2011-11-27 "Vallejo seniors combat hunger with community help" by Jessica A. York from "Vallejo Times-Herald"
[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/rss/ci_19420539]
* Soup for Seniors
Canned/dry soup -- drop-off at Area Agency on Aging, 575 Sacramento St. in Vallejo, or at Vallejo Together meetings, Thursday nights 6 to 8 p.m., 1017 Tennessee St.
---
They came in quietly in twos or threes to find a smiling welcome and a free bag of canned soup and crackers.
The first Soup for Seniors giveaway at the Area Agency on Aging was launched Nov. 16, with little fanfare, but volunteers gave away almost 360 containers of soup in the event's first hour.
"There's a lot of seniors that need extra help with food, and not just in the winter," event organizer Maria Guevara, of Vallejo Together, said at the giveaway. "But in the winter, they get sick and it's cold ..."
California statistically has the most seniors in the country, and Vallejo has the most and poorest seniors in the county, said Florence Douglas Senior Center Executive Director Vicky Conrad. And resources for seniors are only getting thinner, as federal, state and city funding for seniors is cut, even as the U.S. government is expanding its definition of poverty, Area Agency on Aging Direct Services Supervisor Anne Payne said.
The new federal calculation method shifts millions of seniors below the poverty line by incorporating out-of-pocket medical costs in their expenses.
An estimated 20 percent of Solano County seniors do not receive enough income to meet basic needs without assistance, according to the Solano County Status Report on Seniors 2008.
Today's poor economy worsens the problem, Payne said. "There's more poverty, people are losing their homes, losing their retirement -- some of it's just heartbreaking. We want people to remain
Advertisement
independent as long as possible," Payne said. "We're working with a (senior) woman who's living in her car, because her time has run out at the shelter."
The Area Agency on Aging, which serves seniors regardless of income level, is joining forces with Vallejo Together to chip away at local seniors' hunger issues by offering the donated soup once a month. The giveaways are scheduled for 10 a.m. to noon on the third Wednesday of each month, and will be dependent on public donations, Guevara said.
For the November event, 360 containers of soup were collected through the joint efforts of Vallejo Together, Hand Maids of the Lord, Emmanuel Apostolic and St. Basil The Great.
"It's good -- it's helpful to us," senior citizen Clarita Alberto said, peering into a plastic bag handed to her at the soup giveaway.
Her friend Cora Baulino nodded in agreement, saying she liked the soup provided.
Guevara said holding the soup giveaway at nonprofit agency's 575 Sacramento St. office is a great opportunity to connect seniors with services of which they might not have been aware.
Guevara called the Area Agency on Aging a "treasure trove of information." Payne said the new partnership has been nothing but beneficial to the Agency, as well. When seniors come for the soup, they may not need the nonprofit organization's referral, educational and case management services, but they will become aware of its availability for later on, Payne said.
The Area Agency on Aging serves both Solano and Napa counties, but is housed in Vallejo and is most utilized by Vallejo residents, Payne said.
Most senior clients are likely more familiar with the many direct-service organizations that the agency helps fund, like Meals on Wheels Solano County -- for which the Area Agency on Aging provides 65 percent of its annual funding
It also distributes funding to the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano County and other programs.
For more information on senior services, visit the Area Agency on Aging at 575 Sacramento St., call (707) 644-6612, or go online at www.aaans.org.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Occupy Ozcat!!! Occupy Vallejo!! Vallejo Occupy for Liberty?
Vallejo now has 3 different Occupy movements... "Occupy Vallejo", "Vallejo Occupy for Liberty", and now "Occupy Ozcat 89.5fm KZCT":
2011-11-26 "Top o' the morning" from "Vallejo Times-Herald":
OCCUPY OZCAT
December 10, 2011 at 6:00pm until December 17, 2011 at 5:00am
"A fundraising drive to keep free speech and music alive in the Bay!"
We are facing "FORECLOSURE" at Vallejo's first and only FM Station.
Stand in solidarity with OCCUPY OZCAT, Radio 89.5 FM KZCT and The Occupy Movement!
Join us as WE fight foreclosure at 1104 Georgia St. in Vallejo, California and provide an opportunity for the Occupy Wall Street movement to take over the Airwaves here at Ozcat!
Bay Area Occupy Movements, Artist, Performers, Musicians and Community leaders are encouraged to come by and Occupy OZCAT!
We are accepting your much needed DONATIONS in any size $1 and beyond. Everything counts! CALL 707.652.5775 TO DONATE!!!!
---
Dec 9, 2011 Occupy Oakland's Ragga-Rapper Ras Ceylon with special guest TBA
---
DEC. 10th VALLEJO’s OWN CADAZONE~ CD Release Party! “Hood Funk 3” Join us for a Night of Homegrown Hip Hop and Reggae Vibes as Ozcat Radio Broadcast Live on 89.5FM. Cadazone will be joined by local favorite's Skunk Funk Soundsystem. This night will also feature Aria De Jardins who toured with KRS-ONE. Cadazone will be joined by Rappers Resolution and Major Blaine as well.
---
DEC. 14th World Music Wednesday Night: Live Broadcast
Come celebrate Trevor Lyon's 2011 Release,"1st Degree" hosted by Ozcat Radio 89.5FM and Broadcast Live featuring Ras Indio from Belize, Ms.Lacy, and Ancient Mystic. Sponsored by Stiky Tips and Indigenous Productions
---
DEC 16th Occupy Ozcat Vallejo Powered by Universal B-boy Clothing
2v2 B-boy/B-girl battle CASH PRIZE $200
Vendors: Universal Bboy Clothing , ILLAmentals, and Social Villains
DJ Mighty DJ Delrokz (All Tribes SF Zulu Nation/UBC)
Dj Chuy (El Supreme Kartel), DJ FlashbackDJ, meONE
DULO DULO Videomagazine
All proceeds will help Ozcat stay in the fight to keep Free Radio alive in the Bay Area!
$5 or sliding scale. 1104 Georgia St. Vallejo, California Starts@ 8pm~until we DROP!
Tonight is the night! We got Dr. Who and Cody White from Apex, Primitive Science, and Mizumo records headlining at 89.5FMOzcat Radio. Plus all Dionysus resident DJ's will be present droppin' bombs from 9 to 3am. Please be sure to join us and help support the Northbay underground as well as get down!
1104 Georgia St. Vallejo Ca
5$/sliding scale/donation at the door, everything goes to doing this again
9pm to 3am
All ages
The following messages were sent publicly to a variety of media outlets and Occupy organizers across the Northbay, and shows how a group called “Occupy for Liberty” preempted anybody else organizing as an “Occupy” gathering in Vallejo, and was hostile against anybody who did not adhere to a political philosophy similar to that of the “Libertarian Party”, engaging in thought-control over their membership.
After liquidating from their membership anyone associating with labor unions or "leftists", the "Vallejo Occupy for Liberty" participants proceeded to stop organizing, while their self-styled "leadership" made a claim on a "MoveOn.org" contact network established by another "Occupy Vallejo" organizer, instituting a spooktacular spectacle of snitchery and thievery... by the end of the whole process, which took only 2 months, "Vallejo Occupy for Liberty" succeeded in not organizing anything, their job done for as an organization, they disrupted rationale and order in the sustaining and organizing of an "Occupy Vallejo" movement... but I digress.
Later, "Occupy Vallejo" continued to organize a General Assembly for the 99% of Vallejo with participation by Labor Unions and all types of regular folks. No record of this phase in organizing exists by virtue of their committment to security against the kind of attacks sustained by the Occupy gatherings in Diablo Valley [northbayuprising.blogspot.com/2012/01/suppression-of-dissent-in-diablo-valley.html].
2011-11-19 “OWS in Vallejo-- contact list” message from G.M. to organizers for “Occupy Concord”, “Vallejo Occupy for Liberty”, “Occupy Napa”, “Occupy Richmond”:
Dear OWS in Vallejo:
So great to see you all today at OWS in Vallejo! ;-) Glad that the weather cooperated too.
Attached is a very initial contact list I just put for our incipient self-organizing group. As we grow larger, we will have to think of creative and effective ways to keep it up to date with minimal work on anyone's part. Frank and Ambika were creating a contact list too--- which is great. We'll collaborate soon, so as be as efficient as possible.
Today, we seemed to agree that the farmers market is a much more strategic place for us to build our movement. Even though there is much more traffic on Sonoma Bld. and Georgia, the center of the market seems to be better for our (still) fairly small group. It was also thought that having some hand-out(s) to give out would be good.
Loved to connect with the Vallejo Community Radio folks as they are a wonderful resource for outreach. A friend learned about today's event through a newspaper (a forget which one)--- so, anyone with any connections to the media... hey, feel free to find a way for them to publish something about our Saturdays, at 10:00AM at Vallejo's Farmers Market Occupy Wall Street in Vallejo.
Let's collaborate to double or triple (or more!) our group for higher impact of our cause.
I'll gladly play secretary role for the time being--- but, soon enough we may be able to rotate that role so that nothing is centralized on anyone. That is the great power of OWS--- we are all leaders and no one has control over the entire group.
My strong suggestion is that we commit to non-violence and collaboration in public (and not!) Heated arguments (as opposed to exchange of opposing perspectives) and conflicts will hinder our ability to grow... and we definitely want to grow larger and stronger, right?!!! ;-)
In solidarity, G.M., Ed.D.
---
2011-11-20 “Re: OWS in Vallejo-- contact list” message from “Vallejo Occupy for Liberty” organizer Christine Brown [cmacukas@hotmail.com] to organizers for “Occupy Concord”, “Occupy Vallejo”, “Occupy Napa”, “Occupy Richmond”:
First of all, it is Occupy for Liberty. Our group documents are found on our site, and I will add them to this message. I am the administrator. It is my job to do the work and I have a committee-we are not going to change or rotate roles. We operate extremely efficiently. Occupy Vallejo is an offshoot of O4L- I am an administrator along with Cam Richards and Paul Wiggins.
