher disciplinary measures for police misconduct. As a progressive Police Commissioner, David fought for public disciplinary hearings for police officers, more foot patrols, and protection for medical marijuana and immigrant rights.
*As an attorney in the SF City Attorney’s office, he worked on landmark litigation against the gun industry as well as a big lawsuit against PG&E for the city’s right to public power,
oh — and he’s queer. To me, that can add value to a candidate because he personally and substantively understands issues that affect the queer community.
Moreover, I know him personally and he is the least power hungry candidate you could ever meet. Instead, he’s forthright, compassionate, and genuinely committed to social justice and to this City.
JimBeam…i think I’m centrist, and i think that’s the issue. progressives hate my guts, and so do right wingers. mostly because i think any sort of dogmatic reaction to an issue is complete self serving political bullshit.
why can’t we see the difference between a deranged sidewalk crapper and a “poor person”?
why can’t we see the difference between an “imperialistic developer driven displacement of working families via upmarket condos” and a middle class family that wants to buy a TIC?
why can’t we agree that much of what goes on at 16th & Mission is unacceptable to everyone?
because of dogma.
and in my experience, so many “progressives” – particularly in SF government – are more concerned with dogma and “making an example” than they are with finding real, actionable solutions for anything.
my view, it’s the root of many problems we have in the city. historically, it’s the root of many positives. but when it becomes a political machine, it’s just fucking politics, and it has nothing to do with you & me, or anyone else for that matter. it’s about self-interest on the part of politicos.
that said, your ideas are good ones, and i would love some…uh…comrades to help me fight the fight in whatever way makes the most sense for the most people. because with these issues…i think we can all get PAST dogma, and agree on most things..
in November i am having the first publicized meeting of Capp Street Association.
i hope you’ll come, as this exact topic – not to mention the discourse – it the goal.
cyn…thanks for your thoughtful responses to my post.
honestly, everything you’ve cited cements my view that Campos espouses pretty much the same empty “progressive” agenda as the other guys, and the current BoS.
he’s the MOST insider candidate in that machine, and there’s no question he’ll toe the party line. (As will Sanchez, btw….perhaps in a more aggressive political manner).
also, while i’m not denying he’s had some accomplishments, all those claims are blown way out of proportion vis a vis actual results in my understanding. it’s also my understanding (from city insiders that know him) that he’s caught quite the political bug…and isn’t the same guy he was when he was doing all that stuff in the past. much more…well…political. “we don’t know the guy anymore” was the direct quote.
no big surprise. typical political campaign stuff. (Campos hired a political consultant to run his campaign, btw).
most importantly, in my view, Campos – and any of the “progressive” candidates – WILL NOT REPRESENT THE WHOLE DISTRICT. he’ll represent one group of folks (who admittedly need the most help), leaving most of the D9 community in the cold, with no voice at all.
he’ll espouse a rhetorical “progressive” platform and do nothing about safety, do nothing to support the middle class, do nothing about “quality of life” issues….all under the guise of fighting for “the cause”.
meanwhile, crime will continue to mount, his “people” will continue to be displaced, he’ll alienate the cops, guys will continue to crap in my driveway, and THE GENTRIFIERS WILL CONTINUE TO WIN…but he’ll be keepin it real, and he’ll be down with “the cause”.
the reason he will do this, my view, is because this will give him the most “cred” in the “progressive” political arena, and best set him up FOR HIS NEXT POLITICAL POST.
to me, that makes him a big fat liar.
oh – and being queer isn’t a qualification to hold office.
i personally think it’s a good thing, but it’s not a qualification in any way.
I will come to your meeting. Let us know when it’s happening
The peace pipe is extended!
Zinzin — We will have to respectfully disagree. Like I said, I know Campos personally (I work with him), and he is not someone any reasonable person could say is just politically motivated. Really, how could someone who came to this country as an illegal immigrant, grew up in S. Central LA, improved his life through education, and dedicated his life to public interest law be so easily reduced by you to a “politico” who is driven primarily by political ambitions? His life and his experiences make a very clear case for his candidacy.
I appreciate your comments but you have categorically failed to offer a substantive basis for your assertions that he will do nothing about crime (David Campos is largely responsible for the increased foot patrols in the Mission in response to the recent crime wave) when he has the best understanding of the SF police department’s operations and of issues surrounding crime as a Police Commissioner. Most of your allegations are based on your “understanding…from political insiders that know him.” Who are these unnamed political insiders? I’m sorry, but that sounds very suspicious — not mention unfounded. If you had an actual conversation with the guy, you’d see that David Campos is one of the most down-to-earth, caring, and atypical candidates for this office you could find. Also, it seems immaterial to me that he hired a consultant to help with his campaign. That does not take away any legitimacy from his candidacy in my view. Moreover, the consultant is not t “running” his campaign, as you’ve alleged — his campaign manager’s name is Linette and her employer, before she took a leave to become his campaign manager, was the SF Public Defender’s office.
respectfully disagree works for me, counselor.
if he wins…we’ll see who’s correct in time.
history tells us it will be me.
if it’s you, everyone will be happy (and some of us will be surprised).
Jimbeam, thank you.
more very soon.