{"id":5821,"date":"2014-05-05T08:26:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-05T16:26:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.fogcityjournal.com\/wordpress\/?p=5821"},"modified":"2014-05-07T15:27:38","modified_gmt":"2014-05-07T23:27:38","slug":"the-three-david-race-for-assemblymember","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fogcityjournal.com\/wordpress\/5821\/the-three-david-race-for-assemblymember\/","title":{"rendered":"The Three-David Race for Assemblymember"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Board

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu (left) and Supervisor David Campos (right) are vying to replace termed out Assemblymember Tom Ammiano in the hotly contested District 17 race. File photo by Luke Thomas.<\/p><\/div>\n

By Patrick Monette-Shaw<\/strong><\/p>\n

May 5, 2014<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t for a moment believe David Chiu\u2019s claim that there\u2019s little difference in the \u201cshades of blue [Democrats]\u201d between he and David Campos. Nor should you believe observers who ludicrously claim that there\u2019s very little difference in the voting records of Chiu and Campos. There are vast differences between the two candidates, not just ideological differences between them.<\/p>\n

I have followed with interest two recent guest editorials in San Francisco\u2019s Bay Area Reporter<\/em> (B.A.R.)<\/em> weekly newspaper concerning the upcoming election to replace termed-out California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. This is not a tale of two David\u2019s. It\u2019s a tale of three David\u2019s.<\/p>\n

No, make that four David\u2019s: Republican candidate David Carlos Salaverry is also running for Ammiano\u2019s Assembly seat, but Salaverry has no hope of winning, given that there are 287,333 registered voters in Assembly District 7 and only 6.61 percent of them are registered Republicans. That leaves three Democrat David\u2019s.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s one even-keeled David Campos. And then there is the mercurial and temperamental David Chiu, who appears to have an internal \u201cgood-David, bad-David\u201d disorder of two David\u2019s living in a single body.<\/p>\n

A Tale of Two Guest Editorials<\/strong><\/p>\n

When I read the guest editorial by the co-chairs of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in the B.A.R.\u2019s<\/em> April 10 issue in which they endorsed David Chiu, I had to laugh. Predictably, this irrelevant club \u2014 which Supervisor Scott Wiener formerly co-chaired \u2014 endorsed not only a highly conservative candidate who dubs himself a \u201cmoderate\u201d and straight, it did so based solely<\/em> on Chiu\u2019s credential as a mere \u201cally.\u201d This is the emptiest of logic, typical of the Alice Club.<\/p>\n

Gay Supervisor Scott Wiener\u2019s not<\/em><\/strong> endorsing gay candidate David Campos is a slap in the face. I venture a guess that Wiener\u2019s backing of a straight candidate over a gay candidate may make assassinated Supervisor Harvey Milk turn over in his grave. And I venture that the B.A.R.<\/em> will also probably dig up tortured logic and disingenuous reasons to also back a straight candidate over a gay candidate, further making Milk shiver in his cold grave.<\/p>\n

By endorsing the \u201cstraight ally\u201d candidate in this race, the Toklas Club\u2019s editorial cited not one piece of LGBT-related legislation actually authored by Chiu, instead justifying its endorsement of Chiu as a \u201creward\u201d for merely having \u201cstood by\u201d the LGBT community. The Toklas Club claimed Chiu is a \u201cmaster of the legislative process,\u201d but they neglected to mention he\u2019s also a master of subverting the legislative process when he so chooses (see discussion of the Park Merced deal and curtailing public comment, below).<\/p>\n

The Alice crowd doesn\u2019t seem to get it: Rewards are typically meant to reward actual leaders, not \u201cstood by-ers.\u201d<\/p>\n

A week later, the B.A.R.\u2019s<\/em> April 17 issue carried a second guest editorial co-authored by a broad coalition of Latino\u2019s, many of whom are LGBT, in which they endorsed Campos for the assembly seat. Throughout their well-argued guest editorial, the co-authors presented a whole host of reasons of why retaining the assembly seat with a gay or lesbian candidate who has a demonstrated track record in protecting the underrepresented, is crucial. They noted that Campos hasn\u2019t merely amassed a good voting record, which seems to be Chiu\u2019s sole qualification. Campos has instead led and championed many of the issues that directly impact the various constituencies within our LGBT communities. The amount of LGBT-related legislation Campos introduced \u2014 which Chiu merely \u201cstood by\u201d \u2014 is significant.<\/p>\n

