No one running for District 3 supervisor got much of a chance to separate from the pack at Wednesday's candidates' debate, but there was one clear winner in the hyperbole derby: Lynn Jefferson.
At one point, Jefferson, a Marsha Garland protege and the most aggressively pro-development horse in this race, said she was running to help erase "the culture of fear" currently gripping Upper Grant Avenue. This "fear," which isn't palpable to any of us who actually walk and shop the street every day, was a not-so-veiled swipe at the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, the local preservationist group that went unmentioned all night but was very much the elephant in the living room in the packed, sweaty auditorium at the S.F. Art Institute.
Although this race will determine who represents all of District 3 beginning next year, Wednesday's debate was very North Beach centric. Chinatown was mentioned a few times, mostly in relation to the proposed subway extension, and increased development along the Embarcadero (something Jefferson strongly supports) was discussed briefly. But the night belonged to North Beach and the issues that got the the lion's share of the attention were the issues closest to North Beach: empty storefronts, renter protection, dirty streets, more cops on the beat.
In discussing the situation on Grant Avenue, Jefferson conceded that "high commercial rents might have something to do" with boarded up storefronts but quickly dismissed the obvious in favor of blaming the problem on the obstructionist elements (read: THD) that thwart would-be shopkeepers at every turn. Jefferson said she's talked to merchants along Grant who "are literally quaking in their boots" for fear of incurring the wrath of "the obstructionists" and their High Priestess of No, Nancy Shanahan, who likewise was never named (although Candidate Jefferson referenced her at least three times).
Fortunately, it was not a night devoted solely to Ms. Jefferson's personal obsessions.
Even working within a tightly controlled format, debate moderator Phil Bronstein looked like a guy trying to herd cats, no doubt wishing he was back negotiating with intractible newspaper unions instead. As is the case in most of these group forums, little substance emerged. But a few interesting moments, and a handful of statements, are worth noting:
* All the candidates came down squarely for small business, but Claudine Cheng did the best job of articulating a strategy that might actually create incentives for merchants who run neighborhood-serving businesses, like hardware stores, to locate to District 3. Along with extending tax breaks to merchants as a way of offsetting the ridiculous rents (an incentive favored by most of the other candidates as well), Cheng proposed an anti-blight campaign that would, among other things, put pressure on landlords who deliberately let their commercial space languish while waiting for the proverbial fatted calf to show up.
Improving transportation to specific neighborhoods would also help, Cheng said, as would maintaining cleaner streets.
* Tony Gantner, running on a green platform and backed by both the Sierra Club and San Francisco Tomorrow, was the only candidate to speak out against rampant development along the waterfront.
"I support proposals that are strictly maritime uses," Gantner said, noting that the voters passed Prop. I with that intent in mind. He added that it was important to keep the Embarcadero -- on both sides of the street -- an open and inviting place for San Franciscans. "We can't let development drive Port decisions as a way of reducing their $2 billion obligation."
* Joe Alioto Jr., another candidate who is making the care and feeding of small business the centerpiece of his campaign, said he's enjoying running this race "more than anything I've ever done." I ... I hardly know what to say.
Alioto chided the current political climate that he said makes it difficult for small businesses to thrive, saying he would work to overturn that and attract the kinds of commerce that local residents want to see. He also said he favored extending the central subway tunnel from Chinatown into North Beach.
* Denise McCarthy, a longtime community activist who gained her political experience as a Port commissioner, said her priority would be finding ways to keep families and seniors in the district. She also spoke eloquently on the subject of reaching out to undocumented immigrant children before their lives spin out of control.
* David Chiu, who has the endorsement of outgoing Supervisor Aaron Peskin, appeared to be honing his skills for an upcoming cliche festival. Chiu described himself as a "conciliator" and a "bridge builder," pledged to provide "a new generation of leadership" while finding "common ground" to "build consensus." Underneath all the dross, though, there does seem to be a viable candidate at work. Adding a speechwriter to the campaign staff couldn't hurt, though.
* Mike DeNunzio, the sole Republican in the race, defended the need to protect existing rent control laws. He pointed out that 82 percent of District 3 residents are renters, so "rent stabilization should be respected and supported by any candidate running for supervisor in this district." Jefferson, seated to DeNunzio's immediate left, didn't so much as flinch during the applause that followed.
DeNunzio also made it clear that, if elected, he'll put seniors' issues front and center down at City Hall.
* Wilma Pang made it clear to everyone in the house that she's running a grassroots campaign from the heart. "I don't have money and I don't have political support," she said. In other words, she's got no chance.
* Earl Thibodeau, who registered to run but failed to submit all the required paperwork on time and was disqualified, was invited, after some hemming and hawing, to join the other debaters even though he's now a write-in candidate.
Interestingly, none of the pro-small business candidates had much to say about the idea of working to repeal the ban on commercial rent control, the one thing that would probably help small businesspeople the most. Granted, it would be a tough fight, even a quixotic one, against long odds -- the ban is a state law -- but as the Bush administration has so ably demonstrated, laws are made to be overturned. Or broken, even.
Comments
I live in North Beach and attended the debate.
David Chiu impressed me. I was impressed with Chiu's work with neighborhood associations in Lower and Middle Polk areas and his background as a former criminal prosecutor and Small Business Commissioner.
When dealing with tough local land-use issues, we need a local representative who isn't bought by real estate interests, yet understands the importance of balancing neighborhood concerns with sensible development.
I think Chiu will be an independent-minded Supervisor. In a city like SF where politics can be a blood sport, it's refreshing to see a candidate like Chiu who can work with people from different political factions.
Isn't this a conflict of journalistic ethics where this Examiner writer, Tony Long, also works for the campaign of candidate Tony Gantner? Of course it is. Not sure who is more at fault Tony "propaganda" Long or the editors at the Examiner.
Tony: Can any of the vacancies in North Beach be traced back to what the Telegraph Hill Dwellers have done? Any of them? Richard Hanlin
David Chiu is the #1 endorsement of the Democratic Party.
David Chiu has also been endorsed by District Attorney Kamala Harris, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Police Officers Association, and many neighborhood groups.
No one else running for Supervisor can claim such a broad base of support to fight crime and improve our public safety in North Beach!!!
I am not voting for any of these people. They are all running campaigns based on their own personal interests. Worthless all.
As expected from a great journalist, Tony, very good rundown of last night's debate. Also good to see you after the gulf years from the old Ex to now. On the herding cats thing, I actually had a great time opening it up a bit beyond the prescribed limitations and always think a rowdy crowd is a good thing in politics (up to but excluding the shedding of blood). We ended up holding the candidates' feet a little to the fire.
anyone who have ever lived in north beach will find that no degree of politics is really necessary. the community is basically a decent area except for the obvious intrusions from the outside (homeless and other strangers that don't belong). upper grant is really redneck that looks down on chinatown like they're a race apart. first generation chinese and others much later, are really trying to get a name for themselves into higher office, not really to clean and improve chinatown. and, of course, they are running for office because their parents are watching them to make sure they're successful. there are motives both ways.
David Chiu's little cronies write the exact same comments after every single article written about the District 3 race. "He has endorsements. He spoke well. I like him the best." They sound like robots, just like David Chiu; they just keep repeating the same catch phrases over and over again. Everything David Chiu said last night at the debate was clearly memorized. I saw him rehearsing his lines with his 3x5 cards behind the building. "I am a bridge builder. I build bridges. I can bridge people together." This is the exact same language written for Chiu by top political consultant Jim Stearns for Chiu’s catchy “I build bridges.” door hangers (which are still everywhere on our sidewalks, adding to the amount of garbage on our streets). If Chiu can pay that much for four page door hangers, doesn’t he have the funds to pick up all of his door hangers that are lying in our streets? Chiu does have the money to hire people to pick up the mess that he made, after all he shares in the huge profits that come from his company Grassroots Enterprise. Grassroots Enterprise (which Chiu founded himself and now works for as the COO) makes massive amounts of money from progressive organizations, such as the NRA and National Republican Committee for the 2004 campaign. I wonder how many votes Grassroots Enterprise were able to deliver for $300K in 2004. It was a really close election. Maybe they made the difference. Please see more about the $300K of work for Bush-Cheney in 2004 at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expend.php?cmte=RNC&cycle=2004&txtname=&Page=2
As to the issue of Chiu’s endorsements, there is one reason why David Chiu has been endorsed by so many politicians - Aaron Peskin pressures them to do so. I have talked to city leaders who have endorsed Chiu at Peskin’s request, who now regret it, citing the fact that everything Chiu says sounds like a rehearsed stump speech. It is too late now as they already endorsed him as a favor to Aaron Peskin. Aaron Peskin has put the intense pressure on others in order to get 90% of Chiu's endorsements. Concerned about their own political futures, leaders don't want Aaron Peskin (who would stab anyone in the back if he/she crossed him) to be their enemy. Aaron cannot let go of his power. There are supposed to be term limits for politicians in San Francisco, but now he can be President of the DCCC and the boss of David Chiu, so he will remain in power, after he is no longer allowed to be a Supervisor. Peskin knows that Chiu will be his little puppet Supervisor who owes him big time if Aaron wins this election for Chiu. People are already predicting Aaron will become a lobbyist who makes big bucks by lobbying Chiu. Who knows maybe he can even become rich like Chiu by becoming part of Grassroots Enterprise and sharing in their big profits from the Republican party? Money talks folks and Aaron listens. I truly hope that we do not have an Aaron Peskin puppet who talks like a robot, repeating Jim Stearns' catchy clichés at every debate. Chiu, like Aaron, cares less about the needs of District 3 and more about using this as a stepping stone to higher office. Let's elect any of the other candidates, as they all seem to care more about District 3 than boosting their own political resumes and egos. Savvy, smooth, and obsessed with having all of the power, that’s Peskin and Chiu, also know as Geppetto and Pinocchio.
