The mayor and condo conversions

Who is the real Ed Lee? Condo vote could tell us

We all know how Mayor Ed Lee got his start as a tenant advocate, and we all know that every tenant group in the city is fighting bitterly to stop Sup. Scott Wiener's legislation that would allow more condo conversions. In fact, Randy Shaw, who has been Lee's number on cheerleader in San Francisco, came out strongly against the Wiener bill.

So what happens if Wiener gets six votes? Would the mayor, who has been been a lot more conservative than he was in his firebrand youth days, defy the entire tenant establishment, including a lot of his allies in Chinatown, and sign this disaster into law? And how would the Randy Shaws of the world respond?

I think everyone assumes the mayor, who has eyed condo conversion money in the past, is a supporter of the Wiener approach. But he's also playing with political fire here. Lee had some progressive cover with his Twitter tax break (Sup. Jane Kim helped lead the charge) and has tried to talk up "civility" and compromise at City Hall. But this one's a pretty clear line in the sand: Approving the Wiener bill will infuriate the tenant community and cement his position as a pro-developer, pro-landlord, pro-speculator mayor. It would be about the most divisive thing he could do to his fragile reputation as a moderate willing to work with all sides.

It's going to be a defining political moment for Sup. London Breed, too: If she goes against tenants in one of the city's most tenant-heavy districts, she's going to be on the defensive for the next four years.

Sup. David Chiu says he's trying to work out a deal that tenants could live with, which is probably a waste of time: I don't think there's any arrangement that will allow more condo conversions that could get any organized tenant support. You can put in all the modest tenant protections you want, but in the end, you're still talking about more evictions. 

No: This will be a battle royale, all the way to the bitter and, and the tenants won't forget who was on which side.



Does this one-time amnesty on lottery passes evict a single tenant?

The answer, of course, is no. Nor does it entail any future Ellis Act evictions since Ellis'ed buildings are, in any event, exempt from conversion.

Lee's real job here isn't to give a kneejerk affirmation of whatever the rabid tenants lobby says but rather to rationally assess whether their concerns are reasonable.

And in this case, they clearly are not.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 1:21 pm

Sound familiar anyone? Remember how much Tim wanted Olague to succeed but he was "concerned" about her ties to the mayor? Tim prayed for Olague's success every night - oh yes he did. It just broke his heart to not be able to endorse her. Now he's concern trolling London Breed. If she knows what's good for her she'll ignore The Guardian and try not to develop whiplash like poor Olague did.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

He really only did a 180 on her when:

1) Olague inexplicable pardoned convicted abuser Ross
2) Davis self-destructed by showing a similar level of disrespect towards women
3) Tim suddenly realized that Breed might win, which of course she did, skewering his political ambitions for the district.

Tim doesn't really have opinions; only tactics.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

I think his new boss got really pissed at him for the Davis endorsement. Tim had stated that he knew that there was smoke but chose not to find out if there was any fire in regard to Davis' past.

Why look for trouble regarding a Progressive golden boy? Eshkenazi did the actual work to reveal to reveal the specifics and Tim had to do as he was told at that point.

Posted by Troll on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

misdemeanors of those whom he ideologically supports. His kneejerk support of Ross is further confirmation of his tendency to make morality a prisoner of convenience.

Sans Uncle Bruce, Tim is a busted flush.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

Julian Davis was at one point Steven's bestie. They're no longer friends after the Guardian pulled its endorsement of poor Jules which ended his chances of winning the D5 seat and prolly of ever winning elected office in San Francisco, no matter what he runs for. The best our dear Jules can hope for at this point is a DCCC position but even that's prolly hoping for too much.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 4:28 pm

even a close one. How many people read the SFBG these days, except for the movie listings. 20? 30?

Julian's chances were 86'ed by Julian himself, his wayward dick and the eternal and seermingly irresistable desire in black guys to nail white women.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 4:46 pm

and in the next breath, you're spewing the most vile, racist crap imaginable? Troll, you are a hypocrite.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

in your most welcomed comment.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 5:17 pm

progressives in D5 to self-destruct.

Ross, Davis and Olague all made decisions that damned their careers. Ross and Davis thru abusive actions towards women, and Olague thru excusing them.

Enter Breed, stage right.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 5:46 pm

I live in District 9, where Campos ran unopposed. I appreciated the comment that called out the vile racist remark.

Gonzalez had a nice run as District 5 supervisor without "self-destructing" now that I think about it.

Posted by Eddie on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:08 pm

Lost in the mayoral race and then went, er, kinda weird.

For the record, I do not think that Davis was discriminatory in his sexual exploits, but rather that he was indiscriminating.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 7:23 pm

only white women?

I certainly didn't take it that way, but rather that there are natural correlations between who is attracted to whom, and racial characteristics have been known to feature in such predililections.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

Unfortunately it seems that feeling was not returned.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

problem than his merely wanting some white chick to feed his ego.

Being a "powerful man" only gets you do far with chicks, as Ross and Davis both discovered to their cost.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 5:48 pm

Ain't no evidence on the record that he was asked to stop. He made a move that some deem inappropriate and she did not respond. No evidence that he tried after she said no. Others might find the same move appropriate.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

Some of you white folks sure do have a problem with that black men/white woman thing.

I guess you're upset that Julian didn't show sufficient "gratitude" to Europeans for enslaving his ancestors.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 9:52 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 10:47 pm

you must be waaay back in the day, considering your knowledge of trivial shit that no one but you has ever heard of.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

understand that cultural reference, unless you have been really sheltered.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 2:11 pm

just googled it and then asked around online and on my cell. no one i know (mostly 20 somethings) ever heard of it.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

If I had to pick a black man who looked the least like Ken Norton, it would be JD.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

Apparently it WAS returned much more often than it was not, not that he enjoyed a success rate on the same order of magnitude as gay men, but it was a few orders of magnitude higher than most all het men. The higher the sample size, the greater the probability that one woman would object to that which many other women have no problem with.

It is not like the entirety of western literature isn't devoted to exploring the difficulty with which heteros find the pre-mating rituals.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

Call me paranoid.

China's Communist party cadres launch property fire sale

"As China's new leaders intensify a campaign to root out corruption, thousands of Communist party officials have been panicked into a fire sale of their illicit properties while billions of pounds have been smuggled overseas."

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2013 @ 3:20 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 05, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

This is about keeping a majority renter electorate. Lots of transients who aren't interested and have little or no investment in their community. The Not-for-Profit workers, the Randy Shaw's, and the politicians the own/support who make their money off of the homeless/tenants/illegals/poor will fight like hell anything that might skew the electorate toward the conservative side such as home ownership.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:02 pm

I couldn't have said it better, myself.

Posted by BigDave on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:14 pm

He cares about his power base because that is what keep him in a job.

Evictions and displacement move SF politics to the center and, for an extremist like Tim, that's very scary.

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:16 pm