As one example, the co-authors noted Campos co-authored legislation creating the LGBT Aging Policy Task Force. If Chiu was such a legislative \u201cleader,\u201d why hadn\u2019t he co-authored that particular piece of legislation? It\u2019s not likely that Chiu will author legislation in the Assembly to create a similar LGBT Aging Policy Task Force at the state level. The co-authors also noted it is offensive and disingenuous to rationalize support for Chiu \u2014 as the Alice Club guest editorial did \u2014 out of a desire to build broad coalitions with the proper \u201cconsensus tone,\u201d when such efforts are often done at the expense of underrepresented segments of our own LGBT communities.<\/p>\n

Out of one side of Chiu\u2019s mouth, we hear his claims of being a \u201cconsensus builder\u201d hell-bent on changing the \u201ctone of local government.\u201d But out of the other side of his mouth, Chiu has engaged in some potentially highly unethical behavior while Board President.<\/p>\n

Take Chiu\u2019s role in the Park Merced development deal. On November 1, 2011 the Sunshine Task Force issued an Order of Determination finding that Supervisor Eric Mar, Chair of the Land Use Committee, Board president David Chiu, and Land Use Committee members Supervisor Scott Wiener and Supervisor Malia Cohen had collectively violated several sections of the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to provide the public with copies of 14 pages of amendments to the Park Merced Development Agreement until just minutes before voting on the amendments.<\/p>\n

The amendments had been provided to the Board of Supervisors by Chiu in connection with an agenda item. Chiu allowed the introduction of last-minute, substantive changes to the agenda without adequate public notice. The four Supervisors were also cited for failing to publish a meaningful agenda adequately describing the substance of the agenda item involving the 14 pages of Park Merced amendments to fully and honestly inform the public, beforehand, about the nature of the proposed development deal\u2019s amendments. Trained at Harvard, Chiu must have known the agenda description was both deficient and dishonest.<\/p>\n

The Sunshine Task Force referred all four of these Supervisors to the Ethics Commission and to the District Attorney, citing willful failure (to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance) and official misconduct. That\u2019s when Chiu may have decided to \u201cget even\u201d by first eviscerating, and then delaying appointment of members to, the Task Force.<\/p>\n

Abuse of Discretion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Or take Chiu\u2019s all-too-frequent abuse of the Board of Supervisors\u2019 own Rules of Order. Board Rule 3.3 provides that \u201cCommittees shall consider only items which have been referred to them by the President, or by the Board, and which have been posted, published, and noticed.\u201d<\/p>\n

As recently as February 20, 2014, Chiu submitted a \u201cPresidential Action\u201d memo to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors transferring File Number 130374 dealing with lobbyist regulations from the Rules Committee to the Government Audit and Oversight Committee. The proposed changes to lobbying regulations should have been heard at the Rules subcommittee, which is charged under Board Rule 3.26 with hearing City Charter amendments and amendments to the Administrative Code (among other duties), but Chiu may have abused his discretion by transferring the proposed lobbying amendments to a more favorable Board subcommittee, the GAO committee, established in Board Rule 3.25.2 as a financial<\/em> subcommittee to hold hearings involving other categories of topics.<\/p>\n

Since Chiu is the highest-lobbied Supervisor on the Board, could he have transferred this lobbyist legislation to the wrong subcommittee for potential benefit of the lobbyists stuffing money into Chiu\u2019s campaign chest?<\/p>\n

This is just one example of the many times that Chiu has transferred an unknown, but significant, amount of legislation from a given committee defined in Board Rules as authorized to hold hearings, to other subcommittees. Notably, he\u2019s done so several times on items involving Laguna Honda Hospital, since Board Rule 3.27 stipulates any matters dealing with public health, the elderly, and the disabled are to be heard by the Neighborhood Services and Safety Committee, a subcommittee which Supervisor Campos chairs.<\/p>\n

