Kelly challenges Cohen in D10

|
(66)
Kelly (top) and Cohen in 2010

After being narrowly edged out in the race for the District 10 seat on the Board of Supervisors four years ago, Potrero Hill political activist Tony Kelly says he will launch his campaign for the seat tomorrow [Wed/18], challenging incumbent Malia Cohen.

In 2010, after former Sup. Sophie Maxwell was termed out, the D10 race was a wide open contest that had low voter turnout and the squirreliest ranked-choice voting ending that the city has seen. On election night, former BART director Lynette Sweet finished first, followed by Kelly, a third place tie between Cohen and Marlene Tran, and Potrero Hill View publisher Steve Moss in fourth.

But the strong negative campaigning between Sweet and Moss, the leading fundraisers in the race, allowed the likable but then relatively unknown Cohen to vault into the lead on the strength of second- and third-place votes, finishing a few hundred votes in front of Kelly, who came in second.

Cohen has had a relatively unremarkable tenure on the board, spearheading few significant legislative pushes and being an ideological mixed bag on key votes. But she’ll likely retain the support of African American leaders and voters in Bayview and Hunters Point, and enjoy the always significant advantage of incumbency.

Kelly hopes to turn that advantage into a disadvantage, tying Cohen to City Hall economic development policies that have caused gentrification and displacement. “Too many San Franciscans face an uphill battle, especially here in District 10,” Kelly said in a statement announcing his candidacy. “Our district is part of one of the richest cities in the richest state in the richest country in the world, and yet our neighborhoods are home to the highest unemployment rates in the City, our homeowners are at risk of foreclosure, and our tenants at risk of evictions. This is unacceptable, and we must do better.”

Kelly and his supporters plan to file his official declaration of candidacy tomorrow at 12:30pm in the Department of Election office in the basement of City Hall.

 

 

Comments

Steve Moss was accused of being rude by the Bay Guardian, after years of defending man child Daly.

Now Steve Jones complains that ranked choice voting sometimes sucks.

Posted by guest on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 6:54 pm

him the results that he personally favors.

He couldn't give a crap whether it is fairer.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 7:17 pm

I don't remember Steven (or the BG) complaining when activist/progressive Jean Quan won in Oakland on the basis of her and Rebecca Kaplan's "anyone but Don" ranked choice campaign.

Although considering what a complete cluster fuck she's been as a member of Oakland's school board, City Councilwoman, and Mayor, I guess I wouldn't want to be associated with her either.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 8:10 pm

Tony's a great guy. I respect the fact that he's remained active in his community when many other losing candidates seem to disappear once the election is over. And he's always seems to be on the right side of the issues, even when fellow progressives are wrong (like parking meters).

Posted by Greg on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 8:13 pm

Tony Kelly is a dinosaur of political ideas. His campaign of emotion and no facts against better parking management in parts of Potrero and Dogpatch and the Mission was popular among people who know nothing and want to learn nothing factual. We have to do better, and electing Kelly would be a step backwards toward nostalgia. I hope Malia Cohen gets re-elected and will send a contribution her way.

Posted by Guestvoltairesmistress on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 2:22 pm

Nothing pisses people off more than being told they have to pay to park outside the home they have had for twenty years

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 2:33 pm

I agree that parking is a hot button issue. But I would put it in a greater context: that mobility and convenience at moderate cost is what long term and more recent residents prize. For some people, preserving their formerly free privilege to park free on the street seems like an inalienable right, connected to how they have traditionally organized their comings and goings. It is intensely personal, but it affects others mostly invisibly. But such a practice like free parking on. A public street makes sense only when space is ample and nobody else suffers. There are no longer enough street parking spots in many neighborhoods, so we should charge for them. Further, street parking for free takes away that space from all other potential uses, a detriment to others. Finally, congestion and parking are public health matters, since more car travel results in greater numbers of collisions with pedestrians. For all these reasons we should look at parking free not as a right, but as a tradition worth reviewing and setting new policy on.

Posted by Voltairesmistress on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

live in an area and that's the first step. You can argue about the public interest all you like but charging people to park near their own homes is a non-starter anyway outside the inner core of the city.

If you want to help residents find parking spaces then let's talk about that. But if you come in demanding that parking spaces be removed on ideological grounds then expect the mother of all pushbacks,

A better idea. Make Muni a usable option which, for many, it is not right now. A carrot might work but a stick will just really piss people off.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 3:46 pm

Voltaire (and steven) - I desperately want better parking management in D10 and elsewhere, and we must find a way to manage development in the city's eastern neighborhoods while reducing the number of cars. I've said this many times at MTA and city hall hearings.

where steven and i disagree (and where i think he overstates my position) is that i don't see parking meters without time limits as a very useful tool in parking management. they just turn a free commuter parking lot into a paid commuter parking lot, where i am more interested in reducing commuter traffic.

and really, voltaire - you should take a close look at malia cohen's public positions on parking and driving before you presume that she is more supportive of parking management than i am.

