Went to a Great Fundraiser for SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Yesterday

[DoveTurnedHawk]

He was visiting Los Angeles, and had over 100 people turn out for him at a private home in Hancock Park. Governor Davis, Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo were the Guests of Honor (aside from the Mayor, of course), and it was a great event.

I have to tell you...Gavin Newsom is just awesome. He is simply fucking awesome. He is young, attractive, charismatic, and so damn eloquent. He is also a Democrat with a sack full of GUTS. He spoke about how every now and then, you have the opportunity to really do the right thing. He took that opportunity, and has zero regrets for it. He said every American should be in favor of non-discrimination, and that he believes in 20 years, people will look upon laws against gay marriage the same way that we now look upon laws against interracial marriage.

He also fielded questions, and received one "tough" question about whether he thought he might have given the conservatives ammunition against our party in the general election this year, and Newsom's answer surprised me in its power. He replied that the issue would have come up no matter what, in light of the MA Supreme Court's decision. He also said that it would have been worse for Kerry if MA was the ONLY place to have done this, since that's where Kerry's from, and that's where the convention is going to be.

I then asked him about the legal cases and whether his office was participating in the briefing, and he said absolutely, and that he was also receiving a ton of help from interested parties in the form of amicus briefs and other support. Finally, someone asked him about SF's economic issues, and he spoke forcefully about bringing new business to SF, and pushing that agenda very hard.

On a personal level, I was able to shake his hand and thank him for everything he's done, and praise his courage. I also said that if there was EVER anything I could do for him (donate, volunteer, etc.), I would be there for him in a heartbeat. It was interesting...as is common at these things, quite a few of the people there were angling for something, a pet project or a job or a connection. My own, obviously biased impression was that he was pleased to hear what I had to say, especially without any ulterior motives (I work in the private sector, and have zero political ambitions or desire to work in politics). Maybe that's just the mark of a skilled pol. :-)

I think this guy is one of our party's rising stars, and I believe he can win for statewide office.

DTH

[AP]

1. His election broke the heart of serious progressives. Newsome is a real...

...estate developer, and, regardless of what some will interpret as the smoke and mirrors of gay marriage (ie, he'll use it to give himself liberal bona fides) many will see his real mission as shifting a lot of wealth to the real estate development community at the cost of making SF a liveable place for working and middle class people.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. SF Housing Was Through the Roof LONG Before Newsom

It's one of the down sides to living in a big city, particularly one that is as dense as SF.

As someone who ranks racial, gender and sexual equality as three of his top four issues (not necessarily in that order), Newsom is tops with me!

DTH

[AP]

3. And the money the real estate business made from it bought the industry

a mayor.

As someone who thinks the transfer of wealth from the middle and working class to the top (whether it's in the context of race, gender, sex, class or whatever) is the most important issue, I have my doubts about Newsome.

He could prove me wrong. But if he's letting gay people marry with one hand, but making sure they live in a city where 85% of their hard earned income goes to his cronies in the real estate development community with the other hand, well, I'm going to notice.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Fair Enough

I don't know enough about Newsom on this specific issue to comment intelligently, so doubt away. :-) But he's still tops in my book.

DTH

[AP]

5. Another way to put it: the job of EVERY democratic politician should be

to make sure that power flows down to the masses -- to the middle and working class, so that, as FDR knew, we have a stronger democracy and a stronger economy. The economy is the strongest when you have a large, wealthy, middle class which has choices and opportunity. And democracy is strongest when that happens. As John Edwards said at his Commonwealth Club speach, in the history of the word, when the middle class weakens, society falls apart.

Gay marriage (or at least, conferring all the legal rights of marriage on same sex couples) is right, because we know that people who are married are better accumulators of wealth and are more powerful thanks to all those rights (because of health insurnace, tax free transfers of wealth on death of a spouse, and about 150 other legal rights).

And not legislating an environment which guarantees wealth flows to real estate developers, rather than down to citizens is right for the same reasons.

Had the green party won, they would have done the right thing on gay marriage and also on real estate development because their unifying theme is mine: which direction does wealth and power flow? Up or down?

Newsome might not have that unifying theme. His unifying theme might be, "I have to make money for my cronies, but I can't do it in a liberal city unless I throw people like DTH a few bones to cover my tracks."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. Or It Might Be

"I'm a kickass Democrat with guts who will do the right thing, and moreover, I might be able to offer my vision, values and leadership even outside of a liberal enclave like SF."

