This Friday, join the bold effort to deliver affordable housing for the Bayview!

Balazo Gallery
2183 Mission Street
May 16th, 5:30-8pm

Despite millions being spent against us, committed volunteers have put Proposition F in play– collecting over 11,000 signatures in 10 days, reaching out to political clubs and community groups, running nightly phone banks, and dropping literature on the weekends. These true heroes have been doing the work to support our families struggling to make it here.

Now we need your support.

Come out to get energized and connected with the campaign, have some fun (with Eric Quezada on the ones and twos), and make a donation.

$20+ (no one turned away) Checks should be made to "Bayview Committee for Affordable Housing" (FPPC#1303906)

Get plugged into the campaign today! Contact Jaron Browne at POWER 864-8372 x303 or jaron@peopleorganized.org.

They tried to count us out once before…

While we may never learn the true motivation behind the Lennar Corporation ’s disclosure of polling numbers on the Bayview Affordable Housing Initiative (Proposition F), at least our assumptions are now confirmed. With Prop F polling ahead, Lennar is readying the kitchen sink to throw at it.

I’ve written before about the bold effort to qualify the Bayview Affordable Housing Initiative for June’s ballot. Many of the same community stakeholders have kept the campaign going and deserve even more credit for reaching out to political clubs and community groups, running nightly phone banks, and dropping literature on the weekends. These true heroes have been doing the work to support our families struggling to make it here.

I have been heartened by the near-universal understanding of the importance of affordable housing for the health and well being of our communities. We know that affordability is our top housing issue, and the guarantees provided by Prop F are right on time.

But Lennar and their fleet of consultants are calling the Bayview Affordable Housing Initiative a "poison pill". The irony here shouldn’t be lost on anyone. The Lennar Corporation is the one that violated their dust mitigation plan in Hunters Point. For over a year, Lennar polluted the Bayview with dangerous levels of asbestos particulate, churning poisonous dust clouds over community homes, schools, and churches. Lennar tried to cover up their violations and then deceive the community saying that the asbestos was no great threat to their health. Given this, perhaps it should come as no surprise that many in the neighborhood see Lennar’s initiative, Proposition G, as the real poison on the ballot. So far, Lennar has spent over $2.23 million on their effort. In the process they’ve successfully bought off nearly the entire political establishment in San Francisco. By Election Day, Lennar will shatter all spending records for initiative campaigns in San Francisco . It’s as if they believe they can buy the City itself. But even with over $2 million spent, Lennar’s plan for Hunters Point and Candlestick still doesn’t poll as well as our plan.

We have a very real opportunity to score a huge political upset here. It’s going to take a whole lot of elbow grease and shoe leather, but so did everything else worth fighting for. Please call today to sign up for a phone bank shift or a precinct drop. Contact Jaron Browne at POWER 864-8372 x303 or jaron@peopleorganized.org .

So, I go back and forth on whether I should talk to Phil Matier and Andy Ross. If I don’t talk to them, they get away with writing specious things I otherwise could challenge. If I do talk to them, they twist my words against me. So, I’ve settled on only communicating with the despicable duo in writing. Here’s the full back and forth between Andy Ross and me. At least they got my quote right.

Andy Ross:
Supervisor Daly, I’m writing a column item about the upcoming ballot measures over the Candlestick Point development. Supporters of Prop.G contend your initiative is a "poison pill” that not only will kill the Lennar project, but virtually guarantee there won’t be any development in the area for decades to come. I’d like to hear your reaction, and would appreciate a reply by deadline Tuesday.

Chris Daly:
Andy, Proposition F was placed on the ballot by an inspired grassroots effort that collected the required signatures in only 10 days and with only a few thousand dollars. Prop F directly addresses the very real need for affordable housing in San Francisco and the Bayview Hunters Point.

Meanwhile the Lennar Corporation has spent over $2.23 million to buy the rights to develop here. Their plan does not deliver for San Francisco — it delivers for their own bottom line.

Lennar may call Prop F a "poison pill," but it merely requires any development to meet the housing needs, as they exist in San Francisco .

This out-of-state developer should play by the rules and meet the needs of everyday San Franciscans.

Andy Ross:
Chris, thanks for reply - but does your planned affordable housing measure in November have any connection to this??