Posted by Tony Kelly on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 10:32 pm

...if I could be more succinct.

Recall the Reskin lie about Sunday meters being about "turnover" for merchants when merchant associations OPPOSED Sunday meters.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:27 am

The problem is when they try and extract revenue from anyone other than the people who use their services.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:38 am

Wow Steve, thanks for being impartial. The SF Bay Guardian only supports candidates aligned with their vaulted "Progressive" wing of SF politics. Steve never hesitates to use his "journalistic viewpoint" to support candidates he agrees with.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

who are... progressive!!! OMG, this is an earth-shattering revelation! I mean, who would've thought that people support candidates they generally agree with?

For what it's worth, Steven doesn't always agree with Kelly. Case in point, parking meters. But yeah, Cohen is a do-nothing supe and Kelly would be a big improvement.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 11:40 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 7:59 am

I have differed with Tony on the parking meter issue. I don't think it's a solution to just say no to parking management and yes to indefinitely continued free parking on city streets. That's not a progressive stance, particularly as the SFMTA considers raising Muni fares to $2.25, and I'll be curious to see how this issue plays out this year. Voters made this a transit-first city, where reliance on private automobile is supposed to be actively discouraged by city policy, and that isn't happening, to the long-term detriment of the city and the planet. 

Posted by steven on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 10:56 am

Nor does it mean a war on drivers, nor endlessly milking motorists to cross-subsidize more ideologically pure classes of people.

Muni's farebox recovery rate is possibly the lowest in the nation, barely 25% or so. And Muni is stuck with high costs because of rigid work contracts and bloated employee benefits.

Start there before you talk to me about charging me to park outside my own home.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 11:12 am

Actually, the policy does call for discouraging reliance on the automobile and actively managing street parking: "Parking policies for areas well served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public transit and alternative transportation."

Now, I understand that Kelly and other argue that Potrero Hill is well served by Muni, a debatable point, but the fact is that Muni funding is inextricably tied to making drivers pay for their impacts and use of public space.

Posted by steven on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 12:36 pm

generates over 90% of it's costs and that is the model we should be aiming at before asking anyone else to pay anything.

Parking meters make sense in central areas and in commercial corridors. But when a resident and taxpayer has to subsidize 75% of Muni AND run out of his home at 6am to feed a meter, expect some pushback.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

London's public transit system is heavily subsidized by car drivers through its congestion pricing system, something that San Francisco looked at but doesn't have the political will to implement, even though it would solve the problems of chronic Muni underfunding and the increasing number of pedestrian fatalities. 

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/potential-safety-benefits-stir-ca...

Posted by steven on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 3:37 pm

It's priced by demand - the same thing you argue should apply to parking. The minimum fare on the subway is about $7 although buses are cheaper.

Privatization has significantly reduced costs and that is something we should be looking at.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 3:49 pm

London has the most expensive metro system in the entire world. If you're a tourist, it's just another attraction cost, but how people can afford to use it for their daily commute boggles my mind.

And privatization has been a disaster, leading to accidents, major cost overruns, and a permanent increase in costs estimated to be in the neighborhood of 20-30%. But that's a non-starter. Fortunately no one is looking at privatizing MUNI.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

any day of the week. It's easy to argue for a subsidized Muni when you're not the one being asked for the handouts.

Muni is dying on it's feet. It's a welfare institution that runs some buses on the side.

Oh, and buses in London are much cheaper with the minimum fare not that different from SF, which of course doesn't have a real subway system at all.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

Bus fare in London is double what it is in San Francisco. $4.08 at current exchange rates. You have a capitalist platitude to mouth for every occasion, but you have no idea what you're talking about. And for what it's worth, I'm happy to pay my taxes for MUNI.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 5:21 pm

comparison is meaningless. I'd actually be willing to pay some taxes if the money didn't just vanish down the SEIU gullet of endless greed.

So I support the "starve Muni" campaign, and I want to see a farebox recovery rate if over 50% before I pay a penny in tax (not that I pay much SF tax anyway, by design)

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 5:34 pm

Wikipedia has a chart with farebox recovery rates for cities around the world, although the chart isn't very current for many locations. Asia generally has some of the highest recovery rates.

Hong Kong (MTR) 186%

Japan Osaka (OMTB) 137%

Belgium Brussels 35.2%

London Underground 91%

SF Bay Area (BART) 64.5%

SF Bay Area (Caltrain) 51.3%

LA (LACMTA) 30.6%

NYC (MTA) 55.5%

Staten Island (MTA) 15.2%

Washington, DC (WMATA) 62.1%

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 6:05 pm

is as bad as anywhere, except Staten Island maybe.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 6:18 pm

I forgot to provide the link. I looked for a website that discussed London's and SF's overall farebox recovery rates, but didn't readily find it. I suspect London's bus system recovery rate is far less than the underground rate of 91%, and it's likely SF's recovery rate is between LA's dismal recovery rate of 30% and BART's 65%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 6:44 pm

Ideally it would be free to riders- a farebox recovery rate of zero. As long as MUNI has adequate funding from taxes, the closer we are to that the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

Of course, something being "free" just means someone else paying for it.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 7:13 am

I just prefer progressive taxation to user fees. What's your point?