Or take Chiu\u2019s treatment of members of the public who take time out of their schedules to attend hearings at City Hall. Chiu is well known among open-government and accountability activists for arbitrarily reducing the number of minutes each speaker is permitted to testify for, and for remotely turning off the microphone at the speaker\u2019s podium when he doesn\u2019t like the public testimony being presented. Chiu has gone so far as to have a well-behaved member of the public who was fully within his First Amendment, Free Speech rights escorted out of Board Chambers by a uniformed Sheriff \u2014 because Chiu didn\u2019t like the testimony being presented.<\/p>\n

Chiu is notorious for moving the public comment period around during meetings of the full Board, making it next to impossible to estimate at what time during the full Board\u2019s Tuesday meetings public comment will be consistently heard (rather than having a consistent, time-specific period, as it does for other Board business), forcing members of the public to wait unreasonable amounts of time, often late into the night, before they are allowed to speak. Chiu\u2019s utter contempt of people presenting public comment is legendary.<\/p>\n

In stark contrast, Campos always thanks members of the public for attending subcommittee hearings that Campos chairs. Campos \u201cactively listens\u201d to public testimony attentively, whereas Chiu frequently walks around Board Chambers during public testimony not actively listening to members of the public at all, all but ignoring their public testimony.<\/p>\n

Or take Chiu\u2019s role in delaying appointments to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Two years ago, Supervisor Scott Weiner single-handedly eviscerated the Task Force in May 2012 by refusing to permit the reappointment of Bruce Wolfe, the Task Force\u2019s then only disabled member. Wiener\u2019s meddling effectively shut the Task Force down for almost six months, because without replacement appointees, the Task Force lacked a quorum preventing it from meeting legally to conduct its business adjudicating disputes regarding public meetings and access to public records.<\/p>\n

Chiu should have stepped in and promptly resolved the matter, particularly if he expects anyone to believe he\u2019s a \u201cconsensus builder.\u201d But Chiu didn\u2019t lift a finger to intervene, instead choosing to let the people\u2019s business before the Task Force go unaddressed for months on end.<\/p>\n

Now two years later, three hold-over appointments from 2012 remain on the Task Force because the Board has refused to accept nominations from professional organizations identified in the Ordinance as responsible for nominating candidates. In addition, Chiu has permitted one of the Task Force seats to have remained vacant for now fully two years. The affect of the endless appointment delays has made it much more difficult for members of the public to have their complaints heard fairly by the Task Force in a timely manner. Perhaps that has been Chiu\u2019s ulterior motive: Building consensus by way of silencing complaints against City officials and departments.<\/p>\n

Here we are just one week away from the end of the terms of office for the ten Sunshine Task Force members who have served since 2012, and Chiu has not calendared on the Rules Committee agenda any hearings on new applicants to the Task Force. Chiu is running the risk of yet again forcing the Task Force to disband until it has a sufficient number of members to constitute a quorum to conduct the people\u2019s business. This is no accident. It appears to be a purposeful strategy of Board President Chiu. It\u2019s more like sabotage, rather than consensus-building. Is that who you want representing us in Sacramento?<\/p>\n

Notably, Chiu has taken no action to remove Task Force Member Todd David for excessive unexcused absences from Task Force meetings. Mr. David has missed six of the Task Force\u2019s last 13 meetings that were actually held and not cancelled \u2014 representing a staggering 46.2 percent absence rate. One of Todd\u2019s six absences was an excused absence; one other was due to illness. Task Force members are only permitted three absences in any rolling 12-month period, including excused absences.<\/p>\n

Mr. David was hand-picked by Supervisor Wiener and appointed to the Task Force in a highly unusual manner. David is hoping a non-profit organization he is involved with will be awarded approximately $4 million to create a new park \u2014 the Noe Valley Town Square \u2014 an expenditure the media have reported Wiener and Mayor Ed Lee appear to support.<\/p>\n

Mr. David is the president of Residents for Noe Valley Town Square, a purported \u201cpublic-private\u201d partnership that is actually a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity. Could it be that Chiu hasn\u2019t removed Todd David from the Task Force due to the pending award to the Residents for Noe Valley Town Square?<\/p>\n