Our platform includes the legalization of marijuana. we stand firm on this issue and I have 8 co-administrators on the Occupy for Liberty site, including Lord Andrew Barnham, who is oversees administrator. We have over 1000 members and are worldwide. Vallejo Occupy for Liberty has over 100 members. Right now, we are efficient as possible. I took on administrative duties when we had 8 members and have built this group from scratch.
G.M., we are not OWS- we are Occupy for Liberty:
This group has been formed to show the world what is really happening as our rights are being eroded.
As Justice Learned Hand once said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."
The objective of our group is :
1. We believe that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and should not have to defend these rights against the police and/or the government The justice must have been reflecting on our "certain inalienable rights" which is "rightful liberty" in which each member of our society has without exception.
2. We will work together with respect and integrity.
3. We are here to promote equality, civility towards others and peace.
4. We are here to make sure no one should have to go to jail or be subjected to police brutality for attending a political protest.
5. We believe everyone has the right to a job, food, medical care and a decent home.
6. We are here to support each other in the various Occupy movements.
7. We find relief from some of the worst diseases like cancer and MS with natural properties of the cannabis plant. Therefore it fits under the "Pursuit of Happiness" & under the concept of "Liberty" in that having good health is within our liberty and pursuit covered in the Constitution and as such protected as a "rightful liberty unobstructed" by any agency of the government. Cannabis kills cancer don't let your government kill your liberty to survive.
8. Therefore, we believe in the legalization of industrial hemp and marijuana in order to create jobs and be used medicinally and/or recreationally.
9. We believe that the collective information and technology that has been and will be created and discovered by humanity should be free to every individual for their personal use and for the progress of the human race as long as it does not directly or intentionally harm any individual or group of individuals
[additional sent later in the hour:]
I apologize cause I slipped up in my last coment re OWS. We are an adjunct to OWS, such as Occupy oakland.
G.M. was condescending to me, we are a well-established group -and I mistated the last sentence.
[signed] Christine Macukas
---
2011-11-20 “Re: OWS in Vallejo-- contact list” message from “Occupy Vallejo” organizer M. to organizers for “Occupy Concord”, “Vallejo Occupy for Liberty”, “Occupy Napa”, “Occupy Richmond”:
i appreciete G.M.’s organizational skills, and I welcome her help. We all can figure out a way to work together. Perhaps should have a meeting, to establish roles and duties that each one of us can volunteer to perform.
[signed] M.C.
---
2011-11-20 “Re: OWS in Vallejo-- contact list” message from “Vallejo Occupy for Liberty” organizer Christine Brown [cmacukas@hotmail.com] to organizers for “Occupy Concord”, “Occupy Vallejo”, “Occupy Napa”, “Occupy Richmond”:
We are working together. We already have our roles and duties established on the higher level, and are working to create levels of leadership based on a sliding scale within in OUR groups. You [G.M.] and [M.C.] are nothing but trolls trying to break up the ranks within our solidarity. We do not need your help nor do we ask for it. You were not there when it was born, and you certainly will have no say on how this baby is raised.
I have forwarded this to some of the people who are very important within this group.
It is always your choice to stand with whom ever you want to stand with. We respect all of your views and opinions and respect that all need to find their way in this movement
But I WILL NOT STAND with [M.C.] and [G.M.]
[signed] Christine Macukas R.N./ Julianna Kohley secretarial muse
---
2011-11-20 “Re: OWS in Vallejo-- contact list” message from “Occupy Vallejo” organizer M.C. to organizers for “Occupy Concord”, “Vallejo Occupy for Liberty”, “Occupy Napa”, “Occupy Richmond”:
Wow. I had no idea, I put out the first Occupy Together.org invite that their was already a group started. I am truly sorry to cause such hostility that was not my intention. I just wanted to part of the OWS movement in my hometown of 40+ years. It makes me sad that you saying that I am unwanted. I just thought I could help in any way needed. I have valuable connections with media and international Unions that could help facilitate trips to DC, etc. I deeply apologize if I have offended anyone.
The people that I have spoken too at the protests that I have attended, seem to share my frustrations with the political process, I assumed that I was welcome by The group. I TAKE GREAT OFFENSE BY THE "Troll" comment. I am nobody's troll. I am a proud United Steel Worker, recording secretary, and Women of Steel Coordinator of my Local Union. I just wanted help and be involved in a local Occupy movement. I will continue to invite people to stand with me to fight Corporate Greed.
[signed] M.C.
---
2011-11-20-2300 “SOLIDARITY APPEAL TO OCCUPY VALLEJO” message from “Occupy Concord” organizer FRH to organizers for “Occupy Vallejo”, “Vallejo Occupy for Liberty”, “Occupy Napa”, “Occupy Richmond”:
Brothers & Sisters of the Occupy Vallejo Movement,
Hi. This is Frank from the MDS [Movement 4 a democratic Society] & "Occupy Concord".
We met you folks after our Northbay MDS meeting on Sat. Some of our members were excited to meet other social justice activists in the Vallejo area. We already have a relationship to Ozcat Radio thru Northbay MDS members.
I have noticed the internal conflict with in this group as soon as I started getting the E-mails.
I think I can speak for MDS/SDS when I say that this divisiveness is not helpful, particularly in a small and isolated new group.
We in the 99% must find creative ways to work together; sometimes we will have to agree to disagree.
If we don't find ways to be inclusive and open, we will never be large and strong enough to win against the organized power and wealth of the 1% and thus we will be defeated before we start.
Our strength will be in our unity.
In MDS/SDS we have a saying, "Unite & Fight, Don't Divide & Hide".
Please sisters and brothers let’s find a way to get beyond proprietary squabbles and avoid name calling.
There should be plenty of room in our movement for members of the 99% with love for different progressive issues, we need to be tolerant of each other.
MDS/SDS really wants to work with you folks and help to build an open, inclusive, democratic, grass roots, growing “Occupy Vallejo" movement that can establish solidarity relationships with the other "occupy” movements we are working with in Concord, Antioch, Richmond, Oakland, Martinez, Napa & Berkeley.
We would like to offer our services in anyway possible to work thru this problem and re-establish some kind of unity in the group.
We have several activists in Vallejo that have been organizing around OWS type issues for years.
Perhaps we could help mediate this dispute and resolve this conflict.
Then we could get on to the main issue of organizing the 99% in a United Front.
Please let us know if we can be of any help? is there a Vallejo meeting planned?
Today at the Concord General Assembly we decided to organize a 2nd "Occupy Concord" Rally & March on Sat., Dec.17 @ noon @ Todos Santos Plaza.
We hope "Occupy Vallejo" can come out to speak and 'represent' on that day , perhaps that could be a project that could bring some working unity to the group ?
WE ARE THE 99%
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
[signed] FRH
Occupy Concord, activist
Diablo Valley MDS
Diablo Valley College SDS, community advisor
Oscar Grant Committee, founding member
Former DVC Student Body President [1996]
Retired Teamster # 283, shop steward [Detroit]
[http://occupyvallejo.org]
Friday, November 25, 2011
2011-11-25 "Occupy SF plans to hold feast on bocce ball courts" by Vivian Ho from "San Francisco Chronicle" newspaper
[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-25/bay-area/30443453_1_harvest-feast-protesters-camp-organizers]
While Occupy protesters in San Francisco didn't plan a Thanksgiving celebration, camp organizers are working to put together a Harvest Feast today.
The feast will most likely be held on the bocce ball courts that run down the middle of the camp on Justin Herman Plaza, said Nate Paluga, who gives tours of the camp.
About 100 protesters remain at the camp, and Glide Memorial Church members set aside about 400 meals to feed the protesters after the group's annual dinner at its location on Ellis Street, which fed an estimated 4,000.
Glide members packed up the serving station at about 2 p.m., cleaning up the tables under a canopy next to the camp's large white kitchen tent. Members of the camp helped themselves to the leftovers, as others meandered about, going in and out of tents.
The encampment on Justin Herman Plaza is the last camp left for Occupy SF after police raided and dismantled the camps in front of the Federal Reserve Bank on Market Street and One Market Street. Protesters braced themselves for a raid at the Justin Herman camp last week after the city's public health officials declared the site a public health nuisance.
So far, police have not raided the camp. Paluga said the protesters hope that the police, as well as the mayor and other city officials, will join their Harvest Feast.
Occupy San Francisco protesters are served a turkey dinner provided by Glide Memorial Church at Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2011.
Credit: Jeff Chiu
[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-25/bay-area/30443453_1_harvest-feast-protesters-camp-organizers]
While Occupy protesters in San Francisco didn't plan a Thanksgiving celebration, camp organizers are working to put together a Harvest Feast today.
The feast will most likely be held on the bocce ball courts that run down the middle of the camp on Justin Herman Plaza, said Nate Paluga, who gives tours of the camp.
About 100 protesters remain at the camp, and Glide Memorial Church members set aside about 400 meals to feed the protesters after the group's annual dinner at its location on Ellis Street, which fed an estimated 4,000.
Glide members packed up the serving station at about 2 p.m., cleaning up the tables under a canopy next to the camp's large white kitchen tent. Members of the camp helped themselves to the leftovers, as others meandered about, going in and out of tents.
The encampment on Justin Herman Plaza is the last camp left for Occupy SF after police raided and dismantled the camps in front of the Federal Reserve Bank on Market Street and One Market Street. Protesters braced themselves for a raid at the Justin Herman camp last week after the city's public health officials declared the site a public health nuisance.
So far, police have not raided the camp. Paluga said the protesters hope that the police, as well as the mayor and other city officials, will join their Harvest Feast.
