Chiu and his allies ramp up their rhetoric, warning of a "war" on techies

David Chiu addressed the Share conference this morning.
Tim Daw

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and his campaign for the California Assembly aggressively courted votes and support from the technology community this morning [Wed/14] at the two-day Share conference, accusing opponent David Campos and his progressive allies of “calling for a war on you.”

Chiu spoke at the Opening Plenary session, the only elected official invited to address this $795 per person conference on the “sharing economy,” the term adopted by Airbnb, Lyft, TaskRabbit, Yerdle, Uber, and the rapidly growing list of companies that facilitate peer-to-peer online economic transactions.

Also speaking at that session was venture capitalist Ron Conway, a key funding source of many of these companies and Mayor Ed Lee’s political ambitions — and someone whose household just funded a nasty independent expenditure mailer attacking Campos for his vote last year against removing Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office.

Conway called on attendees to lobby their supervisors to support current legislation by Chiu to legalize and regulate Airbnb’s business model in San Francisco. “This legislation by David Chiu is crucial, legislation the whole country will be watching,” Conway said. “David Chiu needs your help. This would not pass if it came to a vote today.”

While it’s unclear how much support the measure has, it is true that there’s a lot riding on this for Airbnb, which has been valued at $10 billion by Wall Street as it moves toward an initial public stock offering, even though the short-term rentals it facilitates are illegal in its home city of San Francisco.

Chiu spent more than a year crafting his Airbnb legislation, which was greeted with mixed reactions last month, including being slammed by a coalition that has pledged to put a rival measure on the November ballot, a campaign that Chiu today implied Campos was  part of (Campos told us he has not taken a position on either the Chiu legislation or the proposed ballot measure).

“I thought it was a reasonable solution, but two weeks later there was a press conference attacking it,” Chiu told Share attendees, ramping his rhetoric in describing “people throwing rocks at Google commuter shuttles” and other alleged local hostilities directed at the tech industry.

“They are calling for a war on you, even though they don’t realize that what you are doing is helping to make sure we’re addressing our income inequality, we’re empowering everyday people by building community and using technology,” Chiu said.

Before the session began, a Chiu campaign worker stood outside the conferene entrance at the Marine Memorial Building handing out photocopies of an anonymous May 11 hit piece on the new blog called SF Techies Who Vote entitled “3 Things Every Tech Worker Should Know about Supervisor David Campos.”

Campos told the Guardian that the attacks, including the Conway-funded mailer that just hit mailboxes today, shows that Chiu and his supporters are desperate with just 20 days until the primary election, but that Chiu’s tone belies his claims to focus on civility and getting past the divisive political rhetoric of old.

“For someone who says he tries to bring people together, David Chiu is trying to scare people into thinking there’s a war going on. I don’t know where that comes from,” Campos said. “The idea that we have a war on the techies and the tech industry is ridiculous.”

Instead, Campos said that he and his progressive allies have been trying to address the eviction and displacement crisis that is connected to the tax breaks and other special treatment that Chiu, Mayor Ed Lee, Conway, and their allies have given to big technology companies.

“Asking that they pay their fair share doesn’t mean we’re against them,” Campos said, noting how overtly Chiu has recently been casting his political fortunes with Lee, Conway, and their economic policies. “It seems that David Chiu and Ron Conway are joined at the hip.”  

We at the Guardian will have much more coverage for the Share conference and its claims to be the “new economy” that will change everything — including some revealing interviews that I did at last night’s reception at the Airbnb headquarters — in next week’s Bay Guardian. 


Kim actually thought about it.

Same with Twitter.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 11:19 am

She's doing the same thing she always does -she's a politician who has no principles so she tries to be all things to all people. Campos doesn't play those games.

Posted by Greg on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:09 pm

Which in turn generally means getting nothing done.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

Campos and Kim made nearly identical arguments at the time, both strongly condemning Mirkarimi's behavior, but saying that the Mayor's Office didn't make its case or provide any evidence that this was "official misconduct" (which was also the position of the Ethics Commission chair, a smart and honorable person). Even Chiu admitted as much in his comments before then making emotional arguments for removal. That would have set a terrible and dangerous precedent that would have greatly increased the power of the mayor to arbitrarily overrule the will of voters to remove a political opponent. It was political pandering and manipulation then and it's political pandering and manipulation now that should have nothing to do with who would best represent us in Sacramento. For Conway and other Chiu allies to deceptively make this about "condoning domestic violation" is disgusting, and it politicizes what really is an important issue, domestic violence, simply to advance their political interests. Hopefully voters will see through the shameless ploy. 

I talked to Chiu about this during our endorsement interview with him, asking him if he could cite any changes in how domestic violence is handled in San Francisco as a result of Mirkarimi remaining on as sheriff, and he couldn't cite a single change (listen for yourself if you'd like,, it's toward the end). Mirikarimi has a better record on domestic violence than District Attorney George Gascon, a Lee ally, who has a terrible record at prosecuting domestic violence. Why weren't Conway, Lee, and the rest of the Mirkarimi lynch mob protesting when tech community darling Gurbarksh Chalal recently got a slap on the wrist for a truly heinous example of domestic violence, punching his partner over 100 times rather than grabbing her arm once? There's a huge double standard here, and if you don't think politics and self-interest are driving this that you don't understand how the Brown/Lee/Kava/Pak/Conway cabal operates. 

At most, Mirkarimi remaining in office has symbolic and emotional value, which I really don't think are enough to overturn an election. Then again, Mayor Lee and his allies aren't big believers in democracy, judging by the way he got into and then held the office, as well as Lee's support for replacing the locally elected City College of Board of Trustees with an unaccountable appointee. I suppose it's easier to just do what the rich people tell you to do, and then even when you are forced to face voters, you do so with an avalanche of money on your side to try to deceive and distract voters, pushing emotional buttons when you're losing the debate on about issues and ideas. 

Posted by steven on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:33 pm

process when the democratic process gave him a landslide victory over SFBG's candidate?

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:46 pm

"Tech community darling"?? I have a job in tech and I can assure you there is no such thing. Group think, us vs them, "community darlings" only exist in the minds of extremists like SF progressives and their close relatives the tea baggers.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:40 pm

If you want to condemn Kim for siding with Mirkarimi, I will back you 100%. I am just as disappointed with Kim as I am with Campos, but Campos is the one running for higher office right now. Whatever his reasoning may have been, Campos made his decision and must deal with the fallout. As for Gurbarksh, well... he's not the sheriff now is he? He's a piece of shit, no doubt, but he's not an elected official so I don't see what he has to do with this election. If you want to start a drive to bring Gurbarksh to justice, you have my full support.

The issue is not how the city dealt with Mirkarimi's crime. A judge ruled in that case and Mirkarimi paid his debt as far as the law is concerned, so I'm not sure what problem you have regarding his criminal prosecution. Or what problem you expected Chiu to speak to in your interview.

The effort to remove Mirkarimi from the office of sheriff was not about punishing him (though I'm sure you think it was), it was about his holding of that office being inappropriate in light of his actions. You don't seem to grasp nuance very well, so I will make it as plain as possible for you - Mirkarimi is no longer an appropriate choice for sheriff. That does not mean he wouldn't be a good fit for some other post - dogcatcher perhaps?

But all of this is beside the point. In fact, you are side-stepping the issue. I don't really blame you for that though. You are attempting to defend the indefensible, and so you're at a distinct disadvantage in this debate. The point is this: private citizens have a right to voice their opinion about a politician without being smeared by the SFBG.

Many people are still upset that Mirkarimi was allowed to remain as sheriff. Those people blame Campos for his vote. What I find interesting in all this is, with all your diversionary tactics and straw man arguments, you cannot say that what people are condemning Campos for is untrue.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 9:54 pm

Steven writes:

"tech community darling Gurbarksh Chalal recently got a slap on the wrist for a truly heinous example of domestic violence"

If you are interested in the truth, Gurbarksh Chalal was fired by his Board of Directors at RadiumOne. In other words, the 'slap on the wrist' was that he had to give up his job. As opposed to Mirkarimi.

If you aren't interested in the truth then just read the stuff that Steven T Jones writes.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

Pint Glass, anyone? How about another?

Posted by marcos on May. 16, 2014 @ 11:28 am

Steven's right.

As Mirkarimi said, it was "a family matter, a personal matter." Convicting a public official for aggressive behaviour against his wife would have set an ugly precedent.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2014 @ 9:42 pm

You claim "Mirikarimi has a better record on domestic violence than District Attorney George Gascon". Please cite where Mirk even has a record on Domestic Violence, other than his own personal arrest record.

I am interested in hearing about Mirk's record on domestic violence. I would discount anything done since he has been sherriff, since that was probably driven by his desire to make amends for his previous criminal acts against women.

And the use of "cabal" - I find your use of a Hebrew-based word for a conspiratorial group, an "interesting" choice of words, since none of the members you name is Jewish. No other words available, or are there other meanings?

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2014 @ 10:50 am

But though the word has its roots in French and thence from Medieval Latin "cabbala" before any possible Hebrew base--and certainly the Arabic qabal shows it to be a non-denomination Old Testament reference--it originally meant to receive; as with scriptural teachings

Its modern connotation only arrived with its popularization in the English language "1673 as an acronym for five intriguing ministers of Charles II (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale), which gave the word its sinister connotations."*

The word troll certainly is a despicable abuser of truth and I think sometimes one can judge a person best by the behavior of his enemies.

*etymology online

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 19, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

Besides, Republican women know their place, right?

Posted by marcos on May. 15, 2014 @ 10:50 am

"Do you really think this distinction is important?"


"Has Gayle Conway been active in San Francisco politics, pledging to defeat progressives such as Campos?"

And that's exactly the point of my previous post. Your inference is that the flier is not really about the vote to keep Mirkarimi on the job, that it is about economic policies instead. If there were an ulterior motive, Gayle Conway WOULD have been active in SF politics before this instance. This is about giving someone a pass on domestic violence purely because of their political connections. Can you not understand that some things are more important than money?

"No, that's Ron Conway who's been doing that -- incidentally, the guy who earned the vast majority of this household's income that is being used on this hit pieces."

Again, this is a sexist attitude - one which seems to pervade the overwhelmingly male Progressive demographic. A wife is an equal partner in the income generated by a household. I don't believe that you're a male chauvinist, but it's obvious that you are allowing differences in opinion over economic policies to corrupt your blogs.

"Has Gayle Conway even been publicly involved in domestic violence issues? Google her name and "domestic violence" and all I see are references to these anti-progressive IEs."

The Mirkarimi incident is more than another digit in the depressingly large statistics on domestic violence. It is an egregious example of some San Francisco politicians condoning abusive behavior BASED SOLELY on the sheriff's political agenda. Sometimes corruption reaches a point where even a heretofore uninvolved individual feels compelled to take a stand.

"This is a thinly veiled attempt to disguise the Conway's campaign against progressives, and nobody is buying it. Not now, and not when there was a similar IE against Christina Olague for crossing Conway's boy, Mayor Ed Lee, on a few different issues (starting with her CleanPowerSF vote, which pissed off the Mayor's Office long before the Mirkarimi vote)."

No one's buying it? I think you might want to check that assumption with the many women in San Francisco who have dedicated their lives to combatting domestic violence. Pretty arrogant statement, Steven.

"But if you're right that this really about Mirkarimi then I'm sure the Conways are actively finding someone to run against Sup. Jane Kim this year as we speak, right? After all, she voted to keep Mirkarimi on the job, even though she also sponsored the Twitter tax break and a bunch of other pro-tech stuff that Conway and Lee have wanted. Maybe Gayle Conway will even run against Kim herself, given her newfound interest in politics."

Again, you are attempting to deny a woman her individuality and her right to speak her mind independently. I have no clue how Gayle Conway feels about Jane Kim. Why don't you ask her? A little unsolicited advice: if you want people to respond to your questions, maybe don't act like a complete asshole when you call :)

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 2:38 pm

supports railroading a woman and prosecuting her family against her wishes. You would have a man (Gascon) destroy a woman's family in order to "protect" her, when she clearly said that she doesn't want that man's "protection." And then you have the audacity to whine about someone denying a woman's individuality. What a sexist hypocrite you are!

Posted by Greg on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:16 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:35 pm

Agreed. Some people will condone any behavior as long as it props up their views about money. Sad.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

Greg, firing Mirkarimi would not have destroyed Eliana's family. No one is forcing her to divorce her husband. Please remember that domestic violence is never a private matter. This is about Campos and his endorsement of the sheriff. People have strong feelings about this issue and they have the right to express their views without being libeled by the SFBG.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 4:08 pm

Hispanic trophy wife realized that her meal ticket was threatened. Then she came over all sweet little Miss love-you-long-time.#

They are as bad as each other, and deserve each other

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

This is not about Eliana. Victims have the right to forgive and some victimizers possess the capacity to change. This is about Campos and his choices. This is about who we want representing us in Sacramento.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

Not once did Eliana ever express support for prosecution.

Posted by Greg on May. 15, 2014 @ 4:30 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:10 pm

The abusived often recant due to fear of additional violence against them.

You need to understand this, Greg.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2014 @ 11:16 am

You claim to respect women's individuality. But you only respect the "individuality" of women who know their place, lend their name to their husband's dirty work, and then sit down and shut up. If a woman expresses an opinion that doesn't fit your narrative, you're quick to patronizingly dismiss her, because men like George Gascon apparently know what's best for her family better she does. You are a pig. You have zero respect for women; in fact, you clearly hate women judging by your use of such terms as "tramp" and "little hispanic trophy wife." Everything is subordinate to your ideological blinders.

Posted by Greg on May. 17, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

HAHAHA That's rich. Mr. "Cops, Ed Lee, David Chiu, Ron Conway, Republicans, moderates, techies are all evil while all progressives are good and to criticize them makes you racist, classist, hateful, and a bigot Greg" ranting about other people being subordinate to their ideological blinders...

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2014 @ 1:58 pm

The process is predicated on the premise that woman in an abusive relationship are scared and will often defend the man who is beating her.

In the case of Eliana, an alien with few skills and resources beyond her dubiously nebulous third-rate acting talents, it must have been even more terrifying.

The process protects women like that regardless of what they say and claim, because what they say and claim if often coerced or extracted out of fear.

"I am a powerful man" is just one indicator of that.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2014 @ 1:59 pm

If the premise is that the woman's word can't be trusted, if the premise is that government must step in and "protect" women even when they don't want to be protected, there's something profoundly wrong and frightening about that premise.

The reality, however, is very different than what you describe. In reality, it's nearly impossible to prosecute in such a case. In theory it can be done, but in practice, it's never done... unless the object is a political witch hunt.

But you already know that. You're just trolling. You don't even believe your own lies. You couch your rants in the language of "protecting women," but you can't resist disparaging the woman that you supposedly want powerful men to "protect" against her will, at every turn. Your trolling is transparent to all.

Posted by Greg on May. 17, 2014 @ 3:05 pm

I thought the government always knows best?

But you should research the DV "industry". It's quite a racket.

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2014 @ 5:22 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2014 @ 7:31 pm

Greg, if you ever bothered to delve into the serious issue of spousal abuse in America... would understand that the abused party recants in most case due to fear of being battered once again. This is the common cycle.

Many progressives (not me, not this one) were enraged when so many of us stood up and defended Mirkarimi at the public hearings.

Campos did not have the backbone to stand up for his convictions.

That's my view.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2014 @ 5:19 pm

Look, I'm pretty moderate, but this whole prosecution was beyond the pale. I never liked Mirkarimi when he was supe, I voted for Miyamoto, but next time I'm voting for Mirkarimi. He's done a decent job as sheriff, but mostly because I'm just outraged that the city spent all this money just to go after a political opponent. If you want to get rid of him, that's what elections are for. But not like this. Not with my taxpayer money. I know quite a few people who don't care for Mirkarimi that much, but would vote for him now just because the prosecution was so blatantly vindictive.

Furthermore, it's simply false that most DV victims recant. It is you who know nothing about DV prosecution, because just about every real life prosecution relies on the victim's testimony. My uncle was a prosecutor on the east coast for 30 years, and he told me that while you can technically prosecute someone without the victim's cooperation, you can almost never get a conviction if the victim gets on the witness stand and testifies on behalf of her husband. So those kinds of cases are almost always dropped. And yet, prosecutions for DV do occur. Tons of them. Because many, many victims do testify and do not recant. So trying to claim this is in any way "typical" is just rubbish.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2014 @ 6:49 pm

Naturally, you are free to vote as you see fit, but the logic behind your reasoning is specious. There is far more abuse happening than just the cases that get prosecuted. And most of those that fail to move forward do so because the victim recants. I would expect that your uncle/prosecutor (if he indeed exists) would know that. So, you see, your argument makes no sense.

Also, it is deceptive to say that the only people who wanted Mirkarimi fired were his political enemies. Many of those calling for his removal had no problem with him before the incident on New Years. And lets not forget that removing Mirkarimi from the office of sheriff was not a criminal prosecution. He had already pled guilty. This was about the inappropriateness of someone convicted of a violent crime being in charge of the jails. I would think Progressives would be behind that.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2014 @ 10:33 pm

You pretend to care about women, but when you use phrases "little hispanic trophy wife" you reveal how much you really hate women.

Patronizing a-hole.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 4:59 pm

I have very little respect for that tramp

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:13 pm

Dear Conway troll of course dear husband paid for wife's $49,000 IE, as the same as he paid 49,000 way back when he went after Mirkarimi
Conway is the puppet master in SF

Posted by GUEST on May. 15, 2014 @ 1:28 pm

you sound like h. brown

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 2:40 pm

Chiu gets elected, another moderate voice in the legislature.

Campos gets elected, he'll have to move to the middle or else be ignored in the legislature. Meanwhile, Ed Lee picks his replacement on the BoS, who will hold that office for 2 years and should therefore be a strong incumbent in the next election for that office.

Posted by This election is a win-win for moderates on May. 15, 2014 @ 7:51 am

If Campos wins, he'll have to move to the middle to have a voice on statewide issues. Meanwhile, Lee, Conway, & Co. will choose his replacement on the BoS, and that appointee will get two years before standing for re-election, which should be plenty of time to build oneself up as a strong incumbent.

Posted by guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 7:55 am

Yet still you "moderates" continue to bitch, moan and whine.

Posted by marcos on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:17 am

they get their way and it is the extremists who whine

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:54 am

Ammianio has passed the mantel to Campos not to downtown Chiu who is in bed with Conway and other Republicans.

Posted by GUEST on May. 15, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

He's done and dusted, and the city is more moderate now than a decade ago.

Chiu is more in touch with the modern city than an old-fashioned divisive identity politician like Campos

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

in the general election who represents more people than the narrow primary voters. Maybe he would have won out, maybe a more viable candidate would have run.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:29 pm

Ammiano still won overwhelmingly and no "moderate" politician dared to challenge him. Ammiano's overwhelming victories show that his ideas are popular.

You on the other hand, remind me of the troll Arthur Evans who, before he croaked, was constantly predicting Ammiano's demise. I told him that Ammiano would be in politics long after he [Evans] was dead and forgotten. I was right.

Posted by Greg on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:45 pm

Perhaps no one bothered assuming Ammiano had the name recognition.

I don't know how popular Ammiano's singular weed agenda is though.

Gregs view that when progressives lose there is mitigating circumstances, when they win it's the will of the people. The analogy is this election, Chiu and Campos are two democrats, one represents a more moderate base, one represents a narrow base. If it was in four years and Campos was the Incumbent, Chiu would lose or not even bother. That was my point.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 6:05 pm

then he wouldn't win. Period.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 6:57 pm

than popularity that a person wins.

Read the endless whines as to why progressives lose elections.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 7:49 pm

When a progressive loses, it is voter fraud, or the election was bought, or there is no mandate, or . . .

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2014 @ 4:56 am

There was to that hopscotch deal with Leno that got Ammiano into the Assembly which probably insulated Tom from any challenge similar that Mark launched against Carole Pigden.

Posted by marcos on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

Both have their base of special interests.

Campos said that Chiu was bad because of the registered lobbyists, while the lobbyists Campos takes orders from do not have to register because of a "loop hole" in the law.

I usually pick the lesser of two evils, for example I vote democrat for president. In this case Campos is the lessor of two bads, Chiu isn't so bad while Campos is a menace to sense.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:27 pm

Post new comment

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