All this time, Chiu has acted like Marie Antoinette, with a smug \u201cLet them eat cake\u201d attitude when it comes to appointments to the Sunshine Task Force, demonstrating utter disdain for members of the public seeking redress of complaints against their own government. Maybe this contempt is something Chiu learned at Harvard Law School, while Campos was learning empathy at Harvard Law School.<\/p>\n

The 1% vs.<\/em> 99% Endorsers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s the matter of endorsements for the two \u2014 or three \u2014 David\u2019s. Among endorsements for the two-Chiu David are Senator Diane Feinstein, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newson, former City Attorney Louise Renne, Supervisor Scott Wiener, the San Francisco Police Officers Association, and San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798, among others. These are the usual suspects in conservative democratic circles, illuminating Chiu\u2019s \u201cmoderation.\u201d Chiu is their go-to boy.<\/p>\n

Campos\u2019 endorsements include Public Defender Jeff Adachi; Former Supervisor Bevan Dufty; Former Mayor Art Agnos; President of the San Francisco Police Commission Thomas Mazzucco; Vice President of the San Francisco Police Commission Julius Turman; Chair of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission and Health Commissioner Cecilia Chung; Assembly Member Phil Ting; SEIU Local 1021; Unite HERE Local 2; United Educators of San Francisco (UESF); the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus; the Bernal Heights Democratic Club; the Sierra Club; the Chinese Progressive Association Action Fund; and the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, among many others. Campos\u2019 endorsements illustrate broad support for his progressive values. Campos\u2019 support includes us \u201cus-es.\u201d<\/p>\n

Supervisor Jane Kim\u2019s dual endorsements of both David candidates suggests that she\u2019s hedging her bets, knowing she\u2019ll need to curry political favor in the future from whichever of the two David\u2019s wins this Assemblyman election.<\/p>\n

Surprisingly, Supervisor Bevan Dufty \u2014 who is now Mayor Ed Lee\u2019s \u201chomeless\u201d czar and may face retribution from the Mayor for having endorsed Campos over Chiu \u2014 appears to have only endorsed David Campos, accordingly to the June voter guide. This is surprising, in part, because of Dufty\u2019s eleventh-hour vote switcheroo in January 2011 handing Ed Lee his appointment to become Mayor. We\u2019ll see whether the vindictive Mayor hands Dufty a pink slip for endorsing Campos, just as the Mayor reportedly refused to reappoint gay Health Commission president Jim Illig to the Health Commission, after Illig backed someone else other than Lee for mayor. That turned our \u201cconsensus mayor,\u201d into the \u201cvindictive mayor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Campos has had many legislative and advocacy victories too numerous to detail here. As chair of the Neighborhood Services and Safety Committee, Campos successfully prevented the Department of Public Health from privatizing the SFGH Renal (dialysis) Center, which had been unilaterally announced in a Request for Proposals to outsource the facility to a private entity who would have been required to move the dialysis center to Laguna Honda Hospital\u2019s campus. Had DPH\u2019s plan succeeded in moving dialysis services to Laguna Honda, it would have placed an undue transportation burden on critically-ill dialysis patients who would have faced fragmentation of their care from a single campus to multiple locations, requiring even more transportation time shuttling between campuses for various primary- and secondary-healthcare services.<\/p>\n

Campos stopped the dialysis privatization dead in its tracks. Chiu would likely have went along with DPH\u2019s privatization scheme, probably by employing the \u201csharing economy\u201d and \u201ccollaborative consumption\u201d lie (see below).<\/p>\n

Campos is also assisting in getting the Health Department to release data on out-of-county patient discharges over the past seven years, which has been fueled, in part by the hot housing market displacing the poor and elderly from residency in San Francisco, along with other San Franciscans facing the \u201chousing affordability crisis\u201d that Mayor Lee has been unable, or unwilling, to solve.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s doubtful that David Chiu would have assisted with either of these public-health, public-interest issues.<\/p>\n

Indeed, when Mayor Ed Lee struck a deal with CPMC to build its Van Ness Hospital, it was the combined leadership of Supervisors David Campos and John Avalos who successfully forced the Mayor into re-negotiating with CPMC to build its Cathedral Hill Hospital on Van Ness Avenue, and forced CPMC into committing that it would also rebuild St. Luke\u2019s Hospital in the Mission, which the Mayor appeared all too willing to allow CPMC to abandon.<\/p>\n