Occupy San Francisco protesters are served a turkey dinner provided by Glide Memorial Church at Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2011.
Credit: Jeff Chiu
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
2011-11-23 "As police watch, Occupy Oakland leaves lot" by Matthai Kuruvila, Justin Berton and Kevin Fagan from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-23/bay-area/30436161_1_tents-protesters-move-new-phase]
While a phalanx of police in riot gear watched silently from across the street late Tuesday night, about 200 Occupy Oakland protesters cleared out a camp they'd maintained all day on a lot in West Oakland, but that wasn't the end of it.
It took about an hour to tear down the 25 tents and move them, some chairs and a food station to the sidewalk. Once that was accomplished at about 9:30 p.m. the police left. About half of the protest crowd also left, but then at about 10:15 p.m., the remaining 50 or so went back onto the lot to mill around, set up at least one tent and begin chanting slogans.
"We will not be defeated!" one man yelled through a bullhorn. Several members of the group said they intended to leave soon and plan their next move today, but others said they were considering staying on the lot.
"We thought the owner wanted us here, but I think maybe she didn't know what she was getting into and changed her mind," Occupy activist Leo Ritz-Barr said as he cut a huge "Occupy Oakland" banner off the fence surrounding the lot at 18th and Linden streets. "We'll find another action.
"The encampments aren't the most important part of our work, and we can find other ways to fight for people to stay in their homes. If anything, this shows how hard it is to help them," he said.
Police gave the group a warning to clear the lot at about 8:30 p.m., protesters said via Twitter.
Earlier Tuesday, the woman who owns the lot said the group had moved in without her permission and that she wanted them out.
"I have asked them to leave," said Gloria Cobb, who owns the lot. "They won't leave. I can't afford to stop work and physically go down there."
Activists had said late Monday that Cobb gave them permission to set up their tents, but Cobb denied that.
"No, it is not the case," said Cobb, the sister of longtime activist and Oakland Post Publisher Paul Cobb.
About 25 tents and a food station had gone up since late Monday, when Occupy Oakland's general assembly voted to take up residence on the grassy patch of land, which is surrounded by a chain-link fence.
Police spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson said Gloria Cobb contacted the department Tuesday and was in the process of signing a form to allow officers to enter the property.
Watson said the intention was to give the Occupiers, who had already numbered around 50 by mid-afternoon, a chance to leave. If they declined, officers would arrest them on suspicion of illegally entering private property, she said.
New phase -
Caitlin Manning, an organizer, said the move onto foreclosed property was a new phase in Occupy activists' protests against economic inequality.
"This is the first attempt to take over property that belongs to the 1 percent - the banks - and give it back to the people," Manning said.
Records show that Cobb was served a default notice in August and has until Dec. 11 to right the loan before the property returns to the lender, Wells Fargo bank. The parcel includes a residential building, but neighbors said the lot has gone unused since at least 1980.
Manning said the protesters had picked the location because they'd been told Cobb approved of their message. She expressed surprise when she learned of the owner's request for them to leave.
"That's a complete change in tune," Manning said.
Residents on the street offered varying degrees of interest in their new neighbors.
Jahmal Elliott, who lives across the street, said it was good to see the empty space being used. "As long as they don't bother me, I'm not trippin,' " Elliott said.
Melvin Welch, who lives next to the encampment, said no one had told him the tents were going in, despite protesters' statements that they had met with neighbors ahead of time.
Welch said he was still trying to make sense of the sudden flood of people and media onto his front porch.
Throughout the day, campers and supporters strolled onto the vacant lot, bringing tents, wooden pallets and food.
Thaddeus Guidry, 24, manned an opening to the lot through a tear in the chain-link fence, allowing in supporters and denying access to the media.
'It's going to go on' -
Told that Cobb did not want them squatting on her property, Guidry said he hoped she would visit them and was confident she'd want them to stay.
"Gloria is going to get on board," Guidry said. "If she doesn't, we're still going to do this movement. It's going to go on."
The camp went up less than a day after about 100 protesters were moved out of the last long-standing Occupy Oakland camp, in Snow Park near Lake Merritt. Demonstrators at the new site said they intended to camp for the foreseeable future.
"The community supports us," said Julion Lewis-Tatman.
Some in the neighborhood, however, were upset.
"They're just moving from spot to spot, and they're not accomplishing much," said Bobby Wilkerson, 61, a bus driver who has lived in the neighborhood his whole life. "They're messing with the people they're trying to help. They're not camping in front of corporations."
Occupy Oakland protesters set up an encampment on a vacant lot in West Oakland before they left late in the evening. Photo: Sarah Rice / Special to The Chronicle
Thaddeus Guidry serves as the site's gatekeeper, manning an opening in the fence and allowing supporters onto the lot.
Melvin Keley holds the Occupy Oakland sign at the group's new camp at 18th and Linden Streets. A small group of about 30 Occupy Oakland protesters set up camp at a vacant lot at the corner of 18th and Linden Streets in Oakland, Calif., on Monday night, November 21, 2011. They expect more to join them. Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle
[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-23/bay-area/30436161_1_tents-protesters-move-new-phase]
While a phalanx of police in riot gear watched silently from across the street late Tuesday night, about 200 Occupy Oakland protesters cleared out a camp they'd maintained all day on a lot in West Oakland, but that wasn't the end of it.
It took about an hour to tear down the 25 tents and move them, some chairs and a food station to the sidewalk. Once that was accomplished at about 9:30 p.m. the police left. About half of the protest crowd also left, but then at about 10:15 p.m., the remaining 50 or so went back onto the lot to mill around, set up at least one tent and begin chanting slogans.
"We will not be defeated!" one man yelled through a bullhorn. Several members of the group said they intended to leave soon and plan their next move today, but others said they were considering staying on the lot.
"We thought the owner wanted us here, but I think maybe she didn't know what she was getting into and changed her mind," Occupy activist Leo Ritz-Barr said as he cut a huge "Occupy Oakland" banner off the fence surrounding the lot at 18th and Linden streets. "We'll find another action.
"The encampments aren't the most important part of our work, and we can find other ways to fight for people to stay in their homes. If anything, this shows how hard it is to help them," he said.
Police gave the group a warning to clear the lot at about 8:30 p.m., protesters said via Twitter.
Earlier Tuesday, the woman who owns the lot said the group had moved in without her permission and that she wanted them out.
"I have asked them to leave," said Gloria Cobb, who owns the lot. "They won't leave. I can't afford to stop work and physically go down there."
Activists had said late Monday that Cobb gave them permission to set up their tents, but Cobb denied that.
"No, it is not the case," said Cobb, the sister of longtime activist and Oakland Post Publisher Paul Cobb.
About 25 tents and a food station had gone up since late Monday, when Occupy Oakland's general assembly voted to take up residence on the grassy patch of land, which is surrounded by a chain-link fence.
Police spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson said Gloria Cobb contacted the department Tuesday and was in the process of signing a form to allow officers to enter the property.
Watson said the intention was to give the Occupiers, who had already numbered around 50 by mid-afternoon, a chance to leave. If they declined, officers would arrest them on suspicion of illegally entering private property, she said.
New phase -
Caitlin Manning, an organizer, said the move onto foreclosed property was a new phase in Occupy activists' protests against economic inequality.
"This is the first attempt to take over property that belongs to the 1 percent - the banks - and give it back to the people," Manning said.
Records show that Cobb was served a default notice in August and has until Dec. 11 to right the loan before the property returns to the lender, Wells Fargo bank. The parcel includes a residential building, but neighbors said the lot has gone unused since at least 1980.
Manning said the protesters had picked the location because they'd been told Cobb approved of their message. She expressed surprise when she learned of the owner's request for them to leave.
"That's a complete change in tune," Manning said.
Residents on the street offered varying degrees of interest in their new neighbors.
Jahmal Elliott, who lives across the street, said it was good to see the empty space being used. "As long as they don't bother me, I'm not trippin,' " Elliott said.
Melvin Welch, who lives next to the encampment, said no one had told him the tents were going in, despite protesters' statements that they had met with neighbors ahead of time.
Welch said he was still trying to make sense of the sudden flood of people and media onto his front porch.
Throughout the day, campers and supporters strolled onto the vacant lot, bringing tents, wooden pallets and food.
Thaddeus Guidry, 24, manned an opening to the lot through a tear in the chain-link fence, allowing in supporters and denying access to the media.
'It's going to go on' -
Told that Cobb did not want them squatting on her property, Guidry said he hoped she would visit them and was confident she'd want them to stay.
"Gloria is going to get on board," Guidry said. "If she doesn't, we're still going to do this movement. It's going to go on."
The camp went up less than a day after about 100 protesters were moved out of the last long-standing Occupy Oakland camp, in Snow Park near Lake Merritt. Demonstrators at the new site said they intended to camp for the foreseeable future.
"The community supports us," said Julion Lewis-Tatman.
Some in the neighborhood, however, were upset.
"They're just moving from spot to spot, and they're not accomplishing much," said Bobby Wilkerson, 61, a bus driver who has lived in the neighborhood his whole life. "They're messing with the people they're trying to help. They're not camping in front of corporations."
Occupy Oakland protesters set up an encampment on a vacant lot in West Oakland before they left late in the evening. Photo: Sarah Rice / Special to The Chronicle
Thaddeus Guidry serves as the site's gatekeeper, manning an opening in the fence and allowing supporters onto the lot.
Melvin Keley holds the Occupy Oakland sign at the group's new camp at 18th and Linden Streets. A small group of about 30 Occupy Oakland protesters set up camp at a vacant lot at the corner of 18th and Linden Streets in Oakland, Calif., on Monday night, November 21, 2011. They expect more to join them. Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle
Note from Northbay Uprising:
The above photograph was originally published in the newspaper edition showing Melvin Keley facing down the "phalanx of police in riot gear" alongside other liberated Oak-folk, but this is entirely censored in the online edition as per the new editorial narrative directive to not show the Occupy movement as "under-dogs or martyrs" (as the public tends to sympathize with them)...
