Chiu for Assembly



San Francisco is at a crossroads. While some residents benefit from prosperity, an affordable housing crisis coupled with income inequality make this a time of struggle for other San Franciscans.

Our inclusive, diverse culture that has historically made San Francisco a haven for artists, immigrants, and innovators is at stake. Given this, effective progressive leadership is critical to ensuring that our city remains a place where all San Franciscans can afford to live and prosper. That's why I urge you to vote for my friend, President of the Board of Supervisors David Chiu, to represent San Francisco in the California State Assembly.

As president, David has demonstrated an inclusive, unifying leadership style that has had a transformative impact at City Hall. He really listens to everyone, and brings people together to address our city's most critical challenges. He combines rock solid progressive values with a fervent drive to do more than talk — to actually get the big stuff done.

The proof is in the pudding: he's passed more pieces of legislation than any other current supervisor in every major policy arena, and his colleagues have elected him president three times.

David has delivered consistently on our city's most critical issue: affordable housing. A tenant in San Francisco himself for the past 18 years, David has fought to protect and expand affordable housing across the city, leading efforts to build more housing for homeless veterans, transitional age youth, and seniors.

He supported rebuilding dilapidated public housing projects that have been in total disrepair. He has supported the strengthening of habitability standards in housing across the board. He led the charge to create a 10-year moratorium on condo conversions and to prioritize victims of Ellis Act evictions for our city's affordable housing opportunities.

After multiple failed attempts by supervisors over two decades, he passed legislation to finally legalize in-law units, preserving one of our city's largest existing stocks of affordable housing. David will continue to work to stem San Francisco's affordable housing crisis in the Assembly, including pushing hard to reform the Ellis Act.

David has been a leader on a host of other important issues. An avid biker who doesn't own a car, David has spearheaded groundbreaking environmental legislation, banning the sale of plastic water bottles on city property, expanding urban agriculture, and prohibiting the delivery of unwanted Yellow Pages. He's increased funding for community arts, an issue close to my heart as an artist. He has championed language access for our city's immigrants, and fought for the reunification of LGBT immigrant families.

Under his leadership, San Francisco is the first city in the country to establish the right to civil counsel for low-income residents being denied basic human rights such as housing, as well as to give workers the right to request flexible and predictable working arrangements to take care of their families. He passed progressive business tax reform that will bring $300 million of new revenues over the next decade.

When it comes down to it, we have two Assembly candidates, David Chiu and David Campos, who share the strongly held progressive values of the Guardian's readers. I am a longtime supporter of the Guardian and have valued its endorsement in my previous races. The difference lies in style and effectiveness.

I know how urgently San Francisco needs a leader in the Assembly who can bring people together to get significant things done. The challenges and opportunities our city faces demand it. I know David Chiu can do this because he has done it, over and over again, in five and a half remarkably effective years of progressive leadership on the Board of Supervisors.

Please join me in supporting David Chiu for State Assembly.


clearly sees the danger of having a divisive, polarizing identity politician like Campos in Sac, and prefer the safe, sane and consensual choice of Chiu.

Well done, darling, you finally got something right.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 10:36 pm

Is Debra Walker a sellout that is betraying her LGBT and progressive base? Well in the words of one of the best political endorsement writers in town : "the proof is in the pudding".

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 11:28 am

just happens to be right here. I call it the stopped click syndrome.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 11:33 am

She's brown nosing the conservative Chiu because he reappointed her. In the process she has proven herself a sell out and will never again be rewarded with progressive support.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 11:49 am

so why would she give a crap about it now?

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 10:53 pm

Walker lost because she ran a crap campaign of someone who felt entitled to win, not because she had or did not have progressive support.

That said, Hene Kelly's shrill hectoring of all in attendance at Walker's campaign kickoff did not magnetize anyone to the cause.

Posted by marcos on May. 08, 2014 @ 10:44 am

She was seen as old-school, dried up, and bereft of either ideas or charisma. People just felt bad voted for someone with so little imagination and so much frump.

Kim was young, cute, way smarter and just was put in sync with the new D6'ers.

And even DCCC and SFBG support couldn't put Debra Walker back together again.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 11:18 am

Walker is dried up? and Kim won because she's young and cute? What makes these sexist comments ok?

Posted by Spike on May. 13, 2014 @ 8:39 am

Kim won because one of the few San Francisco native organizers worth his salt ran her field campaign. He was so delighted with the outcome of his handiwork that he left not only San Francisco, not only California, but fled the country.