Chris Daly:
Andy, the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment is on the November 2008 ballot. Here’s what it would do…

1) Establish a set aside of 2.5 cents of every local property tax dollar, similar to the Children’s fund, Open Space Fund, and Library Preservation fund. This set-aside would generate an estimated $33 million dollars each year for the next 15 years;

2) Encourage a diverse unit-mix with at least 50% of the new units required to be 2 bedrooms or more;

3) Establish a baseline to protect the City’s existing $88 million commitment to housing programs and related services;

4) Ensure that 40% of funds dedicated to new housing development assist very low-income households with incomes less than 30% of San Francisco median income
(SFMI);

5) Ensure that 60% of funds dedicated to new housing development assist low-income households with incomes between 30% and 80% of SFMI;

6) Other eligible expenditures include: homeownership opportunities, community land
trusts, eviction prevention, public housing repair, and rent subsidies.

While there is no legal connection between the Bayview Affordable Housing Initiative (Prop F) and the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment, if both were to pass, there would be a voter mandate, significant momentum, and available resources to build thousands of affordable housing units in the Bayview Hunters Point.

Andy Ross:
Chris, thanks for the additional material. One other question - we’ve been told that Jack Davis helped put the Measure F proposal together. Any truth?

Chris Daly:
I am working with stakeholders who live and work in the Bayview Hunters Point on Prop F. Jack Davis has not assisted us in any way. I’ve never even had a conversation with him about it. Who’s your source, Eric Jaye?

Andy Ross:
Chris, the anser (sic) is "No". Just some folks supporting the deal say RBA not happy about being cut out of the action, and that they - along with Jack Davis - may be on board with you. I guess I should ask if RBA is involved in your effort?

Chris Daly:
The RBA has not been involved. Maybe Eric Jaye is smart enough to get others to call you.

Andy Ross:
Good enough - thanks.

Dear Messrs. Brugmann, Redmond, Jones et al.,

I know that you have been looking at the race for California State Senate for some time and have been contemplating your endorsement. While you weigh the issues and assess the personalities involved, don’t forget the real meaning of this race – progressive political power in San Francisco.

I am writing now to ask you to consider endorsing Carole Migden for reelection.

While there are only a few differences between Carole and Mark Leno on the issues, when it comes to San Francisco politics, the two are in warring political factions. Carole has used her position in Sacramento consistently to help progressive candidates and causes in San Francisco, while Leno is a kinder, gentler Gavin Newsom. In fact, Leno endorsed Newsom in both of his runs for Mayor and even hosted the Mayor’s kick-off last year; at the same time Carole headlined the Progressive Convention. Newsom has returned the favor, lending Leno his political apparatus to help knock Migden out.

The split between Migden and Leno goes back to at least 2000, when Carole stood up to the Brown machine to support progressives Jake McGoldrick and Aaron Peskin. Leno endorsed the machine candidates, Michael Yaki and Lawrence Wong. The Migden-Leno divide crystallized in 2002 when Migden backed stalwart progressive Harry Britt for her Assembly seat. Leno defeated Britt in what previously was the bitterest primary held.

Like Newsom, Leno has flirted with progressive policy-making and headlines. However, behind the scenes, he’s carried the establishment’s water. When the call is made, Leno’s proxy delivers bad votes for the establishment at the Democratic County Central Committee. On recently disputed items, Leno opposed Question Time and supported Lennar’s development plans in the Bayview. Midgen supported Question Time and did not support the Lennar items.

Even more important for progressives is political alignment. When I was under a well-funded attack organized by Leno operatives , Midgen went to bat for me – helping to fund a door-to-door effort to get out the Daly vote. Midgen feels the most at home politically at the progressive Milk Club, while Leno moves through Alice. This is an important point, because the State Senator is able to move political resources to help the candidates supported by these clubs. That matters a whole lot when it comes to deciding the make-up of political panels from the Democratic County Central Committee to the Board of Supervisors.

As we head into the critical Supervisor elections in November, Carole has already signaled her support for the whole progressive slate. Leno has not. Let’s be honest, Leno can’t even bring himself to criticize Newsom’s draconian budget cuts on the eve of your paper’s endorsement. He’s not going to be able to go against Gavin in Districts 1, 3, and 11, and you know that we need to win them all.

We’ve all read their criticisms of our State Senator, but nothing changes the fact that when it comes down to it, Carole is the one on our side. The San Francisco Bay Guardian has been the progressive standard bearer for over 40 years and your endorsement is rightfully the most important in the City. So Bruce, Tim, and Steve, it’s gut-check time. We need this as much as Carole.

