Saturday, May 19, 2007

Recalling Jake McGoldrick

The letters below were published in the SF Examiner, but I got them from SFSOS.

Paul Kozakiewicz, Editor of the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon, makes the case for recalling Jake McGoldrick:

Mixed messages from City Hall

The fingers of fog penetrating San Francisco by last week’s end were not nearly as chilling as the winds blowing from City Hall.

Three animal control commissioners were not reappointed by a Board of Supervisors committee (composed of three) because they dared to forward a proposal that the president of the board found to be a “cockamamie thing.” The only thing “cockamamie” about it was the thorny proposition of a complex, and certain to be difficult, discussion of an innovative idea that was outside the board’s narrow little box of ideology.

Fast forward to the end of the week with a statement from that same president of the board that a certain segment of the public was without just cause to launch a recall effort of an elected official (which, one might add, would take significantly more than three folks) “just because there is an ideological disagreement."

Let me get this straight. If you are a member of the Board of Supervisors you may not only operate solely on an ideological basis, but also remove three people who did not march in lockstep with that ideology. However, if you are a lowly citizen of this fair city and choose to attempt to remove an elected public servant, an ideological disagreement is not acceptable motivation.

I’ve not been involved in either effort, but the dampening and deadening effect of the resultant hypocritical rhetoric has caused my blood to run cold.

Cheryl Brodie
The City
May 15, 2007

Recall justified

You editorial position opposing the recall of Supervisor Jake McGoldrick is flat-out wrong.

There has been massive malfeasance on the part of the supervisor, not only for ignoring the will of the voters concerning the closing of roads on Saturdays in Golden Gate Park and for limiting the ability of renters to become homeowners in The City by limiting tenancies-in-common, but for refusing to address the important issues in the neighborhood he was elected to tackle.

The streets are filthy and full of potholes, trash and graffiti are becoming increasingly worse, and he secretly moved to force Bus Rapid Transit onto the neighborhood without even telling the neighborhood about the plan, or its consequences to the Richmond district.

My office has been inundated since the recall campaign started with letters and e-mails supporting our recall position because McGoldrick has refused to meet the needs of his constituents. Most often, he doesn’t bother to call people back or refuses to meet with them if he disagrees with their positions. He has ignored the district entirely, and he will be recalled in November.

Paul Kozakiewicz
Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon newspapers
May 16, 2007