Debra has been on the BIC for how long now? She's grown accustomed to rolling with the flow to the extent that the systemic corruption in that agency is of no real concern to her. Holding onto her seat is all that matters, and she'll clearly do whatever it takes to keep her ass in the seat.

Posted by marcos on May. 13, 2014 @ 9:08 am

with the changing demographic of her district, which is ground zero for SF's tech boom.

Walker could not possibly understand those new residents nor coherently relate to them in any meaningful way.

Posted by Guest on May. 13, 2014 @ 11:09 am

You mean that Kim won because she was not a dried out husk of a woman?

Nah, it was the vote harvesting operation that carried the day for Kim.

Posted by marcos on May. 13, 2014 @ 11:15 am

Very interesting and telling where Chui gets his support: Ron Conway, Dianne Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, Scott Weiner, et al. But honestly, is there anyone-- and I do mean ANYONE--who cares about or trusts Debra Walker's opinion on this race?

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 8:53 am

She ran a better campaign as well, of course.

Interesting that Kim is supporting both Campos and Chiu. not sure how that works. I guess it is called hedging your bets.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 9:09 am

Walker is dried up? and Kim won because she's young and cute? What makes these sexist comments ok?

Posted by Spike on May. 13, 2014 @ 8:40 am

basis of how cute the chick running is?

Posted by Guest on May. 13, 2014 @ 11:08 am

On what planet is Chiu a conservative?

Posted by Richmondman on May. 08, 2014 @ 5:03 am

Yeah, Chiu is not conservative he's opportunist.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 10:30 am
Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 10:41 am

on the working class for a long time. They could care less about everyday working San Francisco - they hate private property or any hint of profit, they pander to the public employee unions and leave the trade unions under the bus.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

Well, if Chiu is Walker's friend, that should settle it, huh? If you don't support Walker's friend, then you must hate Walker as well.

Debra Walker politically is a dried out husk of a woman who has jumped off of the progressive ship she helped sink to save her own skin.

Posted by marcos on May. 07, 2014 @ 12:15 pm

Great news Walker! The right wing Chiu trolls are on your side. The real progressives!

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

If Chiu is right wing to you, then you are ridiculously far left, the Left's version of the Tea Party. It's stunning you guys don't see the similarities in approach and mindset.

You're part of the tiny minority who supports throwing up on tech buses and the type who likes to complain about problems, but never offer real solutions outside of protesting and picketing.

Even Steven and Caitlin, who are both far to the left, get burnt by your group whenever they say anything reasonable or moderate. The ideological purity tests you so-called progressives have are ridiculous.

If you're a total nut, vote Campos.
If you want someone reasonable to represent SF, vote Chiu.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 10:41 pm

Campos is a self-absorbed racialist bigot.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 10:54 pm

Chiu is bought and paid for by developers.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 4:22 am

The conservatives (oh sorry I guess because your in favor of gay marriage you can call yourself moderate....bend able...) have no purity test because whoever pays the most is the way to vote. Ron Republican Conway bankrolls Ed Lee and he just loves Chiu. A man who worships the almighty $.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 4:42 am

This is a Democracy, even when replying to an editorial!

People have the right to vote as they wish, without the need for "name calling." If you feel Chiu is "reasonable," you have the right to believe and to act on that. What you don't seem to respect is the right of others to hold a different opinion. And, lumping everyone in a "group" such as "you progressives" shows no more understanding than it would for me lumping "Republicans" as a group. Differences of opinion are one thing, but, resorting to "name calling" shows a lack of "real solutions."

Posted by Ray Hartz Director, San Francisco Open Government on May. 09, 2014 @ 11:52 am

a liberal democrat and moderate centrist, who can work with all interests and people.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 10:55 pm

He listens to whoever is paying. Look at who funding him. Big money republicans love the always ready to make a deal no backbone only out for himself Chiu.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 4:27 am

At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding!

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

Too bad we don't have a viable 3rd choice.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 11:02 am

So we end up with termed-out, middle-aged Supervisors.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 11:20 am

Wait. . who is Rose Pak donating money too. . .Its David Campos! The proof is definitely in the pudding!!1

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

The enemy of my enemy is my pudding.

Posted by marcos on May. 08, 2014 @ 12:41 pm

I live in Chiu's district and cannot think of one thing he's actually done to specifically help his constituents. His presidency of the BOS has led to one very, very serious setback to a City known for it's liberality in civil rights matters: the hostility toward the public in attending and participating in government affairs. Chiu shut down the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) after they DARED to find his handling of the Park Merced "sell-out" violated the Sunshine Ordinance. He has left two seats on the SOTF vacant, so citizens trying to make public comment and/or get access to public records automatically have two votes AGAINST them before the SOTF. He cut public comment at BOS meetings from 3 minutes to 2 minutes and puts the public comment on the agenda so it can happen anywhere from 2:30 pm to 8:30 pm. This means anyone who wants to speak to the BOS has to plan to spend the entire afternoon in the chamber to do so. As I've said to the BOS: David Chiu is not interested in your problems unless you approach with a check in your hand, votes in your pocket, or a lawyer at your side. He represents the 1%, and the 99% of us "be damned!"

Posted by Ray Hartz Director, San Francisco Open Government on May. 09, 2014 @ 4:32 am

They are interminably long and tedious, and are usually made by either "usual suspect" busybodies who show up to everything, or by special interest groups like SEIU who are blatantly partisan.

Personally I'd like to see one minute limits.

You may be right on the sunshine thing but, realistically, few voters care about that. As we learned in the last mayoral election, the three top priorities for voters are jobs, jobs and jobs. And Chiu has delivered on that - certainly much better than Campos.

I'm comfortable with Chiu. He's a safe pair of hands for working with diverse groups.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 4:52 am

And what has David Chiu playing it safe gotten most existing San Franciscans?

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2014 @ 5:10 am

And he architected a new mayor who is wildly popular and who won a landslide election.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 5:34 am

David Chiu architected nothing in 2011 except for his own defeat.

Chiu got played and played good.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2014 @ 6:07 am
Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 6:23 am

David Chiu is so smart that he gave Ed Lee the keys to room 200 and trusted Ed Lee to not lie, to step down after a term as caretaker, and for David Chiu to sleaze into the Mayor's office.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2014 @ 6:54 am
Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 7:02 am

King makers get rewarded.

David Chiu got humiliated.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2014 @ 8:11 am

It's too soon to judge.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 8:28 am

He merely changed his mind.

Posted by Greg on May. 09, 2014 @ 7:12 am

That depends on whether he always planned to hold onto the seat, which seems to have been the plan by his key supporters all along. I have a hard time believing that the Run Ed Run campaign was some kind of spontaneous uprising that changed his mind. That simply seemed like cover for a power play that was well-orchestrated from the beginning. But I will concede that nobody has unearthed evidence that Lee always intended to run.

Posted by Steven T. Jones on May. 09, 2014 @ 7:58 am

When he took the job as caretaker, he could not have had any real insight as to the job, its stresses and pressures, and whether he would be successful. It made perfect sense to claim no intent to run, and he was appointed on that basis.

As you say, there is no evidence that he intended to run, so it cannot reasonably be said that either he lied or that he broke a promise.

After a few months in the job, he understood it better, knew that he could do it well, and moreover others started telling him that he was doing a good job and should run.

My guess is that he was also concerned at some of the other candidates as none of them were really perfect for the job.

Put it all together and I think he simply changed his mind and/or was persuaded to.

And judging by opinion polls showing approval ratings between 50% and 70%, the people like the job he is doing.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 8:13 am

That's a fancy way of saying that Ed Lie leed.

Posted by marcos on May. 09, 2014 @ 8:34 am

What we do know is that the voters like him, so you might as well move on and look forward to who will be mayor after Lee's second elected term.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 8:45 am

So Ed Lee had been doing the job for a few months and was getting solid support. There was clear evidence (later proven correct) that the electorate wanted him to stay on.

Would it be a better world if he said "I know that the voters want me to continue and I would like to. But the only reason that the voters won't get what they want is that I said I would be a caretaker. So the voters will need to settle for someone else to run their city."

Is that a better solution in Planet Progressive?

Also, the issue has been vetted by the electorate. His actions were a campaign issue and the voters didn't care.

The Progressives lost. Deal with it.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 9:02 am

1) They got played

2) They were too clueless and divided to come up with an alternative. Lee got the job because the left could not agree on anyone

3) The left could not come up with a credible candidate for mayor

4) The majority of SF voters are moderates and want a competent administrator over an ideologue

5) Lee has been a popular and effective mayor even if they do not like it

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2014 @ 9:20 am

Post new comment

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

Also from this author

  • Michael Goldstein, 1953-2011

    Longtime activist sought to rally people around a progressive agenda for San Francisco

  • A bailout for the middle class

    Unfortunately, the middle-class bailout is stuck in Congress.

  • We stand with Carole Migden

    Few politicians who have risen as high in the establishment food chain as Carole Migden have done so retaining a willingness to fight for the underdog.