The way I see it, public transit is a public good, that even non-transit riders benefit from. So we should all pay. I could give a rats ass about farebox recovery rates. The less, the better.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 7:44 am
Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 8:12 am

That's why for practical purposes, free MUNI won't happen anytime soon. So fares are a necessary evil in the meantime. Still, the less of the operating revenue that comes from fares, and the more that comes from the general fund, the better.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 8:22 am

There is political will to extract taxes and fees from weak constituencies in order to lavish subsidy on strong constituencies.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 8:35 am

Developers who get a break on impact fees still pay impact fees.

It's the losers who contribute nothing that i am far more concerned about.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 8:51 am

Everything should be free in the great peoples' republic.

The city cannot raise an income tax, an estate tax, a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. Without those you cannot "tax the rich" who, in any event, could simply move a few miles to avoid it.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 8:38 am

There are plenty of ways the city can enact progressive taxation on the wealthy.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 8:57 am

revenue if the place doesn't change hands, and Prop13 suppresses needless RE transactions anyway.

You can also have a corporation own a property and then sell the corporation without paying the transfer tax.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 9:11 am

raising the real estate transfer tax will result in more revenue.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 9:22 am

If you don't understand that distinction then you are clearly not worth debating tax issues with.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 9:36 am
Posted by Greg on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:10 am

tax rules for personal gain. Tax avoidance is studying those rules to see what is the most efficient way of minimizing tax by fully legal means.

I cannot recall the case or the judge now, but there was a well known precedent in tax law where the judge said (something like) "An American has a fundamental right to organize his financial affairs so as to minimize the tax he owes" (assuming no law is broken, of course).

If you take out an IRA or claim deductions on your tax return, you are doing tax avoidance yourself

Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:18 am

There are actual city, state, and federal laws the Bay Guardian actively encourage people to ignore.

Steve should have done a citizens arrest on Bush or Obama after the nutty city policy statements on the war in Iraq.

Posted by guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

D10 couldn't be in better hands.

Posted by Chromefields on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 7:57 am

In 2011, Cohen entertained a dialogue with a woman who said she was a victim of "mind control." Mirkarimi, to his credit, stopped that nonsense.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/03/mind_control_intrigues_super...

Posted by The Commish on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 9:08 am

Haters!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 1:33 pm

I cannot tolerate intolerance. Does that make me hateful?

Why do SF'ers speak so much about their tolerance and respect for diversity when in fact they practice neither?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 1:45 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 7:12 am
Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

I appreciate that the comments section is heavily trolled by people with biased and erroneous opinions, but for the two or three people who prefer more factual information, below are the current fare structures for the London metro system.

I've done a fair bit of travelling, and £20.20 ($36) for a week and £4.40 ($7.50) for a day of unlimited transit use is a great bargain.

Bus and Tram Tickets
Oyster pay as you go: £1.45 (Most users, including tourists use Oyster or a CC.)
Cash single: £2.40
Bus and tram passes Daily price cap: £4.40
7 day: £20.20
Monthly: £77.60
Annual: £808

The Tube and Underground fares are based on distance. At least 80% of the fares are between £1.60 and £3.50, with a few of the longer trips ranging as high as £6 - £9. This chart shows all of the underground routes and their respective fares.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tube-dlr-lo-adult-fares-jan-2014.pdf

All children under 16, plus 16-17 year olds living in London and in full-time education, can travel free on buses. You need a photocard (not required for children under 5).

The Freedom Pass scheme allows those over 60 and those with a disability to travel free at any time on buses.

From wiki:
Buses in the London Buses network accept both Travelcards and Oyster card products including bus passes, as well as single cash fares. Cash fares used to be charged in relation to length of journey (fare stages), but are now charged as single flat fares for any length of journey. From 2000, the flat fare was higher for journeys in Zone 1 than in outer zones, although from 2004 this difference was eliminated, the change coinciding with the introduction of Oyster card flat fares. Cash fares are considerably higher than Oyster fares for the same journey.

With the Oyster card pay as you go (formerly Pre Pay), users are charged a set amount for single journeys, although there is a "daily cap", which limits the maximum amount of money that will be deducted from the balance on a Pay as you go Oyster card regardless of how many buses are taken that day (from 4.30 am to 4.30 am the next day). Alternatively, weekly and monthly passes may also be purchased and loaded onto an Oyster card.

All children under 11 travel free. Children aged 11 to 15 travel free on buses with an 11–15 Oyster photocard; without an Oystercard or Travelcard, they have to pay the full adult cash fare. There are concessions for people aged 16 to 18.[6]

The Freedom Pass scheme allows those over 60 and those with a disability to travel free at any time on buses. People who have concessionary bus passes issued by English local authorities travel free on TfL bus services at any time.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 5:49 pm

The free travel for over-60's is limited to London residents.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 6:04 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.