Solidarity,

Chris Daly

Join me for an historic rally and march on Beijing’s Olympic Torch in solidarity with the people of Tibet.

Wednesday, April 9th, 12 Noon, Embarcadero near Market

Nearly two months ago, representatives from the Tibetan community began working with my office on a resolution for the Board of Supervisors. Tibetans were rightfully concerned that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was using the Olympic Games in Beijing to gloss over their program of cultural genocide in Tibet. San Francisco would be the only stop in the US for the Torch Relay scheduled to make its way to Tibet this summer. On March 10^th, Tibetan Uprising Day, I was set to introduce the resolution.

On the same day 300 brave monks set out from Drepung monastery outside of Lhasa on a protest march to Potala Palace in the heart of the city. The arrest of dozens of these monks led to further protests and uprising on the streets of Lhasa and other cities across Tibet. The Chinese government met these protests with a brutal crackdown, killing over 100 Tibetans and arresting hundreds of others in door-to-door raids.

This wicked turn of events in Tibet catapulted what would otherwise be a highly symbolic resolution into the national and international spotlight — drawing significant attention to San Francisco as we called out China’s abysmal human rights record – a laundry list of dirty abuses that extend from cultural genocide in Tibet to persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, from suppressing labor and environmental activists to stifling freedom of speech and press, and from militarily aiding genocide in Darfur to propping up a brutal dictatorship in Burma.

For months, Gavin Newsom had been working closely with top Chinese government officials on preparations for the torch event in San Francisco. For the PRC, the San Francisco leg of the relay had a unique importance due to our economic role in the Pacific Rim and for our significant Chinese population. For Gavin Newsom, the torch relay was a ready-made opportunity to elevate his national and international political stature.

But the veil of secrecy under which this planning took place became increasingly apparent as the Board’s resolution worked its way through the legislative process. Community groups and reporters alike were asking questions about the route and how protests would be handled. The answers were either not forthcoming (the route was not set) or the wrong ones (protests would be limited to “free speech zones”). Gavin Newsom also started to be asked about his position on human rights in China.

After the brutal crackdown in Tibet, it became increasingly difficult for Newsom to dodge these questions. One of Gavin’s political mentors, Nancy Pelosi, took a strong stance on the PRC’s crackdown, traveling to meet with the Dalai Lama in India. She said, “If freedom loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world.” Pelosi’s actions challenged Newsom to act with conscience, but instead he opted for the same line used by George Bush — politics, including China’s crackdown in Tibet, should be kept separate from the Beijing Olympics.

But the notion that we can somehow separate politics from an international event on the scale of the Olympics is an impossible one, even if the Olympic Charter wasn’t dedicated to “promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” The Olympic Games have been necessarily intertwined with our politics and history. This was especially the case with ’36 Berlin Games, ’68 Mexico City Games, and the boycott games of ‘80 and ‘84. While the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta had little international controversy, the local politics in Atlanta were very loaded. To make way for the Olympic Village, the oldest public housing development in the country was demolished. Thousands of people lost their homes while new laws were enacted to target homeless people. Meanwhile, the

Fortunately, Newsom ultimately backed down from China’s requests of limiting protest, although you’d think the Mayor of San Francisco would know better. The entire City of San Francisco is and will always be a “free speech zone.” San Francisco is known across the globe for protest, one of free speech’s most critical elements; from the General Strike in 1934 to the hundreds of thousands that flooded San Francisco streets to protest the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So when the Board of Supervisors resolved that the Olympic Torch should be received with alarm and protest, we did so fully cognizant of the role of protest in our great City.

As the Olympic Torch approaches, it is critical that we acknowledge the situation in Tibet has reached a crisis point and appreciate the gravity of our opportunity to highlight the issue on behalf of those inside Tibet who are being brutally persecuted by the Chinese government for expressing their desire for freedom. We must build on the message that’s been delivered by people of conscience in Athens, London, and now Paris.

Our March on the Torch will continue the peoples’ story of justice — that this torch should not be allowed to go through Tibet. We will apply even more pressure on the International Olympic Committee to end their complicity in China’s brutal crackdown and send a clear signal to the PRC that they need to clean up their human rights record and end their brutality in Tibet at once.

The cause of international human rights is coming to San Francisco on Wednesday. Please march with us to accept this enormous responsibility.

For up to the minute updates please text SFTORCH to 41411.