On August 12, the members of San Francisco’s Democratic County Central Committee met to vote on the Party’s endorsements for this November’s ballot. It was a grim night for the progressives. Our numbers on the Committee have been eroding since a conservative (by San Francisco standards, of course) majority was elected in 2012 and, in turn, elected Mary Jung as chair.
Mary has been a tireless worker for the Party over many years, and she is a friend, but she also happens to be the chief lobbyist for the San Francisco Realtors. As one would expect, on the issues that divide progressives and conservatives locally, she is an able and effective partisan for the Right (in this context, essentially shorthand for the real estate, development and tech industries). Since the DCCC’s rules provide for the chair to fill vacancies as they arise during a term, Mary has had the ability over the last three years to replace a number of progressives, who have left the Committee, with more conservative members. As a result, today the Party, which just a few short years ago was the City’s most influential Left-leaning endorsing organization, has instead become one of San Francisco’s more reliably pro-business endorsers.
Now I believe in a big tent, and I try not to alienate potential allies, but folks who say that the differences between the Left and the Right of the local Democratic Party are inconsequential are, in my view, just plain wrong. Those of us on the Left believe government should prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable among us, oppose policies that privilege the needs of the wealthy and the powerful, and want to limit the ability of very wealthy individuals and business interests to influence our politics through outsized campaign contributions. These are, I have learned, not shared values in our local Party.
I was, for example, troubled to hear one of my more conservative colleagues assert at the August 12 DCCC meeting that we needn’t be terribly concerned about the influence of folks like Ron Conway who are able, without batting an eyelash, to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into our elections. We may all be Democrats, but there is a world of distance between us.
The extent of the DCCC’s rightward shift was especially evident in its endorsements against both Proposition F, the Airbnb reform, and Proposition I, the Mission Moratorium. The Prop F vote was particularly galling for those of us who believe that the hotelization of our neighborhoods is not just bad for those neighborhoods, but also has been devastating for the supply of rental housing citywide.
For decades, our City government has enacted a set of policies to preserve our rental housing stock. The rise of the so-called “home-sharing” websites has established a giant loophole in that framework to allow the mass conversion of thousands of rental units and rooms, once available to San Franciscans, into what are essentially neighborhood hotel rooms available only to tourists. And in the midst of a housing crisis, no less! In rejecting Proposition I, the Committee stood strongly with the development community and against neighborhood activists demanding that market rate development stop until the City and the developers come up with a plan to ensure the creation of more affordable housing.
On a happier note, we have had a bit more good news out of City College. After several years of steeply declining enrollment, early indicators are that our fall 2015 numbers are finally stabilizing and perhaps even increasing a bit over last year. Chancellor Susan Lamb continues to enjoy broad support at the institution and appreciation for her transparent and respectful style. Our recently restored Board of Trustees continues to work well with our Chancellor and each other, meeting twice monthly and doing our best to responsibly guide the College back from the abyss.
Meanwhile, on August 28, a task force convened by State Chancellor of Community Colleges Brice Harris released its report on accreditation in California. The task force found that the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges is excessively punitive in its approach, does not have the confidence of the community colleges it accredits, and ought to be replaced with another accreditor. The direct implications for City College are limited, as any process for replacing the ACCJC is unlikely to be completed before the College’s accreditation comes up for review again at the end of next year.
But for those of us who have argued that the ACCJC has been excessively harsh in its approach to City College thus far, the task force’s findings are welcome validation. Congratulations and thanks to State Chancellor Harris, the task force members, the California Federation of Teachers, and all those who are working to reform our broken accreditation regime.
Rafael Mandelman is an attorney for the City of Oakland. He is also President of the City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees.
Recent Comments