2011-11-23 "Top 5 FOX myths to debunk this Thanksgiving" from "MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION" [http://pol.moveon.org]
Americans are talking about the economy—a lot. They're talking about Occupy Wall Street and the Super Committee, about an economy that only works for the 1% and about unemployment.
But thanks to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, lots of talk about the economy means lots of misinformation about the economy.
MYTH #1: The congressional Super Committee failed because both sides refuse to compromise.
REALITY: The Super Committee failed because Republicans' number one, non-negotiable priority is to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying even one more penny in taxes. [1] Democrats repeatedly offered to make deep spending cuts—far deeper than most progressives would like—in exchange for raising taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes, only to be refused again and again. [2] So even though the vast majority of Americans say they want to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, and raise taxes on the rich and corporations, [3] that won't happen until Republicans put aside their extremist stance.
MYTH #2: Nobody knows what Occupy Wall Street is about.
REALITY: Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who's been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting—that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans—156 million people—combined. [4]
MYTH #3: Occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.
REALITY: As anybody who's looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren't jobs out there. That's a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings. [5] And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago. [6]
MYTH #4: Occupy Wall Street is intent on provoking violence, especially against banks and the police.
REALITY: Occupations across the country have committed themselves to nonviolent protest, in the greatest traditions of protest movements. Some of their protests have been met with acts of police violence—tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets [7]—but in many cases, protesters have reminded police that the police officers are part of the 99%, too. [8] And in the few cases when people have shown up at Occupy demonstrations and committed acts of vandalism, other protesters have even repaired their acts of vandalism. [9]
MYTH #5: The biggest crisis facing our country is out of control government spending.
REALITY: The two biggest drivers of our deficit—by far—are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. [10] We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work—rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies—it'll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich—who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917 [11]—pay their fair share.
Sources:
1. "No, 'both sides' aren't equally to blame for supercommittee failure," The Washington Post, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268071&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=4
2. "Wonkbook: In supercommittee, Dems moved right and Republicans moved righter," The Washington Post, November 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268072&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=5
3. "CNN Poll: What The Super Committee Produced Is...Exactly What We Don't Want," Talking Points Memo, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268073&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=6
"Medicare, Social Security & The Deficit," National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, September 2011
http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/poll.pdf
4. "Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Politifact Wisconsin, March 10, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268074&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=7
5. "Fact: 4 job seekers per opening in U.S.," CNN, September 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268075&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=8
6. "Median household income," Wikipedia, Accessed November 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268076&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=9
7. "Occupy movement: police reaction in pictures," The Guardian, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268077&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=10
8. "Occupy Demonstrators Mark Two Months of Protests," NPR, November 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268078&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=11
9. "Occupy Oakland protesters assist in cleanup efforts," News 10 ABC, November 3, 2011
http://www.news10.net/news/article/161383/2/Occupy-Oakland-protesters-assist-in-cleanup-efforts-
10. "Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 10, 2011
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
11. "Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY," The Huffington Post, September 14, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268079&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=12
Americans are talking about the economy—a lot. They're talking about Occupy Wall Street and the Super Committee, about an economy that only works for the 1% and about unemployment.
But thanks to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, lots of talk about the economy means lots of misinformation about the economy.
MYTH #1: The congressional Super Committee failed because both sides refuse to compromise.
REALITY: The Super Committee failed because Republicans' number one, non-negotiable priority is to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying even one more penny in taxes. [1] Democrats repeatedly offered to make deep spending cuts—far deeper than most progressives would like—in exchange for raising taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes, only to be refused again and again. [2] So even though the vast majority of Americans say they want to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, and raise taxes on the rich and corporations, [3] that won't happen until Republicans put aside their extremist stance.
MYTH #2: Nobody knows what Occupy Wall Street is about.
REALITY: Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who's been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting—that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans—156 million people—combined. [4]
MYTH #3: Occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.
REALITY: As anybody who's looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren't jobs out there. That's a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings. [5] And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago. [6]
MYTH #4: Occupy Wall Street is intent on provoking violence, especially against banks and the police.
REALITY: Occupations across the country have committed themselves to nonviolent protest, in the greatest traditions of protest movements. Some of their protests have been met with acts of police violence—tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets [7]—but in many cases, protesters have reminded police that the police officers are part of the 99%, too. [8] And in the few cases when people have shown up at Occupy demonstrations and committed acts of vandalism, other protesters have even repaired their acts of vandalism. [9]
MYTH #5: The biggest crisis facing our country is out of control government spending.
REALITY: The two biggest drivers of our deficit—by far—are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. [10] We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work—rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies—it'll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich—who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917 [11]—pay their fair share.
Sources:
1. "No, 'both sides' aren't equally to blame for supercommittee failure," The Washington Post, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268071&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=4
2. "Wonkbook: In supercommittee, Dems moved right and Republicans moved righter," The Washington Post, November 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268072&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=5
3. "CNN Poll: What The Super Committee Produced Is...Exactly What We Don't Want," Talking Points Memo, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268073&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=6
"Medicare, Social Security & The Deficit," National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, September 2011
http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/poll.pdf
4. "Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Politifact Wisconsin, March 10, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268074&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=7
5. "Fact: 4 job seekers per opening in U.S.," CNN, September 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268075&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=8
6. "Median household income," Wikipedia, Accessed November 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268076&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=9
7. "Occupy movement: police reaction in pictures," The Guardian, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268077&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=10
8. "Occupy Demonstrators Mark Two Months of Protests," NPR, November 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268078&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=11
9. "Occupy Oakland protesters assist in cleanup efforts," News 10 ABC, November 3, 2011
http://www.news10.net/news/article/161383/2/Occupy-Oakland-protesters-assist-in-cleanup-efforts-
10. "Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 10, 2011
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
11. "Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY," The Huffington Post, September 14, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268079&id=33208-4263750-Za0YQkx&t=12
2011-11-23 "Progressively Worse: The Tumultuous Rise and Acrimonious Fall of the City's Left" by Benjamin Wachs, Joe Eskenazi
[http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2876764/]
Illustration by Andrew J. Nilsen
Chris Daly was belittling his allies. His disgust was palpable. That could have been any Tuesday at City Hall, but moments later the lame duck supervisor would utter the words that serve as the YouTube epitaph to his political career: "It's on like Donkey Kong."
People remember that one. Nobody remembers the line that came before it, bemoaning progressive supervisors' inability to unite on a mayoral candidate instead of "caretaker" Ed Lee: "This is the biggest fumble in the history of progressive politics in San Francisco."
History has proven Daly a potty-mouthed Cassandra.
Even last year, people were talking about the city's "progressive machine." The welcome mat to City Hall was crafted locally, out of hemp. Progressive supervisors held a legislative majority and controlled the agenda. At last, crowed the Bay Guardian, progressives could install a mayor espousing "San Francisco values," now that Gavin Newsom was off to become Lieutenant Governor and look busy.
Nobody talks like that anymore.
Between lost elections and internal defections, the progressive bloc has been reduced from a reliable six-to-eight supervisors (a majority and occasional supermajority) to a solid three or four — John Avalos, David Campos, soon-departing Ross Mirkarimi, and Eric Mar. They lost control of legislative committees. Board President David Chiu is a progressive apostate who despises them only slightly less than they despise him. In this month's mayoral election, progressives were beaten by Lee, the man they helped put into power, but they are thrilled — thrilled — to have placed a distant second. Losing by less than you thought you would is the new winning, for progressives.
Daly was right. But the progressive fall from power was more than just a fumble. The whole playbook was flawed.
Ten years is a long time to hold a coalition together. Progressives' decade dominating the board was a hell of a run. While it's easy to focus on their foibles, progressives pushed through major changes that altered many aspects of city life. Even their opponents concede they could be effective legislators with big ideas.
But as the city changed, progressives didn't. Astoundingly, the city's dominant political coalition never developed an effective fundraising apparatus, never engaged in outreach beyond catering to the supporters it already had, and never created the kind of organization needed to run an effective citywide race. For a movement stocked with community organizers, they did remarkably little organizing. Avalos is just the latest progressive mayoral hopeful who "rallied the base" — and lost. But it's not Avalos' fault his predecessors didn't build a citywide organization on the way up, which would have made his run so much easier. Now, they're all on the way down.
So, yes, progressives fumbled. But their real problem was running only their favorite plays, in front of their own cheerleaders, not realizing they wouldn't win without moving the ball across the entire field.
Most political movements experience an identity crisis when they lose an election. Contemporary San Francisco progressives had an identity crisis when they won their first elections in 2000, and it's only gotten worse.
That's why, when you ask 10 different politicos "what's a progressive?" you'll get 10 different answers, depending on what day it is, who David Chiu had lunch with, and what Supervisor Jane Kim is wearing.
"Progressive" is a brand, a loose ideology, rather than an agenda or consistent set of beliefs, says Jim Ross, a moderate consultant who ran Newsom's 2003 mayoral campaign. It's also a recent coinage: Art Agnos is known as San Francisco's last progressive mayor — but back in 1987 he was a "liberal Democrat." Progressives "are a movement that would be called 'liberals' in other places," says Eric Jaye, Newsom's former longtime strategist. "But they don't want to be called 'liberals' here because liberals are the establishment."
That Democratic establishment was — and is — personified by former Mayor Willie Brown, and the blowback against the cronyism and runaway development of his administration united an odd coalition. Neighborhood-based politicians were backed by activists, most unions, and the city's endemic nonprofits. Serving as the movement's cajoling ward boss, kingmaker, and sounding board is the Guardian.