Although Chiu is credited for eventually assisting<\/em><\/strong> in negotiating a better deal for the City with CPMC, it was Campos \u2014 not Chiu \u2014 who led<\/em><\/strong> the charge in telling the Mayor \u201cnot so fast!\u201d accepting a lousy deal from CPMC. To the extent St. Luke\u2019s will continue to serve residents of the Mission District, it will be due to Campos\u2019 leadership \u2014 not Chiu\u2019s \u2014 that forced the Mayor to bargain a better deal with CPMC.<\/p>\n

Two David\u2019s and the Mirkarimi Affair<\/strong><\/p>\n

Campos and Chiu could not have been more different in their roles regarding the official misconduct charges Mayor Lee wrongly brought against Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.<\/p>\n

As previously reported, the Mayor relied on really stupid legal strategies against the Sheriff developed by Deputy City Attorney\u2019s Sherri Kaiser and Peter Keith, most probably with the concurrence of their boss, City Attorney Dennis Herrera. After the Ethics Commission threw out the official misconduct charges Lee initially filed against Mirkarimi, the Ethics Commission subsequently rejected all six of the amended charges Kaiser and Keith then substituted on behalf of the Mayor.<\/p>\n

In order to move the charges to the Board of Supervisors, the Ethics Commission hastily incorporated portions of the Mayor\u2019s amended counts four and five into a new hybrid charge just minutes before voting on August 19, 2012 depriving Mirkarimi and his lawyers of any opportunity to prepare a defense against an eleventh-hour new charge.<\/p>\n

The final, single charge against Mirkarimi was so vague that even Ethics Commission president Ben Hur feared that such a broad definition of \u201cofficial misconduct\u201d would invite too much political mischief. Hur, also a Harvard Law School graduate, was the only Commissioner on the five-member Ethics Commission who voted against finding Mirkarimi guilty of official misconduct, on a 4-1 vote.<\/p>\n

When the Ethics Commission then referred the case to the Board of Supervisors for final action, it was only then that Berkeley-educated Supervisor Jane Kim began astutely asking the right questions.<\/p>\n

Kim, a civil rights attorney in her own right, is a graduate of Stanford University with a bachelor\u2019s degree in political science. She went on to obtain her law degree from the UC Berkeley School of Law.<\/p>\n

During the Board\u2019s misconduct trial against the Sheriff, Supervisor Kim peppered Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Keith with a whole host of pointed, lawyerly-like questions concerning whether Kaiser\u2019s answers would then open up the City to the \u201cvagueness issue,\u201d making a clause in the City Charter unconstitutional because any and all City employees \u2014 whether or not an elected official \u2014 would not be able to reasonably predict when their behavior would be official misconduct or not. Honing in on the \u201cstandard of decency\u201d clause added to the Charter in 1995, Kim noted that any standard of decency may change over time, depending on who is appointed to the Ethics Commission, who has been elected to the Board of Supervisors, and who is the elected Mayor, opening up the question of whether the definition is too vague for anyone to determine what is, or isn\u2019t, official misconduct.<\/p>\n

That was the end of Ms. Kaiser and the Mayor. When the Board of Supervisors voted, it mustered just seven votes against Mirkarimi, two votes shy of the nine votes required to sustain the single silly charge against Mirkarimi forwarded to the Board by the Ethics Commission, with Commissioner Ben Hur\u2019s dissent. All of the ensuing drama barking up the wrong tree in the Mirkarimi affair cost taxpayers over $1.3 million in City Attorney expenses mounting a fruitless witch hunt. Berkeley-trained lawyer Jane Kim stopped the virtual speeding bullet unfairly aimed at Mirkarimi, while Harvard-trained lawyer David Chiu turned a blind eye to the unethical Kafkaesque trial.<\/p>\n

Chiu voted to \u201cconvict\u201d Mirkarimi. Campos did not, after Jane Kim raised compelling legal concerns that appear to have sunk in on Campos. Now, Chiu is trying to turn his unethical, misguided vote against Mirkarimi selectively against Campos, but not against Ms. Kim. Why Chiu would raise such quibbles against Campos, while simultaneously granting Kim a free pass on the Mirkarimi vote and handing her Chiu\u2019s endorsement, will end up backfiring on him, if Chiu\u2019s campaign advisors keep trying to make the Mirkarimi vote at the Board a wedge issue in the Assembly race.<\/p>\n