Actually, aside from the politics involved with winning the post as District 3 Supervisor, a good leader is most definitely needed to respond to the requests of the people and implement the improvements that were promised to begin with. This position pays fairly big bucks and it absolutely does impact the neighborhoods of District 3, if there is a good person at the helm then improvements can be made. Having lived here for 12 years I have seen it in motion. And I do live near upper grant by the way Mr. "stock boy", in fact it is a melting pot of "classes", that include many fine people of all walks of life. And KC, Tony Gantner is definitely running for his own interest, to improve the neighborhoods that he's grown to respect and love. What do you respect KC?
I'll definitely vote for someone interested in safer, cleaner, greener streets and a balanced support of merchants and residents alike.
Finally, unfortunately it's likely true about David Chiu, that he is a minion of Aaron Peskin. When first in office Aaron seemed to have some genuinely good ideas about how to improve District 3, now he seems to be focused on the goal for higher political position and Chiu is part of his pathway.
"Interestingly, none of the pro-small business candidates had much to say about the idea of working to repeal the ban on commercial rent control"
I mentioned this idea to Joe Alioto when he stopped me on the street to ask me to help get him on the ballot. He dismissed me with a wave of the hand and the comment "that would never happen". So guess what my answer will be should he ever ask for my vote.
David Chiu is #1 choice for supervisor because of his *actual work experience* improving the D3 community.
He's prosecuted crime as a D.A. in San Francisco, he's fought Ellis Act evictions for senior citizens, he's fighting for small businesses as a small business commissioner, and he's helped build affordable housing.
That's his record, and that's why he gets the endorsements. Lame duck Peskin has nothing to do with it.
People, please do your own voter research and vote your conscience on November 4th!
Patrick's comment is so full of innuendo and conspiracy theory that it's bordering on laughable.
He seems to think that Supervisor Aaron Peskin controls people. Uh, right.
I don't think soon-to-be State Senator Mark Leno, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Assessor Phil Ting, School Board member and Newsom education advisor Hydra Mendoza take marching orders from Peskin.
All of them, and many other political and community leaders, have endorsed David Chiu because they know his personal work on behalf of tenants, immigrants, and small business owners.
The SF Democratic Party, of which Peskin is just one voting member, endorsed David Chiu #1 in the D3 race. These party leaders wouldn't endorse anyone who didn't personally advance Democratic values.
Chiu has been thoroughly vetted by groups that endorsed him like SF for Democracy, SF Labor Council, Coleman Action Fund for Children, and United Educators of SF, that attempts to paint him other than a Democratic stalwart is just grasping at straws.
David Chiu made a mistake in judgment when he maneuvered for Peskin’s endorsement. It would have been as if Gerald Ford campaigned with Richard Nixon in 1976. I am out on the streets of District 3 regularly and many people are sickened by Peskin’s overblown sense of self importance and the resulting effect on his priorities. Others are repulsed by his bullying style. If he were truly a competent, well founded advocate would he really need to drunk dial adversaries at home and dress them down in front of their families?
So, Scott Weiner endorsed Chiu by putting him on the Democratic Central Committee. Then Peskin endorsed Chiu for Supervisor. Then Chiu voted for Peskin over Weiner for DCC chair. Looks like Mr. Chiu is not above back room dealing and given the fact that Peskin will be ruling the back rooms we absolutely cannot afford to have Chiu win. In fact a humiliating defeat might help to negate any ongoing effect by Peskin.
It pains me to read the falsities out there about David Chiu. Some folks here are getting worked up about the wrong things. I've seen David in action, and he really is someone who can bring people together. And he's passionate about democracy and about the issues--tenants rights (he's a renter), civil rights, neighborhood community--that most people in San Francisco are passionate about. And most important, he gets work done, which is something the Board and the mayor haven't really done since I've lived in San Francisco. David's candidacy gives me hope that we can change the debate in City Hall and still keep San Francisco as the bastion of progressivism. David isn't a grand-stander; he isn't egotistical; he isn't drowning in money from right-wing groups. (Folks, you need to do your homework and give up the ghost about trying to "prove" that Chiu has right-wing allegiances. He doesn't, and that "argument" has been put to rest numerous times in the press. It simply isn't true.) So I, along with that James Chung person, also implore folks to do their research on all the candidates, and pick the person that you feel best represents you. Block out the drama.
Some of these comments gave me a good chuckle.