This is an eclectic group, one often bound not by mutual interests as much as mutual enmity — toward Brown, his successors, and the corporate interests of "downtown." As a result, progressive principles are often wildly inconsistent.
Progressives favor more government control over people's lives for their own good, as when they effectively banned McDonald's Happy Meals. But sometimes progressives say the government needs to let people make their own choices, as when they opposed Care Not Cash — which steered homeless people into social services and housing instead of doling out money. Progressives believe government should subsidize homeless people who choose to drink themselves to death, while forbidding parents from buying McNuggets because fast food is bad for us.
Neighborhoods weighing in on development is progressive. Neighborhoods weighing in on school choice is not. We can't explain that, and neither can they. "They never really wanted to line up an agenda," says Ross. "Because once they did, people would line up to oppose it."
Without consistent principles, it's easy to associate progressives with the craziest ideas to come out of City Hall, and the movement's bad ideas are memorable. Gerardo Sandoval insisting the United States doesn't need a military is a great bar story. Daly's pledge to say "Fuck" at every public meeting makes a killer Internet meme. Hey, let's legalize prostitution and outlaw plastic bags!
But when the progressives came into power in 2000, they weren't casting about for ideas. They had ideas. Big ones.
The legions of live-work lofts that transformed longstanding middle-class San Francisco neighborhoods into playgrounds for dot-com millionaires have been curtailed. Hiring the right permit-expediter used to allow a developer to build whatever, wherever. Now, the Market-Octavia and Eastern Neighborhoods plans have helped rationalize development. Supervisors make appointments to key bodies, such as the planning and police commissions, which were once stocked solely by the mayor. Limiting chain stores and mandating that developers fund or build affordable housing were controversial ideas a decade ago. Now they're as much a part of the city as clam chowder in a bread bowl. (Progressives also championed ranked-choice voting. Seemed like a good idea at the time.)
Yet today's San Franciscans do not view progressives' achievements as progressive accomplishments — because they're not remembered. They're so transfused into the city's lifeblood, it's as if citizens have forgotten someone had to put them there. Who remembers a zoning plan after a proposed moratorium on selling hamsters?
Progressives weren't consistent, but as long as they had a common enemy, they could stick together — and as long as they could stick together they could get things done.
"Each member of the class of 2000 came in as a pro-neighborhood, anti-Willie Brown candidate, and then we each also had our own ideas and areas of expertise," says former board President Aaron Peskin. To be a progressive, then, didn't mean that every supervisor — Peskin, Daly, Sandoval, Jake McGoldrick, Matt Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, and, on a good day, Sophie Maxwell — agreed on everything. They just had to agree to support one another on the board through great ideas, average ideas, and some of Sandoval's ideas, too.
By 2010, however, there was no sticking together. Progressives had tackled nearly every issue that spurred voters to choose them a decade ago. But instead of uniting the movement, its success tore it apart.
The paradox of a progressive political agenda is that a city must be rich to support the poor. By the onset of the 2000 "progressive revolution," San Francisco was in the throes of its most superheated economy since Sam Brannan shouted "There's gold in them thar hills!"
It took work not to find work. "Jobs were not on the agenda because jobs didn't have to be on the agenda ," recalls Peskin. The unemployment rate hovered at 3 percent.
By 2010, not only had the tech bubble burst, but the economy had collapsed. Unemployment in San Francisco has tripled; web developers moved back to their mothers' basements. "No mayor, no board of supervisors created the economic collapse of three years ago," Peskin says. "But that has had an impact on an electorate that is now financially frightened."
Even if progressives could convince voters worried about their jobs that this is the time to establish affordable-housing subsidies or make Muni free for kids, San Francisco's bloated budget and the economy's precipitous decline have formed a projected five-year shortfall exceeding $700 million — and that's the optimistic projection. All that's left to pay for big ideas are good intentions. City workers' pension and health care costs are soaring toward $2 billion a year, and good intentions aren't legal tender.
Progressive issues appeal to people concerned with gentrification or carbon offsets. But focusing on those sorts of issues is a luxury; today's electorate has more immediate concerns, like "Will my company go under?" or "Can I afford to live here?" Fairly or unfairly, most voters don't see a movement that talks about "economic justice" as being able to provide economic solutions.
"I don't think the city will elect someone they don't think will handle fiscal matters," says former mayoral candidate and board President Matt Gonzalez. "Anyone who will give labor anything it wants isn't deemed to be an appropriate candidate for mayor." Crossing labor is the closest progressives come to a cardinal sin. Despite Jeff Adachi's liberal laurels, championing pension reform earned him the eternal hatred of a unionized army, and progressive political exile.
San Francisco's "moderates" don't have a cunning plan to restore America's economy. But in politics, perception is reality — and whether they're talking about corporate tax breaks or luring new development, the things the Chamber of Commerce and the Committee on Jobs wanted to do all along are more closely associated with the issues that voters cling to in a time of economic crisis.
This is a serious problem, but not necessarily a permanent one. When the economy improves and the cry of "jobs, jobs, jobs" can't be used to justify anything, anything, anything, political observers say the progressiveswill be back.
But will their voters?
If the economy is the terrible shrimp cocktail served aboard the progressive Titanic, the city's shifting demographics are the iceberg.
"The left in San Francisco has a real disadvantage against the glacial forces of demography that are reducing the support for a progressive base," said S.F. State professor emeritus Rich DeLeon, the dean of local political scientists. "The progressive base in San Francisco is now a lot smaller than people still think it is."
Between 2000 and 2010, the city grew older (every age group over 50 increased), wealthier (there are now 58 percent more households earning $125,000 or more), and more heavily Asian (up from around 30 to nearly 35 percent of the city's population): exactly the groups progressives don't win with. These voters don't respond well to campaigns against developments or for city services, because they're often living in those developments and don't need city services.
Meanwhile, progressives' go-to voters went. Black people now make up barely 5 percent of the city; large swaths of the south of the city are heavily Asian. The number of San Franciscans aged 25 to 39 has plummeted; the iconic overeducated young people who knocked on doors for Gonzalez's 2003 mayoral campaign while living off their severance pay from TerribleIdeaForACompany.com are a distant memory. Many have gone elsewhere to raise families — or occupy something. When San Francisco priced out its working class, it priced out activists, too.
Progressives were relying on short-term residents as part of their long-term political strategy. Every year for the past decade, upward of 30,000 new residents moved here, yet the city's population has only grown by 28,000 during that time. Perhaps 20 percent of San Franciscans weren't here five years ago. The voters who remember the Willie Brown administration may not even crack 50 percent. They have no clear sense of what inspired progressives in the first place. To them, progressives are people wearing bicycle helmets in awkward Guardian cover photos.
Of course these new people are liberal — they moved to San Francisco. But for progressives, they're not the right kind of liberals. DeLeon says their liberalism is expressed through environmental concerns like global warming and local farming. They bring their own bags to the store and sip out of reusable bottles: They do their part. "They're out of sync with the core progressive values [like] homelessness and affordable housing." Gavin Newsom seems just as progressive to them as Chris Daly. And Newsom doesn't yell as much.
If not for Brown's overreaching, the city might have reached this political juncture long ago. "San Francisco may now be moving back to the point it was destined to go, driven by demographic change," DeLeon concludes.
Perhaps most ominously for progressives, these trends are about to be codified for the coming decade, as the city draws up new district lines. If progressives hope to avoid slipping into truly marginal status, you'd think they'd want to appeal to voters who live in today's real San Francisco, instead of an idealized version of yesteryear's.
But you'd also think they'd have done that during the 10 years they were in power.
Just before election day, voters in the Outer Sunset received calls from the David Chiu mayoral campaign.
"Did you know," a volunteer gushed, "that David doesn't own a car?"
People in the Outer Sunset own plenty of cars. What was this about? Did Davidneed a ride?
Progressives don't make it out of their neighborhoods much. Talking to new people is a work in progress. For the past decade, progressives have made attempt after attempt to assert San Francisco's role as a shining example to the nation's Midwest without ever bothering to win over the city's Midwest.
"No, traditionally, there has not been a lot of work that has been done out in the Sunset. That wasn't ground zero when it happened in 1999," Avalos says. It hasn't been on the radar since.
"You don't see them at the West of Twin Peaks Improvement Council. John Avalos is an earnest young fella — but you never see him here!" says former longtime westside Supe and state Sen. Quentin Kopp. Progressives "are too parochial. They are interested primarily in the district each represents."
"Rallying the base" of a minority movement can only take you so far; you have to reach out if you want to win new territory and its voters. Progressives didn't. In '99, Ammiano won Districts 5, 6, 8, and 9 in the mayoral race. In 2003, with four years to organize and build support, Gonzalez won Districts 5, 6, 8, and 9. Gonzalez won by much larger margins — the base was rallied — but the movement failed to make inroads into new territory. Avalos, for a change, won only Districts 5, 8, and 9 this year.
Progressives have long known that they can't ignore large swaths of the city in a mayoral race. Yet October's "Everywhere for Avalos" campaign blitz held virtually its entire cavalcade of events in Districts 5, 6, 8, and 9. The Richmond, the city's swing district, wasn't touched at all. Perhaps the mountain was supposed to come to Avalos.
Progressives "like hanging out where it's safe. That is their fundamental error," says Gonzalez. "I failed to reach out to a significant number of constituencies. Ammiano failed to do that. It's a lot easier staying in your comfort zone with people who think like you. John [had] a lot of fun talking to people who agree with him. It may feel good, but you don't cross the finish line in first place."
Asked what the key issues for progressives are in the coming decade, progressive godfather Ammiano answers "housing, health care, and schools, not necessarily in that order." But weren't those the key progressive issues of the last decade? "Yeah, that's right," acknowledges the assemblyman and former supe.
Rhetorically, the progressives are stuck on a three-hour tour. The Guardian has been flogging public power since Tesla invented the alternating-current generator. It stays on the progressive agenda because they put it there, along with taxing the rich, tapping downtown to subsidize Muni, and other measures aimed at helping San Francisco's increasingly imaginary working class. None of these are necessarily bad ideas, butelevating them into the Progressive 10 Commandments makes an infidel out of anyone who doesn't agree with you all the time. It doesn't age well, either. Proposing the same old solutions to every new problem turns policies into punchlines.
Voters aren't laughing. In 2000, polls indicated some 30 percent of the electorate chose the Guardian's "Clean Slate" candidates. This year, just 6,300 voters — 3.4 percent — voted the paper's 1-2-3 mayoral endorsements. This isn't just a pattern with citywide elections — last year only 890 voters followed the Guardian's proscribed 1-2-3 in left-friendly District 6. That's 4.2 percent.
Every newspaper in the country has less influence now than a decade ago — but not every newspaper is the explicit flagship of a political faction. Preaching to the same voters about the same issues, whether it's 2001 or 2011, is hardly "progressive." But, hey, did you know David Chiu doesn't own a car?
Expanding the base would have been easier when progressives had more to offer. For 10 years the city's left held firm legislative control of San Francisco — and, not insignificantly, voters of the day actually remembered Brown's tenure as "juice" mayor. It's a lot harder now that progressives can't shape the legislative agenda, and the city's pressing issues — jobs, pensions, deficits — are subjects that politicians beholden to labor and nonprofits would rather not broach.
Short of resurrecting Harvey Milk and teaching him Chinese, no progressive was going to win the mayor's race this year. Instead of being handed the keys to any sort of organized, citywide political network, Avalos was left to start one on his own. "Coulda, shoulda, woulda," he says gamely. "That organization either didn't exist or needed to be rebuilt."
It always has. Every few years, progressives realize that they don't have a citywide organization. Campaigns are organized, work is set in motion — and no significant progress is made. Then, after a few years, it happens again. "There is no sustained organization," notes DeLeon. "They do voter registration drives, they do it — and it's gone."
If progressives ever were to reach out — to westsiders or tenants politically right of the Tenants Union — what would they have to talk about? Quite a lot, actually: While in power, progressives achieved a number of important legislative successes and drove a vital conversation about how government in San Francisco should operate.
That could — even should — have translated into a growing movement. But during their time in power progressives repeatedly failed to capitalize on their own successes. Other people were better at claiming credit for progressive accomplishments.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" didn't appeal to Mayor Gavin Newsom. Rather than join the progressives, he took their best ideas and ran with them. The bête noire for the progressive movement is now best remembered for passing its agenda.
"Partially as a matter of strategy and partially as a matter of who Gavin was, the so-called moderate mayor co-opted most of the issues progressives used as their banner," says Jaye, Newsom's former Svengali. He smiles as he reels off the progressive positions that now highlight Newsom's resume: "Moderates as champions of marriage equality, moderates as champions of universal healthcare, moderates driving aggressive environmental legislation." Progressives couldn't win a mayoral election, "but they dominated the clash of ideas."
That's something they could have crowed about — "look, he's doing everything we stand for!" — but progressives never saw Newsom's plagiarism as a bragging point. Instead, they acted like the perpetual opposition. They sought to tussle with Newsom, no matter how trivial the subject. Low-level legislation — citywide WiFi, green building ordinances — was sunk or delayed interminably simply because it was Newsom's.
"Their mindset is oppositional. It's hard for them to declare victory," Jaye continues. To voters, it appears progressives would rather fight injustice than stop it.
Newsom and Jaye were happy to exploit that dynamic, and it was a fight progressives couldn't win. Newsom loosed a pack of spokesmen to savage progressives in public — and disseminate juicy tidbits on background — keeping the boss' hands clean. Peskin and Daly spoke for themselves — and sometimes too much. Few recall Newsom tweaking progressives by slashing funding to drug treatment facilities in 2007. But Daly responding with unfounded allegations about Newsom being a coke fiend? That got some press.
"A lot of times before [progressives] went off, I was poking them. That they took the bait 300 times in a row, that's on them," Jaye recalls. Voters "ascribed that drama more to progressives than to moderates, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly."
These slugfests rallied the progressive base — apparently in constant need of rallying — but repulsed others. Today it's reached the point where Ed Lee's mediocrity gets a pass because he doesn't argue in public. Progressives helped Newsom pull off the neat trick of leading a city that accepted progressive ideas while rejecting progressive politicians.
Some people, however, became attracted to the progressive movement — ambitious people.
By 2006, when progressives had proven they could get even Daly re-elected, candidates for supervisor in San Francisco were coming out of the woodwork to say they were "progressive." For this new crop of candidates, progressivism was a means of ascent.
That was a significant change. Politicians unconcerned with higher office have incentive to stick together to get things done; politicians who see their current job as a stepping stone have incentive to pull away to look distinctive. The supervisors elected alongside Peskin, he says, were "not on the hamster wheel of political advancement. [But] the 2008 and 2010 classes are politically ambitious. All of them."
A movement at a loss to define its ethos and principles was put in the hands of careerists without ethos or principles. David Chiu was excoriated in the Guardian for bucking the progressive line on appointing Lee, the Park Merced project, the massive Bayview/Hunters Point development, and the Mid-Market "Twitter tax break." But without a clearly defined agenda, to what principles are Chiu and others supposed to swear allegiance? Is demanding unity for unity's sake good enough? Evidently not.
Peskin recalls: "After the '08 election, before they took office, I sat all of four of them down" — new progressive Supervisors Chiu, Campos, Avalos, and Mar — "and said, 'The four of you need to stick together.'" They didn't. "Choose your vote; someone's always getting peeled off. The blame on that does not just rest at David's feet. It's on all of them."
If you're scoring at home, progressives' ideas were appropriated by the mainstream, their identity was appropriated by their most divisive leaders, and their future was appropriated by a new kind of progressive — strivers.
All they knew how to do was rally that shrinking base.
In politics, it's easy to mistake winning elections for competence. The progressives' collapse seemed so sudden because a string of electoral victories masked their growing vulnerability.
When progressives captured control of the Democratic County Central Committee in 2008, it was seen as the final cog in the movement's machine. In a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-to-1, awarding favored candidates the official party endorsement makes a difference. In '08, if you were a progressive, you won.
But rather than the dawn of a new era, it was a last hurrah. First-time voters infected with Obama-mania punched the straight Democratic ticket — which was also a straight progressive ticket. It's a turnout of the like San Francisco may never see again. But the progressives' unity evaporated, and without a battalion of "surge voters," every DCCC/progressive candidate lost in 2010. Then came the ascension of Lee, the biggest fumble in the history of San Francisco progressive politics.
Progressives aren't toxic — Ross Mirkarimi eked out victory in the sheriff's race. But Mirkarimi was an established politician, with name recognition and major endorsements, facing two relatively unknown opponents in a down-ticket race. It was also a Pyrrhic victory; the moderate Lee will appoint Mirkarimi's successor as supervisor of District 5 — the most progressive in all San Francisco.
At the end of 2011, progressives are facing an existential challenge. The economy is brutal, demographics bode poorly, and identity politics is resurgent in San Francisco. A decade ago, ideology trumped identity — a downtown slate of gay and minority candidates was demolished by the mostly white, male progressives. That's history. If progressives have trouble articulating their message to each other, it's even harder in Cantonese.
Progressives have two choices. Either they can learn new tricks, reach outside of their comfort zone, and create a stable organization — or they can wait and hope that history repeats itself. If the economy improves and Ed Lee really is Willie Brown 2.0, San Francisco voters may rise again.
Is the mayor the progressives' last, best hope? It remains to be seen if Ed Lee gets it done.
[http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2876764/]
Illustration by Andrew J. Nilsen
Chris Daly was belittling his allies. His disgust was palpable. That could have been any Tuesday at City Hall, but moments later the lame duck supervisor would utter the words that serve as the YouTube epitaph to his political career: "It's on like Donkey Kong."
People remember that one. Nobody remembers the line that came before it, bemoaning progressive supervisors' inability to unite on a mayoral candidate instead of "caretaker" Ed Lee: "This is the biggest fumble in the history of progressive politics in San Francisco."
History has proven Daly a potty-mouthed Cassandra.
Even last year, people were talking about the city's "progressive machine." The welcome mat to City Hall was crafted locally, out of hemp. Progressive supervisors held a legislative majority and controlled the agenda. At last, crowed the Bay Guardian, progressives could install a mayor espousing "San Francisco values," now that Gavin Newsom was off to become Lieutenant Governor and look busy.
Nobody talks like that anymore.
Between lost elections and internal defections, the progressive bloc has been reduced from a reliable six-to-eight supervisors (a majority and occasional supermajority) to a solid three or four — John Avalos, David Campos, soon-departing Ross Mirkarimi, and Eric Mar. They lost control of legislative committees. Board President David Chiu is a progressive apostate who despises them only slightly less than they despise him. In this month's mayoral election, progressives were beaten by Lee, the man they helped put into power, but they are thrilled — thrilled — to have placed a distant second. Losing by less than you thought you would is the new winning, for progressives.
Daly was right. But the progressive fall from power was more than just a fumble. The whole playbook was flawed.
Ten years is a long time to hold a coalition together. Progressives' decade dominating the board was a hell of a run. While it's easy to focus on their foibles, progressives pushed through major changes that altered many aspects of city life. Even their opponents concede they could be effective legislators with big ideas.
But as the city changed, progressives didn't. Astoundingly, the city's dominant political coalition never developed an effective fundraising apparatus, never engaged in outreach beyond catering to the supporters it already had, and never created the kind of organization needed to run an effective citywide race. For a movement stocked with community organizers, they did remarkably little organizing. Avalos is just the latest progressive mayoral hopeful who "rallied the base" — and lost. But it's not Avalos' fault his predecessors didn't build a citywide organization on the way up, which would have made his run so much easier. Now, they're all on the way down.
So, yes, progressives fumbled. But their real problem was running only their favorite plays, in front of their own cheerleaders, not realizing they wouldn't win without moving the ball across the entire field.
Most political movements experience an identity crisis when they lose an election. Contemporary San Francisco progressives had an identity crisis when they won their first elections in 2000, and it's only gotten worse.
That's why, when you ask 10 different politicos "what's a progressive?" you'll get 10 different answers, depending on what day it is, who David Chiu had lunch with, and what Supervisor Jane Kim is wearing.
"Progressive" is a brand, a loose ideology, rather than an agenda or consistent set of beliefs, says Jim Ross, a moderate consultant who ran Newsom's 2003 mayoral campaign. It's also a recent coinage: Art Agnos is known as San Francisco's last progressive mayor — but back in 1987 he was a "liberal Democrat." Progressives "are a movement that would be called 'liberals' in other places," says Eric Jaye, Newsom's former longtime strategist. "But they don't want to be called 'liberals' here because liberals are the establishment."
That Democratic establishment was — and is — personified by former Mayor Willie Brown, and the blowback against the cronyism and runaway development of his administration united an odd coalition. Neighborhood-based politicians were backed by activists, most unions, and the city's endemic nonprofits. Serving as the movement's cajoling ward boss, kingmaker, and sounding board is the Guardian.
This is an eclectic group, one often bound not by mutual interests as much as mutual enmity — toward Brown, his successors, and the corporate interests of "downtown." As a result, progressive principles are often wildly inconsistent.
Progressives favor more government control over people's lives for their own good, as when they effectively banned McDonald's Happy Meals. But sometimes progressives say the government needs to let people make their own choices, as when they opposed Care Not Cash — which steered homeless people into social services and housing instead of doling out money. Progressives believe government should subsidize homeless people who choose to drink themselves to death, while forbidding parents from buying McNuggets because fast food is bad for us.
Neighborhoods weighing in on development is progressive. Neighborhoods weighing in on school choice is not. We can't explain that, and neither can they. "They never really wanted to line up an agenda," says Ross. "Because once they did, people would line up to oppose it."
Without consistent principles, it's easy to associate progressives with the craziest ideas to come out of City Hall, and the movement's bad ideas are memorable. Gerardo Sandoval insisting the United States doesn't need a military is a great bar story. Daly's pledge to say "Fuck" at every public meeting makes a killer Internet meme. Hey, let's legalize prostitution and outlaw plastic bags!
But when the progressives came into power in 2000, they weren't casting about for ideas. They had ideas. Big ones.
The legions of live-work lofts that transformed longstanding middle-class San Francisco neighborhoods into playgrounds for dot-com millionaires have been curtailed. Hiring the right permit-expediter used to allow a developer to build whatever, wherever. Now, the Market-Octavia and Eastern Neighborhoods plans have helped rationalize development. Supervisors make appointments to key bodies, such as the planning and police commissions, which were once stocked solely by the mayor. Limiting chain stores and mandating that developers fund or build affordable housing were controversial ideas a decade ago. Now they're as much a part of the city as clam chowder in a bread bowl. (Progressives also championed ranked-choice voting. Seemed like a good idea at the time.)
Yet today's San Franciscans do not view progressives' achievements as progressive accomplishments — because they're not remembered. They're so transfused into the city's lifeblood, it's as if citizens have forgotten someone had to put them there. Who remembers a zoning plan after a proposed moratorium on selling hamsters?
Progressives weren't consistent, but as long as they had a common enemy, they could stick together — and as long as they could stick together they could get things done.
"Each member of the class of 2000 came in as a pro-neighborhood, anti-Willie Brown candidate, and then we each also had our own ideas and areas of expertise," says former board President Aaron Peskin. To be a progressive, then, didn't mean that every supervisor — Peskin, Daly, Sandoval, Jake McGoldrick, Matt Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, and, on a good day, Sophie Maxwell — agreed on everything. They just had to agree to support one another on the board through great ideas, average ideas, and some of Sandoval's ideas, too.
By 2010, however, there was no sticking together. Progressives had tackled nearly every issue that spurred voters to choose them a decade ago. But instead of uniting the movement, its success tore it apart.
The paradox of a progressive political agenda is that a city must be rich to support the poor. By the onset of the 2000 "progressive revolution," San Francisco was in the throes of its most superheated economy since Sam Brannan shouted "There's gold in them thar hills!"
It took work not to find work. "Jobs were not on the agenda because jobs didn't have to be on the agenda ," recalls Peskin. The unemployment rate hovered at 3 percent.
By 2010, not only had the tech bubble burst, but the economy had collapsed. Unemployment in San Francisco has tripled; web developers moved back to their mothers' basements. "No mayor, no board of supervisors created the economic collapse of three years ago," Peskin says. "But that has had an impact on an electorate that is now financially frightened."
Even if progressives could convince voters worried about their jobs that this is the time to establish affordable-housing subsidies or make Muni free for kids, San Francisco's bloated budget and the economy's precipitous decline have formed a projected five-year shortfall exceeding $700 million — and that's the optimistic projection. All that's left to pay for big ideas are good intentions. City workers' pension and health care costs are soaring toward $2 billion a year, and good intentions aren't legal tender.
Progressive issues appeal to people concerned with gentrification or carbon offsets. But focusing on those sorts of issues is a luxury; today's electorate has more immediate concerns, like "Will my company go under?" or "Can I afford to live here?" Fairly or unfairly, most voters don't see a movement that talks about "economic justice" as being able to provide economic solutions.
"I don't think the city will elect someone they don't think will handle fiscal matters," says former mayoral candidate and board President Matt Gonzalez. "Anyone who will give labor anything it wants isn't deemed to be an appropriate candidate for mayor." Crossing labor is the closest progressives come to a cardinal sin. Despite Jeff Adachi's liberal laurels, championing pension reform earned him the eternal hatred of a unionized army, and progressive political exile.
San Francisco's "moderates" don't have a cunning plan to restore America's economy. But in politics, perception is reality — and whether they're talking about corporate tax breaks or luring new development, the things the Chamber of Commerce and the Committee on Jobs wanted to do all along are more closely associated with the issues that voters cling to in a time of economic crisis.
This is a serious problem, but not necessarily a permanent one. When the economy improves and the cry of "jobs, jobs, jobs" can't be used to justify anything, anything, anything, political observers say the progressiveswill be back.
But will their voters?
If the economy is the terrible shrimp cocktail served aboard the progressive Titanic, the city's shifting demographics are the iceberg.
"The left in San Francisco has a real disadvantage against the glacial forces of demography that are reducing the support for a progressive base," said S.F. State professor emeritus Rich DeLeon, the dean of local political scientists. "The progressive base in San Francisco is now a lot smaller than people still think it is."
Between 2000 and 2010, the city grew older (every age group over 50 increased), wealthier (there are now 58 percent more households earning $125,000 or more), and more heavily Asian (up from around 30 to nearly 35 percent of the city's population): exactly the groups progressives don't win with. These voters don't respond well to campaigns against developments or for city services, because they're often living in those developments and don't need city services.
Meanwhile, progressives' go-to voters went. Black people now make up barely 5 percent of the city; large swaths of the south of the city are heavily Asian. The number of San Franciscans aged 25 to 39 has plummeted; the iconic overeducated young people who knocked on doors for Gonzalez's 2003 mayoral campaign while living off their severance pay from TerribleIdeaForACompany.com are a distant memory. Many have gone elsewhere to raise families — or occupy something. When San Francisco priced out its working class, it priced out activists, too.
Progressives were relying on short-term residents as part of their long-term political strategy. Every year for the past decade, upward of 30,000 new residents moved here, yet the city's population has only grown by 28,000 during that time. Perhaps 20 percent of San Franciscans weren't here five years ago. The voters who remember the Willie Brown administration may not even crack 50 percent. They have no clear sense of what inspired progressives in the first place. To them, progressives are people wearing bicycle helmets in awkward Guardian cover photos.
Of course these new people are liberal — they moved to San Francisco. But for progressives, they're not the right kind of liberals. DeLeon says their liberalism is expressed through environmental concerns like global warming and local farming. They bring their own bags to the store and sip out of reusable bottles: They do their part. "They're out of sync with the core progressive values [like] homelessness and affordable housing." Gavin Newsom seems just as progressive to them as Chris Daly. And Newsom doesn't yell as much.
If not for Brown's overreaching, the city might have reached this political juncture long ago. "San Francisco may now be moving back to the point it was destined to go, driven by demographic change," DeLeon concludes.
Perhaps most ominously for progressives, these trends are about to be codified for the coming decade, as the city draws up new district lines. If progressives hope to avoid slipping into truly marginal status, you'd think they'd want to appeal to voters who live in today's real San Francisco, instead of an idealized version of yesteryear's.
But you'd also think they'd have done that during the 10 years they were in power.
Just before election day, voters in the Outer Sunset received calls from the David Chiu mayoral campaign.
"Did you know," a volunteer gushed, "that David doesn't own a car?"
People in the Outer Sunset own plenty of cars. What was this about? Did Davidneed a ride?
Progressives don't make it out of their neighborhoods much. Talking to new people is a work in progress. For the past decade, progressives have made attempt after attempt to assert San Francisco's role as a shining example to the nation's Midwest without ever bothering to win over the city's Midwest.
"No, traditionally, there has not been a lot of work that has been done out in the Sunset. That wasn't ground zero when it happened in 1999," Avalos says. It hasn't been on the radar since.