Comically, when Harvard Law School graduate Scott Wiener sensed the Board of Supervisors would not reach the nine-vote threshold to find Mirkarimi guilty, Supervisor Wiener asked during the final hearing whether the Board could then reject the single charge creatively developed by the Ethics Commission and make up a new charge right on the spot, as if there was no need to have the Ethics Commission weigh in on a new<\/em><\/strong> last-minute charge developed by the Board of Supervisors. If the Board could have done that, why did the City bother involving the Ethics Commission at all? How comical can Wiener get?<\/p>\n

Harvard Law School-trained lawyer David Campos sided with Berkeley School of Law-trained Jane Kim; both voted against the single charge leveled at Mirkarimi as too unconstitutionally-vague. Apparently, Chiu is quite comfortable maintaining constitutional vagueness. Is this what we want from elected Assembly members? I know I don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

For his part, David Chiu chose to side with the constitutionally-vague Mayor and Ms. Kaiser, and the unethical Ethics Commission. Perhaps Kim paid attention, awake, during a Berkeley lecture on constitutional vagueness, as Campos appears to have done while at Harvard. Commissioner Hur also appears to have been awake during the hypothetical Harvard lecture concerning constitutional vagueness.<\/p>\n

This leaves many observers wondering whether David Chiu slept through that class, or just skipped attending the lecture, and never learned that constitutional vagueness<\/em> is not<\/em><\/strong> what voters expect from Assembly candidates seeking election to represent them in Sacramento. Maybe Wiener slept through, or skipped, that class, too. Thank goodness two of the four Harvard Law graduates \u2014 Campos and Hur \u2014 attended and didn\u2019t sleep through the constitutional vagueness lecture, as Wiener and Chiu appear to have. I guess two out of four isn\u2019t so bad, but it\u2019s disturbing that Harvard cranks out half of its law school graduates having different legal understanding of the definition of \u201cconstitutional vagueness.\u201d<\/p>\n

Contrasting In-Their-Own-Words, Side-by-Side \u201cSelfies\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, the Bay Times<\/em> also ran front-page, side-by-side articles by the two David\u2019s (three, really) in its April 17 issue. The two David\u2019s were given an opportunity to present in their own words for Bay Times<\/em> LGBTQ readers why they are running to become District 17\u2019s Assemblyman.<\/p>\n

Predictably, Chiu lamented that when he arrived at City Hall in 2008, it was not \u201cas functional as it could be.\u201d He went on to stress his street creds as being a change-agent altering the \u201ctone\u201d of local government by being a consensus builder. Chiu seems to be playing Scott Wiener\u2019s and Ed Lee\u2019s \u201cconsensus\u201d card.<\/p>\n

In his written \u201cselfie\u201d portrait, Chiu mentions not one piece of legislation he introduced on behalf of LGBT communities, instead just pointing to having supported legislation ostensibly introduced by others. In his conclusion, Chiu brazenly wrapped himself in the legacy of former Supervisor Harvey Milk, implying that Harvey\u2019s ability to build consensus and coalitions has somehow rubbed off exclusively on Chiu. Unfortunately, there was a whole lot more to Milk that appears to have not<\/em><\/strong> rubbed off on Chiu, including Milk\u2019s \u201cYou gotta\u2019 give \u2019em hope\u201d trademark philosophy. There\u2019s no \u201cgive \u2019em hope\u201d emanating from either side of the two-sided David Chiu.<\/p>\n

Not only may Chiu have potentially slept through a class on constitutional vagueness while at Harvard, it appears he slept through hearing of Harvey Milk\u2019s efforts to build coalitions that Milk termed \u201cus-es.\u201d Supervisor Milk meant \u201ccommunities that value diversity and attempt to leave no one behind,\u201d as the Bay Times<\/em> reported on May Day, May 1, when it announced it was presenting a new Bay Times<\/em> column authored by Supervisor Campos.<\/p>\n