DTH

[AP]

7. With one hand. With the other, transferring wealth up the ladder?

If that's good for you, go for it.

I have different standards.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. You Said You Had Doubts

And you've provided nothing concrete or specific showing Newsom is in fact doing what you fear he might (and you specifically used that word, might, as well) do.

I'm saying I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. You're saying you doubt him. Fine. Why don't we just wait and see? Maybe he will pleasantly surprise you.

DTH

[AP]

9. I said that this is what's said about him, but if you want proof...

...I'll take a look around.

I note that I wasn't the one professing incredible enhtusiasm for him, so I think the burden might be on you to do a little more reasearch before you fall head over heels.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. I Don't Agree With Any Politician on Every Issue

But I'll take one who agrees with me on most issues, and has courage and stands up for Democratic values, and is charismatic and electable, any day of the week.

DTH

[AP]

12. He has the "courage" to stand up for the interests of capital and

then blows smoke for single issue liberals.

Whoopee!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. We Live in a Capitalist Society

And I'm fine with that.

When you analyze wealth distribution patterns, Democrats are typically better on this issue than Republicans by a significant margin, although that's not saying a whole hell of a lot. But I accept incremental change. It's better than accelerating in the wrong direction.

And by the way, I'm not a single-issue liberal. I consider lots of issues, race, gender, sexuality, taxes, domestic policy among them. I'm just not elevating YOUR single-issue to the level of importance that you do.

DTH

[AP]

16. And the biggest threat to capitalism is the concentration of power in

the hands of a very narrow, self-interested group of people.

I'm all for capitalism, which is why I see a threat to it when, say, property developers get to make all the decisions, or, say, oil companies, or wall st banks.

When one interest wins over all others because they own the government, it isn't good for other players in the capital system, and it isn't good for capitalism.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. I Agree With That

I am just not sold on the idea that Newsom is in their pocket.

DTH

[AP]

18. Do some more research.

Perhaps if he wasn't blowing smoke about gay marriage, he would have fielded a few questions about it at your fundraiser.

Then again, maybe your fundraiser friends wouldn't have been too upset about that part of his persona.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Maybe Not

But then most of us aren't about cutting off our noses to spite our faces, just because we may not agree on every single issue as one of our pols.

DTH

[AP]

21. Who are cutting off their noses?

Don't worry. No amount of criticism of Gavin Newsom is going to result in a Republican becoming mayor of SF.

However, with people like Gavin Newsom, they probably don't need to, because they're getting what they really want: that transfer of money.

And the wealth transfer is just "an" issue. It's THE issue.

The way I see it, people like you are hurting liberalism just because you side with people like Newsom on only one issue, gay marriage.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. Maybe in Your Mind

I happen to think that slamming good Democrats who -- arguably -- disagree with you on only one issue is harmful to Democratic interests.

And I agree with Newsom on a LOT more than just gay marriage. I just don't happen to view YOUR single most important issue as MY most important issue, and certainly not "the" single most important issue, objectively. If that makes me an enemy of liberalism in your mind, so be it.

Frankly, you sound a lot more "single-issue" in this discussion than me, IMO. I care about lots of issues, not just gay rights.

DTH

[AP]

24. Firstly, when did this become about me?

A lot of what I'm telling you is just the facts of the conflict between Newsom and progressives. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear it, but it's the truth.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's 'slamming' Democrats for me to state the facts.

Thirdly, what else do you agree with Newsom about? Above, I believe you said that you didn't know much about him.

Fouthly, why do you care about gay, womens, civil rights, etc., if it's not because you care about the core element of democracy which is power to the people (and not to super-wealthy corporate interests)?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. You Made It Personal Pretty Early in This Discussion

When you said people like me were hurting liberalism, and implying that people like me were clueless to your perceived "big" issue, and easily distracted by "bones" (which I personally find quite dismissive of the valid and legitimate concerns of the gay community, although I do not purport to speak for that community). And when you made snide comments implying that me and my fellow fundraiser attendees didn't care about the poor and middle-class.