"You don't see them at the West of Twin Peaks Improvement Council. John Avalos is an earnest young fella — but you never see him here!" says former longtime westside Supe and state Sen. Quentin Kopp. Progressives "are too parochial. They are interested primarily in the district each represents."
"Rallying the base" of a minority movement can only take you so far; you have to reach out if you want to win new territory and its voters. Progressives didn't. In '99, Ammiano won Districts 5, 6, 8, and 9 in the mayoral race. In 2003, with four years to organize and build support, Gonzalez won Districts 5, 6, 8, and 9. Gonzalez won by much larger margins — the base was rallied — but the movement failed to make inroads into new territory. Avalos, for a change, won only Districts 5, 8, and 9 this year.
Progressives have long known that they can't ignore large swaths of the city in a mayoral race. Yet October's "Everywhere for Avalos" campaign blitz held virtually its entire cavalcade of events in Districts 5, 6, 8, and 9. The Richmond, the city's swing district, wasn't touched at all. Perhaps the mountain was supposed to come to Avalos.
Progressives "like hanging out where it's safe. That is their fundamental error," says Gonzalez. "I failed to reach out to a significant number of constituencies. Ammiano failed to do that. It's a lot easier staying in your comfort zone with people who think like you. John [had] a lot of fun talking to people who agree with him. It may feel good, but you don't cross the finish line in first place."
Asked what the key issues for progressives are in the coming decade, progressive godfather Ammiano answers "housing, health care, and schools, not necessarily in that order." But weren't those the key progressive issues of the last decade? "Yeah, that's right," acknowledges the assemblyman and former supe.
Rhetorically, the progressives are stuck on a three-hour tour. The Guardian has been flogging public power since Tesla invented the alternating-current generator. It stays on the progressive agenda because they put it there, along with taxing the rich, tapping downtown to subsidize Muni, and other measures aimed at helping San Francisco's increasingly imaginary working class. None of these are necessarily bad ideas, butelevating them into the Progressive 10 Commandments makes an infidel out of anyone who doesn't agree with you all the time. It doesn't age well, either. Proposing the same old solutions to every new problem turns policies into punchlines.
Voters aren't laughing. In 2000, polls indicated some 30 percent of the electorate chose the Guardian's "Clean Slate" candidates. This year, just 6,300 voters — 3.4 percent — voted the paper's 1-2-3 mayoral endorsements. This isn't just a pattern with citywide elections — last year only 890 voters followed the Guardian's proscribed 1-2-3 in left-friendly District 6. That's 4.2 percent.
Every newspaper in the country has less influence now than a decade ago — but not every newspaper is the explicit flagship of a political faction. Preaching to the same voters about the same issues, whether it's 2001 or 2011, is hardly "progressive." But, hey, did you know David Chiu doesn't own a car?
Expanding the base would have been easier when progressives had more to offer. For 10 years the city's left held firm legislative control of San Francisco — and, not insignificantly, voters of the day actually remembered Brown's tenure as "juice" mayor. It's a lot harder now that progressives can't shape the legislative agenda, and the city's pressing issues — jobs, pensions, deficits — are subjects that politicians beholden to labor and nonprofits would rather not broach.
Short of resurrecting Harvey Milk and teaching him Chinese, no progressive was going to win the mayor's race this year. Instead of being handed the keys to any sort of organized, citywide political network, Avalos was left to start one on his own. "Coulda, shoulda, woulda," he says gamely. "That organization either didn't exist or needed to be rebuilt."
It always has. Every few years, progressives realize that they don't have a citywide organization. Campaigns are organized, work is set in motion — and no significant progress is made. Then, after a few years, it happens again. "There is no sustained organization," notes DeLeon. "They do voter registration drives, they do it — and it's gone."
If progressives ever were to reach out — to westsiders or tenants politically right of the Tenants Union — what would they have to talk about? Quite a lot, actually: While in power, progressives achieved a number of important legislative successes and drove a vital conversation about how government in San Francisco should operate.
That could — even should — have translated into a growing movement. But during their time in power progressives repeatedly failed to capitalize on their own successes. Other people were better at claiming credit for progressive accomplishments.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" didn't appeal to Mayor Gavin Newsom. Rather than join the progressives, he took their best ideas and ran with them. The bête noire for the progressive movement is now best remembered for passing its agenda.
"Partially as a matter of strategy and partially as a matter of who Gavin was, the so-called moderate mayor co-opted most of the issues progressives used as their banner," says Jaye, Newsom's former Svengali. He smiles as he reels off the progressive positions that now highlight Newsom's resume: "Moderates as champions of marriage equality, moderates as champions of universal healthcare, moderates driving aggressive environmental legislation." Progressives couldn't win a mayoral election, "but they dominated the clash of ideas."
That's something they could have crowed about — "look, he's doing everything we stand for!" — but progressives never saw Newsom's plagiarism as a bragging point. Instead, they acted like the perpetual opposition. They sought to tussle with Newsom, no matter how trivial the subject. Low-level legislation — citywide WiFi, green building ordinances — was sunk or delayed interminably simply because it was Newsom's.
"Their mindset is oppositional. It's hard for them to declare victory," Jaye continues. To voters, it appears progressives would rather fight injustice than stop it.
Newsom and Jaye were happy to exploit that dynamic, and it was a fight progressives couldn't win. Newsom loosed a pack of spokesmen to savage progressives in public — and disseminate juicy tidbits on background — keeping the boss' hands clean. Peskin and Daly spoke for themselves — and sometimes too much. Few recall Newsom tweaking progressives by slashing funding to drug treatment facilities in 2007. But Daly responding with unfounded allegations about Newsom being a coke fiend? That got some press.
"A lot of times before [progressives] went off, I was poking them. That they took the bait 300 times in a row, that's on them," Jaye recalls. Voters "ascribed that drama more to progressives than to moderates, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly."
These slugfests rallied the progressive base — apparently in constant need of rallying — but repulsed others. Today it's reached the point where Ed Lee's mediocrity gets a pass because he doesn't argue in public. Progressives helped Newsom pull off the neat trick of leading a city that accepted progressive ideas while rejecting progressive politicians.
Some people, however, became attracted to the progressive movement — ambitious people.
By 2006, when progressives had proven they could get even Daly re-elected, candidates for supervisor in San Francisco were coming out of the woodwork to say they were "progressive." For this new crop of candidates, progressivism was a means of ascent.
That was a significant change. Politicians unconcerned with higher office have incentive to stick together to get things done; politicians who see their current job as a stepping stone have incentive to pull away to look distinctive. The supervisors elected alongside Peskin, he says, were "not on the hamster wheel of political advancement. [But] the 2008 and 2010 classes are politically ambitious. All of them."
A movement at a loss to define its ethos and principles was put in the hands of careerists without ethos or principles. David Chiu was excoriated in the Guardian for bucking the progressive line on appointing Lee, the Park Merced project, the massive Bayview/Hunters Point development, and the Mid-Market "Twitter tax break." But without a clearly defined agenda, to what principles are Chiu and others supposed to swear allegiance? Is demanding unity for unity's sake good enough? Evidently not.
Peskin recalls: "After the '08 election, before they took office, I sat all of four of them down" — new progressive Supervisors Chiu, Campos, Avalos, and Mar — "and said, 'The four of you need to stick together.'" They didn't. "Choose your vote; someone's always getting peeled off. The blame on that does not just rest at David's feet. It's on all of them."
If you're scoring at home, progressives' ideas were appropriated by the mainstream, their identity was appropriated by their most divisive leaders, and their future was appropriated by a new kind of progressive — strivers.
All they knew how to do was rally that shrinking base.
In politics, it's easy to mistake winning elections for competence. The progressives' collapse seemed so sudden because a string of electoral victories masked their growing vulnerability.
When progressives captured control of the Democratic County Central Committee in 2008, it was seen as the final cog in the movement's machine. In a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-to-1, awarding favored candidates the official party endorsement makes a difference. In '08, if you were a progressive, you won.
But rather than the dawn of a new era, it was a last hurrah. First-time voters infected with Obama-mania punched the straight Democratic ticket — which was also a straight progressive ticket. It's a turnout of the like San Francisco may never see again. But the progressives' unity evaporated, and without a battalion of "surge voters," every DCCC/progressive candidate lost in 2010. Then came the ascension of Lee, the biggest fumble in the history of San Francisco progressive politics.
Progressives aren't toxic — Ross Mirkarimi eked out victory in the sheriff's race. But Mirkarimi was an established politician, with name recognition and major endorsements, facing two relatively unknown opponents in a down-ticket race. It was also a Pyrrhic victory; the moderate Lee will appoint Mirkarimi's successor as supervisor of District 5 — the most progressive in all San Francisco.
At the end of 2011, progressives are facing an existential challenge. The economy is brutal, demographics bode poorly, and identity politics is resurgent in San Francisco. A decade ago, ideology trumped identity — a downtown slate of gay and minority candidates was demolished by the mostly white, male progressives. That's history. If progressives have trouble articulating their message to each other, it's even harder in Cantonese.
Progressives have two choices. Either they can learn new tricks, reach outside of their comfort zone, and create a stable organization — or they can wait and hope that history repeats itself. If the economy improves and Ed Lee really is Willie Brown 2.0, San Francisco voters may rise again.
Is the mayor the progressives' last, best hope? It remains to be seen if Ed Lee gets it done.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
2011-11-22 "Occupy Police Brutality Compilation" uploaded to Youtube.com by occupyspirit
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45VGFgiFu7Y]
Occupy protestors kicked, punched, maced, assaulted and arrested for speaking up against corporate corruption
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45VGFgiFu7Y]
Occupy protestors kicked, punched, maced, assaulted and arrested for speaking up against corporate corruption
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