Rather than seeking to build coalitions of \u201cus-es\u201d as Campos is doing, Chiu is hell-bent on toning down the tone in City Hall (including tuning out, by toning down, public comments during Board meetings) in his \u201cconsensus building\u201d efforts that always tunes out meaningful input from, and ends up adversely affecting, us \u201cus-es.\u201d Chiu doesn\u2019t want coalitions of us-es. Coalitions of \u201cus-es\u201d have a way of interfering with Chiu\u2019s consensus coalitions comprised of real estate speculators, the usual monied-interest political suspects, and \u201cmoderation.\u201d<\/p>\n

In stark contrast, David Campos\u2019 written \u201cselfie\u201d clearly describes some of his initial legislative ideas for the LGBT community should he win the assembly race. Chiu mentioned not one legislative goal should he win the election.<\/p>\n

Campos also detailed why it is critically important to maintain LGBT representation in the Assembly. First, our Assembly District 17 has the highest proportion of LGBT voters of any district in the state, which is more important now than ever, because LGBT representation in Sacramento is threatened by term limits that may shrink the LGBT caucus in the State legislature to just six members. Campos noted that across the past decade, of 114 bills of critical interest to the LGBT community, over 55 percent were authored and sponsored by members of the LGBT caucus in Sacramento. Electing a straight David Chiu would clearly affect the volume of legislation authored on behalf of LGBT constituencies.<\/p>\n

Reading the two David\u2019s contrasting in-my-own-words articles, it\u2019s abundantly clear Chiu is seeking his next elected higher office for its own sake: As a career politician.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Campos\u2019 April 17 article left readers with the clear impression he is a dedicated public servant seeking to focus on public service, not on his career plans.<\/p>\n

This may explain why the Bay Times<\/em> chose on to add Campos as its newest columnist. Given his inaugural column, it appears Campos will be writing about substantive issues, not the fluff pieces the Chronicle<\/em> cranks out in Sunday columns of \u201cWillie\u2019s World.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chiu\u2019s Support of Airbnb and the So-Called \u201cSharing Economy\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

San Francisco\u2019s leading gay newspaper, the Bay Area Reporter<\/em>, carried a greatly condensed version of this article as my guest opinion piece on the three-David race on May 1. A chief concern of the first person to comment on-line about my opinion piece in the B.A.R.<\/em> \u2014 Mr. Reid Pierre Condit \u2014 appeared to be singularly concerned about privacy issues in gay men\u2019s bathhouses, totally oblivious to which David may be worthy of replacing Ammiano in Sacramento. Sadly, Condit\u2019s comment was the typical \u201cme, me, me,\u201d not \u201cus.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rather than being the slightest bit concerned about the bathhouse privacy issue, I\u2019m greatly concerned about, and alarmed by, the two years Chiu dragged his feet on the Airbnb issue involving evictions to convert rental units into short-term hotels. On June 11, 2013, Chiu attended Mayor Lee\u2019s press event along with Airbnb\u2019s founder and chief technology officer, Nathan Blecharczykto, announcing the Mayor\u2019s support for the so-called \u201csharing economy.\u201d The sharing economy \u2014 also known as \u201ccollaborative consumption\u201d \u2014 uses technology and social media to promote the use and re-use of so-called underutilized assets: Cars, bikes, tools, rooms, spaces, skills, and other goods, baby-sitting, and other needs. There you have it: Chiu and the Mayor think you are underutilizing your rent-controlled apartment.<\/p>\n

According to lobbyist filings submitted to San Francisco\u2019s Ethics Commission, Chiu or his staff met with lobbyists on behalf of Airbnb, or Airbnb employees lobbying Chiu, at least 27 times between December 2011 and March 2014. No small wonder it took Chiu two years to propose really awful legislation to revise short-term rental laws already on the books that prohibit such use.<\/p>\n

Apparently, Chiu and the Mayor are tired of \u201cconspicuous consumption,\u201d and prefer handing you \u201ccollaborative consumption\u201d of your rental unit, even if it means that they\u2019ll help get you evicted since you are underutilizing your rental rooms, and there\u2019s a ton of wealthy people waiting to displace you and better utilize the space that you\u2019re hoarding by not \u201csharing\u201d it with the filthy rich who want your spot. Make no mistake, Chiu\u2019s campaign donations from aggressive developers and real estate interests are designed to collaboratively \u201cshare\u201d your right to be evicted.<\/p>\n