I said I didn't know much about Newsom on the specific issue of real estate development. I know he supports affirmative action, abortion rights, gay rights, equal rights, and environmentalism. I know he's better on economic issues than most Republicans.

And that's good enough for me. If, as a result, you wish to claim the more liberal-than-thou mantle, go right ahead. I'll be happy to take a Democrat like Newsom, who is also charismatic and eloquent, any day of the week.

DTH

[AP]

27. It was your personal story, so it was hard to make it not about you.

As for me, I'm just trying to telly you what the state of the debate is between Newsom and progressives. That isn't about me.

You should reread your original post if you think I made this personally about you.

As for the issues you like Newsom on, trust me, you don't have to worry that someon who doesn't fit that description will become mayor of SF.

But you must know, or at least sense, that a big fight in CA is over how CA will collect taxes. You know that in CA, property tax is important. CA values property on the date of sale for the purpose of setting property tax. What that means is a lot of very big corporations pay taxes on multimillion dollar business properties that are a tiny fractions of the property tax a working class couple pays on their 500,000 starter home. Income tax may be sort of progressive in CA, but property tax burdens fall squarely on the middle class, and very lightly touch the wealthy.

In the recall election, Bustamante made a few statements about how that is wrong, and that CA needs to revisit property tax, and, furthemore, CA can't use the car tax to continue to make up the shortfall, but if it does, it has to be more progressive (so he proposed the exemption up to 20K, I believe).

Well, this is a big reason big business rallied around Arnold. They want that car tax to keep relieving them of the obligation to pay more fair and progressive property tax.

So, now the CA Democrats have this rising star you're promoting, and where do you think he's going to fall on this issue, which goes to the CORE of progress and liberalism in CA?

Guess, what? He's on the side of, um, gay rights, and a bunch of other single issues (of which many CA republicans are on the same side). But please don't talk about the core issues which relate to whether CA will have a healthy, educated, middle class, opportunity and choice-laden electorate who can continue to contribute to buliding a large, fair economy.

So, I'll vote for Newsom over Arnold and over ANY Republican. But, I'm also really worried about CA being a great place for middle class people to live and work, and I can tell you already, it's pretty obvious where Newsom has lined up on that issue.

[AP]

11. Connect the dots:

Meanwhile, Gonzalez should also be playing up two key facts about the agenda Newsom is putting forth in his campaign. As Steven T. Jones reports on page 15, Newsom loves to talk about his detailed platform – but when you actually examine it, the message is alarming. For one thing, Newsom proposes hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of new programs and projects – and never once explains how he's going to pay for it all. On the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, he's always opposed major new revenue sources that would help pay for expanded services: he opposed increasing the city's business tax, opposed the real estate transfer-tax hike, and opposed aggressive measures to bring public power to San Francisco (and $245 million in new cash for the city's coffers). Now, like President George W. Bush, he wants to cut taxes for the rich and spend money he doesn't have, which can only lead to huge and lasting budget problems.

Equally disturbing, Newsom proposes to "streamline" the city's planning and permitting processes. According to one of his policy briefs, he wants to "focus the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission on making decisions about overall planning policy" and "give planning staff broader authority to administer project review and approvals, reducing the total number of cases that must appear before the Planning Commission."

http://www.mattgonzalez.com/article.php?id=177

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. If He Has Truly Advocated for Tax Cuts for the Rich

Without even greater tax cuts for the poor and middle-class, then yeah, that would bother me a lot.

Although I don't really care all that much about the planning and permitting processes, frankly.

DTH

[AP]

14. More concrete (from same site)

Newsom's plan amounts to the repeal of one of the most significant – and popular – reforms of the district-elected supervisors: the decentralization of land-use planning authority and the increased public oversight of the process. Gonzalez should challenge Newsom directly and repeatedly on this: Was Newsom happy with the way planning decisions were made during the dot-com era? Does he like the idea of big developers and their lobbyists cutting backroom deals while neighborhood residents and small businesses are left entirely in the dark? Would he prefer that a small group of bureaucrats hired by the mayor decide who can build what, and where – without public hearings or public appeals?

Remember: If Newsom wants to reform city planning, he should have supported the measure that split Planning Commission appointments between the mayor and the district-elected supervisors. Instead, he opposed it.

