Unusual unity on all but 1 measure
Generous. Agreeable. Independent.
Aw, our politicians and political consultants really love us. Those are the adjectives that came up most frequently when we asked them to describe the San Francisco electorate after last Tuesday’s election.
On the one hand, San Franciscans were tremendously unified in approving all but one ballot measure — and they reached deep into their pockets to do it.
It was a big yes to the City College parcel tax and the parks bond. It was a big yes to a switch in the way the city taxes business and the creation of a housing trust fund.
San Franciscans will always love telling the federal government just where to stick it and was in wide agreement in condemning the Supreme Court’s decision to allow unfettered campaign spending by corporations.
And San Franciscans also love their drinking water and were in wide agreement to vote down Proposition F, which would have set the stage for returning Hetch Hetchy to its natural state.
Supervisor John Avalos said he was “really gratified” by the voters — and not just because they re-elected him, but because they were so generous overall.
“We actually made investments in public infrastructure and our parks and our City College,” he said. “When other
cities are dealing with austerity, in San Francisco, we’re making investments.”
Political consultant David Latterman said much of the reason San Franciscans were so unified on the ballot measures was because city officials are increasingly getting wide agreement with each other before they ever appear on the ballot.
That’s a change from the way things were done under the previous mayor and board who, when they didn’t get their way through the legislative process, would throw a fit in the media and send the matter to the ballot. (We confess, we do miss those media fits.)
“These were major pieces of policy that were compromised on and constructed before they made it on the ballot,” Latterman said. “For once, they were not nasty political fights.”
The supervisor races defied plenty of conventional wisdom, demonstrating the independence of San Francisco voters. District Seven, one of the most conservative parts of town, turned down moderate choice Mike Garcia for a more progressive pick. (Whether that’s F.X. Crowley or Norman Yee probably won’t be decided until this week.) On the opposite end of the spectrum, one of the most liberal parts of town, District Five, turned down a bunch of progressive options for the more moderate London Breed. And in District One, the moderate Richmond, the more progressive candidate, Supervisor Eric Mar, won a decisive victory.
Political consultant Nicole Derse had a great night — going four for four on the campaigns she managed to pass the gross receipts tax measure, get Mar and Supervisor David Chiu re-elected and get Matt Haney elected to the school board.
“I think San Franciscans are looking for independent leaders that they think are going to be able to represent their interest,” she said. “They’re not necessarily voting on an ideological spectrum that has defined politics in the past in San Francisco.
“People weren’t asking, ‘Is Eric Mar progressive or moderate?’ They were asking, ‘Is he going to be able to fill my pothole or improve the playground so my kids can play there?’ ”
Political consultant Alex Clemens said the traditionally polarized board is gradually becoming more independent and unpredictable and now is likely to feature a majority that are swing voters.
“People in San Francisco don’t vote for the people they’re told to vote for,” he said. “They make up their own minds.”
Supervisor Sean Elsbernd agreed, saying it’s easy to get caught up “in the bubble of City Hall” and not understand how the city as a whole really sees issues.
For example, city officials were genuinely concerned that the parks bond might fail after former Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Quentin Kopp mounted a campaign against it. They took issue with a host of moves by the parks department including its bid to put artificial turf on the Beach Chalet soccer fields, charge a fee for nonresidents at the arboretum in Golden Gate Park and change vendors at Stow Lake.
“Within the bubble, there was fear this was representative of the city,” Elsbernd said. “But that group of people who were coming to yell and scream (at supervisor meetings)? That’s about all of them. They’re not necessarily representative, that’s just it.”
P.S. It’s becoming clearer that independent expenditure committees in San Francisco often do more harm than good for the candidate they apparently support.
Just ask Jim Ross, the campaign manager for David Lee’s losing campaign to Mar in the Richmond District. The now-infamous San Francisco Realtors Association video entitled “Send Mar Back to Mars” cost $50,000. It got 21,500 hits on You Tube and was never shown on television — meaning it cost $2.30 per YouTube hit.
Ross said the same group waved signs on the street that were hot pink, covered in gold stars, showed the challenger in a spaceship and read, “David Lee is out of this world.”
“My niece could make a better sign,” Ross said.
(Plus, doesn’t that confuse their message of Mar being a Martian if Lee rides in a spaceship?)
“These guys were ineffective. It was a distraction,” Ross said, saying independent groups backing Mar did a much better job. “People bestow gifts on you that are not something you wanted, and it ends up hurting you. I have to laugh or I would cry.”
Nudist activist Gypsy Taub, after stripping naked during a Board of Supervisors committee hearing to discuss Wiener’s proposed ban on public nudity. The ban was forwarded to the full board, and Taub was removed by sheriff’s deputies who got an eyeful.