The social media \u201ccollaborative consumption\u201d psychobabble is designed to \u201cshare\u201d you right out of town, as only twisted spinmeisters can deconstruct words. Mayor Lee\u2019s focus on the \u201csharing\u201d economy may be but one reason observer\u2019s have coined a new nickname for him: \u201cMayor Antoinette,\u201d referring to Marie Antoinette\u2019s dictum \u201cLet them eat cake!\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Condit might better ask himself how many San Franciscans \u2014 LGBT or otherwise \u2014 were displaced out-of-county, while Chiu schmoozed Airbnb for two years trying to reach a compromise.<\/p>\n

Hopefully, a proposed ballot measure that will more than likely be supported by Campos and opposed by Chiu will make it onto the November ballot. Unfortunately, it is being proposed too late for the June 3 primary, which might have presented voters with a better understanding of Chiu\u2019s ugly \u201cdark side\u201d before electing him to any higher office.<\/p>\n

On April 29, the San Francisco Chronicle<\/em> reported that a trio of well-connected San Franciscans \u2014 longtime housing activist Calvin Welch, public relations professional Dale Carlson, and former San Francisco Planning Commission<\/a>er Doug Engmann<\/a> \u2014 are backing a ballot initiative for the upcoming November election to severely curb Airbnb\u2019s operations in the City, given the legislation David Chiu recently introduced after schmoozing with Airbnb for nearly two years trying to reach some sort of \u201ccompromise.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Welch says Chiu\u2019s legislation amounts to \u201cback-door rezoning of every residential neighborhood in San Francisco to allow short-term rentals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chiu\u2019s endless compromising will end up having the effect of worsening the affordable housing crisis and apartment evictions, because the short-term rental market is exploding, and a significant amount of housing is being converted into illegal \u201chotel\u201d rooms, worsening the availability of affordable housing, and worsening displacement of long-time San Francisco renters. In the two years Chiu dragged his feet on this issue, how many San Franciscans were displaced out-of-county, while Chiu schmoozed trying to reach a compromise?<\/p>\n

Reportedly, Chiu stated that \u201cthe issue is too complicated for \u2018the blunt ballot-box approach.\u2019 With ballot-box initiatives, \u2018mistakes can rarely be fixed\u2019,\u201d Chiu claimed. This illustrates perfectly Chiu\u2019s utter contempt for the intelligence of voters, who he apparently believes can\u2019t think for themselves and apparently believes make ballot-box \u201cmistakes,\u201d and why voters desperately need his \u201cconsensus-building\u201d leadership in the Assembly.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the same contempt for members of the public (most of whom are voters) that Chiu all but sneers at during Board meetings, as only a truly arrogant President of the Board can. Given his contempt for voters, why is he asking for \u2014 and why would you give him \u2014 your vote?<\/p>\n

Chiu\u2019s endless meddling will only make the affordability crisis in San Francisco much worse. If that\u2019s what you want, go ahead and vote for Chiu.<\/p>\n

But don\u2019t let the \u201cprivacy in bathhouses\u201d \u2014 or the Bernal Heights Library mural fight \u2014 be your single reason to vote against Campos. There\u2019s more at stake than bathhouses and murals, important as those issues may be to a handful of San Franciscans, unless of course their need for privacy in bathhouses is greater than their need for affordable housing. Both are pale reasons to vote for Chiu. And if Condit\u2019s chief whine is that Campos and Ammiano haven\u2019t commented on the bathhouse issue, I have to wonder whether Mr. Condit has expectations of Chiu becoming a cheerleader on this issue any time soon.<\/p>\n

Telling Distinctions Between the Two David\u2019s<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite Chiu\u2019s false claim there are only \u201cshades of blue\u201d among San Francisco\u2019s politicians who claim to be Democrats, there are a number of key distinctions in the \u201cTale of Two David\u2019s.\u201d Chiu\u2019s \u201caura\u201d screams Red with a capital \u201cR,\u201d as in Republican, not any shade of Blue. Consider these distinctions:<\/p>\n