[Neecy]

20. well, it's a long City tradition

I can't think of a single SF mayor in my lifetime - and I'm thinking hard - who hasn't acted as a paid broker between the city and the developers. A possibly more gruesome example than Newsome is Feinstein, who was an excellent servant of downtown interests.

Still, he's new and let's see what he actually does. I'll say something that probably won't be terribly popular with you - at least he's making an effort to make SF a 'liveable' place for working and middle class people by his approach to the homeless problem. I used to be sympathic to their plight until they created a tent city in upper Noe and in the course of a couple of months turned entire city blocks into a sleazy, debris-infested haven of broken booze bottles, discarded dirty needles, schizophrenics off their meds, nightly fistfights and vehicle break-ins. I was a longtime resident of San Francisco and got out last year because I was no longer safe in my overpriced, ghettoized neighborhood.

[AP]

22. Some would say he's scapegoating the homeless.

Ok, one thing this Newsom did, IIRC, was object to a housing ordinance which would have allowed more than two unrelated people to live in rental property, or somethign like that (it wasn't that specifically).

The point of the law was to let more middle and working class people share an apartment. This would have helped LOTS of people who aren't homeless, and who aren't disruptive save money in a city where rents were incredibly high. It would have helped people who HAVE jobs live CLOSER to work so that they could have more free time to enjoy life.

Who would object to that? Well, a guy who exists to make the wealth real estate development community wealthier.

[Neecy]

26. hmmm

I'm not sure what this law was, as I know quite a few unrelated people who live more than two to an apartment in the city. I don't know of any law that doesn't allow for working and middle class people to share an apartment.

I do imagine, however, that there's some law on the city books that doesn't allow you to cram 15 people soviet-style into a one-bedroom apartment.

I spoke to a few of my homeless 'neighbors' and asked them why they didn't avail themselves of housing vouchers or public shelters. The more sane ones told me they couldn't drink/drug in shelters, the more unstable ones couldn't even handle a resident hotel (I'm talking about the ones who had psychotic episodes at the MUNI stop, or who suffered from hallucinations and delusions - which was most of them).

We aren't talking about down-on-your-luck homeless people - they can and do take advantage of the programs in place. The ones that are being 'scapegoated' are those with severe mental or substance abuse problems who simply won't buddy up in apartments and live happily ever after. I don't know what the answer is, but nothing has worked in the past. All I know is that walking my dog at night was like taking my life into my hands.

[AP]

28. I'm sure walking your dog at night was unpleasant, but I'm not

aware of many murders committed by homeless people.

The way people talk about homeless people, it sort of reminds me of the way people used to talk about white flight.

[Neecy]

29. tell you what...

I would have gladly changed places with you in the 18 months that the tent city existed (and as far as I know, still exists). After a year and a half of having your sleep disrupted (fighting, radios blaring, someone vomiting under your window, tortured, hellish cries of those suffering from hallucinations) and then trying to stay awake at the job you have to keep so you can be a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen who can afford an outrageous rent wasn't a lot of fun. And there was never a break. This went on every night, all night.

I wonder if your thoughts would be different if you had these guys exposing themselves to you to urinate or defecate as you picked your way through broken glass on the sidewalk, or had one of them scream at you that he didn't have the privacy required to masturbate. I wonder what your tolerance level would be as your car insurance rates (already high) skyrocketed because your car had been vandalized twice, once for a half-empty bottle of Pepsi inside.

No, I wasn't murdered (obviously) but given the level of mental illness living all around me it was a matter of time before I or one of my neighbors suffered an assault or worse. Is this a situation you would subject yourself to on a daily basis? Somehow, I doubt that after a year and a half of it, NONSTOP, you'd be making smarmy comments about 'white flight'. Walk a mile in my shoes and then judge.

[AP]

30. It's hard being middle class sometimes.

And it's harder to be poor.

I'm not sure that having a mayor who does the bidding of the real estate developers is the solution to the problem you describe.

[Neecy]

31. uh-huh

I don't apologize for working for a living or objecting when my neighborhood is turned into a shithole. I'm funny like that.

This has nothing to do with the developer issue - which, by the way, I don't disagree with you about - it's that at least he's willing to try a different approach to what has clearly been a problem for decades. If that approach seems harsh to you or scapegoating, I once might have felt that way as well before The Nighmare on Elm Street Part II began. I got out. Problem solved for me. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears.