The imaginary "balance" on the board of supervisors
|Let the healing begin!|
C.W. Nevius's analysis (Choice for Chiu’s seat could tilt balance) of the non-issue of who will be the next president of the board of supervisors:
Although we mostly see the board president banging the gavel and running meetings, insiders say the real power is in appointing members to various three-person committees. Two members who share political views can control what goes in and out of committee. “If you stack the budget committee, you control the budget,” said a City Hall deep thinker. “If you stack Land Use, you can bottle up developments. If the mayor appoints Cindy Wu, he’s handing the keys to the kingdom to the hard left."
Aside from the unlikely idea of "deep thinkers" in City Hall, the blind quote is pure bullshit. It sounds like Nevius made it up. Except for the Airbnb issue, there are in fact no serious political differences on this board, and no supervisor has been inclined to "bottle up developments" in the city.
There's no such thing as a "hard left" in San Francisco, though Nevius likes to think there is, just like he likes to think there's a serious "anti-development" movement in the city. These falsehoods make it easier for him to write his cartoon columns that masquerade as serious analysis. All the supervisors are Democrats or, at worst, liberal Republicans.
And Cindy Wu would have something to do with enabling that "hard left"? Ridiculous.
"What’s wrong with Jane Kim?” she[Rose Pak] asks. “Who the hell do they want? She’s smart, she’s reasonable, she’s balanced, she’s well-liked by her colleagues, and she won’t be rubber-stamping everything (investor and Lee supporter) Ron Conway wants."
Actually, there's evidence that Kim isn't the sharpest blade in the drawer. Nevius has doubts about Kim because of her Mirkarimi vote:
Personally, I’m not sure what to make of Kim. She’s clearly smart and ambitious, but she’s a little hard to figure. It isn’t just that she voted to reinstate Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi after domestic violence allegations---and expect to hear a lot about that---but it was the way it played out. Mirkarimi critics needed nine yes votes from the board to remove the sheriff. But by the time Kim’s vote came up, three members had already voted no. So reinstatement was secured. Kim could have voted yes and had it both ways---avoiding a politically charged vote while remaining certain that Mirkarimi would be reinstated. Instead, she went with the progressive party line.
Completely wrong. The Mirkarimi vote would have been "politically charged" for Kim no matter how she voted. But she tried to have it both ways---voting to allow Mirkarimi to remain sheriff and then supporting a recall after the vote! (Vote to reinstate Mirkarimi stirs outcry)
There is bound to be personal resentment on the board among those who supported Campos after Chiu's campaign defamed Campos as being soft on domestic violence because of his vote to reinstate Mirkarimi. Ugly, unprincipled stuff.
But Chiu apparently has no regrets. His post-election statement is worthy of Richard Nixon:
"I applaud Supervisor Campos and his supporters on their passion and hard work, and we do have healing to do,” Chiu said. “Our city continues to face new challenges and we need to work together to move San Francisco forward.”