Rye Toast compares Peskin's endorsement of David Chiu to Ford and Nixon. Stretch.
Toast then calls the endorsement back room dealing, but doesn't see a a vote by David Chiu for Scott Weiner as an I-vote-for you, you-vote-for-me scenario.
David Chiu is a minion of no one, "BA" Baracus. I pity the fool!
Patrick despises Aaron, but annoints him with so much power that he can turn David Chiu's mind to mush.
And how nice of Phil Bronstein to actually post a comment here.
I urge all non-Chiu supporters not to post on this or any other news article Comments section. Chiu's supporters are professionally orchestrated using his company's product:
http://www.grassroots.com/what/
http://www.grassroots.com/what/blogstrat/
http://www.grassroots.com/what/recruitment/
They play a different ball-game to the one we're all used to playing and they're professionals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Check out the comments sections from other articles on the D3 Supervisor race. Chiu supporters drown all debate and fact seeking with their numbers, repetitive talking points and tactics (shoot the messenger, reshape the topic of discussion, ...). Notice how they instantly post on a new aricle or immediately reply to an opposition post. We have to realize we're totally out gunned in this area and perhaps focus on the more traditional campaign methods of getting the word out.
Round 1 to Chiu and his supporters.
This post is in response to RC but will hopefully benefit others. If you have a legitimate concern about David, then why not approach him and his campaign and tell him your concerns and ask him point blank how he will do things differently? All we hear is that you don't like David for some reason. That's personal. It doesn't answer questions for people. I talked about David's record because he has a strong one, and when you support a candidate, all you can do is cite his or her record. It's up to an individual to decide whether that record speaks for her or him. I happen to support David for personal reasons, yes, but also because he's a hard worker who gives so much of his life to public service, and because I feel that his record speaks for itself. But more important to me than someone supporting who I support is that folks research the candidates and make up their own minds. What you say, RC, perverts the democratic process. I'm certainly allowed to post to sites to give my support to someone and to dispel lies that have been told. I am so sick of people blindly attacking others, and I just wish people would chill out. The media have a lot of power, and they don't always use it responsibly. And neither do individuals posting comments. The fact is that all these comments are personal opinions. I think we need to give a hand to all the candidates for putting themselves out there. The first time someone lies about something or misrepresents someone, it takes a lot to fix that. But you must already be aware of that. I think that District 3 residents will show you that they, too, are aware of it.
Kai Anderson-
Glad I could make your day by adding a chuckle.
I understand that if you are in Peskin's inner circle or a Telegraph Hill homeowner you probably think that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
If you are not that lucky then you have been largely ignored and treated as something less than equal for the past 7 1/2 years. You could rarely even get a response from him on important matters and the matter became significantly worse during his second term.
And then you read in the newspapers how he is spending his time drunk dialing anyone who might dare to block the beautiful view from Telegraph Hill. He has been caught lying to the people several times. The people that he has ignored are the ones who bid him good riddance.
The big difference between Peskin and Nixon?
Nixon was a smart guy with some impressive accomplishments.
Tony, I believe you should do some more digging in your effort for journalistic integrity. Talk to someone other than an "established" business and listen for the culture of fear.
Should I introduce you to the new owners of Bao Necci so you can ask them about their efforts to receive a beer and wine license?
What about the owners of Swirl?
How about Mojito?
How about the owner of the Pagoda?
Maybe "fear" is hyperbolic. But anyone with any knowledge of getting anything approved in this neighborhood KNOWS they should be afraid and of whom they should be AFRAID...
I agree with Bronstein and "Stock Boy" Bob. Also, though there are those who would disagree on the integrity issue, bloggers are the new leading edge of journalism.
Tony, you rock! Great writing on several topics dear to my North Beach heart! I've now been here 46 years thanks to a rent-controlled apartment. Your write-up of the poorly handled Candidates'Night at the Art Institute is just outstanding! "Herding cats!" "Cliche festival!" I wish YOU would run for District 3 supervisor. You sorted out most of the confusion about who answered what questions and particularly how they answered them. I think Ms.Jefferson should be muzzled at times like those because the garlic didn't work.
In this years spirit of Change, anyone being endorsed by major elected officials and political groups can take a hike, that would be you Joe Alioto, Claudine Cheng, David Chiu, and Tony Gantner. They all have some very good ideas, some very bad ones too, but it's time to go in another direction all together, with that being said, I think the sole individual running that makes sense, and actually cares about th e community and the people that live there is Denise Mccarthy. She's been genuine and respectful, and doesn't have an ego like some of the others involved, no one is going to get more than 50% of the vote so there will be run off, but I encourage all to vote Denise Mccarthy!!
WWW.TAKINGBACKTHECITY.COM
Wow, Lynne Jefferson took a supreme ass-kicking. So much for the populist uprising.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!