The Los Angeles Times makes an eloquent point here:
Newsom’s family business is run by a close relative — his sister, who seems unlikely to maintain radio silence with her brother for his four-year gubernatorial term. And if Newsom continues to accrue profits from the business’ assets, there’s the potential that lobbying firms or interest groups wishing to curry favor with or grab the ear of the governor might arrange to spend a ski vacation at the PlumpJack Squaw Valley Inn or a rejuvenating long weekend at the Ingleside Inn in Palm Springs, book a party at one of the company’s event spaces or order cases of wine from one of the wineries.
Congratulations Governor elect Gavin Newsom!
San Francisco journalist and researcher Carol Harvey expertly details Newsom’s involvement with toxic pollution at Hunters Point and on Treasure Island, as well as his pandering to the anti-homeless crowd:
And so it happened that on Aug. 18, 2010, a brilliantly sunny day, Gavin Newsom convened a “Mayor’s Press Conference” on Treasure Island attended by U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Willie Brown observed from the audience.
Newsom’s TIDA Redevelopment Director Jack Sylvan asked board members to stand. Among them was past TIDA board member Jared Blumenfeld, who, after directing San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, was elevated to regional administrator for Environmental Protection Agency District 9 in San Francisco, a federal post he held from January 2010 to May 6, 2016.
This EPA official was well aware of the Navy’s decontamination of Treasure Island, yet nowhere in Michael Krasny’s KQED 2016 exit interview of Blumenfeld did the former EPA director mention Treasure Island or Hunters Point. Blumenfeld spoke of environmental injustice against Native Americans but not the people of color being poisoned at both former bases.
After all three politicians delivered unctuous self-congratulatory speeches, they signed the terms for the conveyance of former Naval Station Treasure Island from the Navy to the City.
The reason is simple: according to The Sacramento Bee, Newsom declined to stay within campaign limits!:
Newsom, unlike his Republican opponent John Cox, declined to accept the $14.5 million general election campaign campaign spending limit for gubernatorial candidates.
State law requires candidates for state office to keep below expenditure limits — which vary depending on the office being sought — if they want to purchase a 250-word candidate statement in the information guide that the state sends to approximately 19 million registered voters.
According to state election records, the Newsom campaign has spent $21.9 million this year as of Sept. 22. The Cox campaign, by comparison, has spent $8.9 million.
As usual, Newsom panders the most egregious nonsense while offering no solutions.
The solution of the elites is to drive the unhoused away. To where?
The feeling among addicts, he said, is, “I’m going to shoot up when I need to shoot up because I’m self-medicating … and I’m not going to wait for the doors to open in a facility that I have to make my way to — particularly in a city that frankly is indulging my use because they are not necessarily intervening.”
This is excellent journalism by the LA Times! The Chronicle would never touch this. They are the Pravda for the elites!
Significant here are the facts that:
a) Some of the families listed here also control the art museums (which they have treated as their personal fiefdoms).
b) The Pritzkers are also tied to Rahm Emmanuel and other corrupt Chicago elites. Astonishingly, Penny Pritzker was Obama’s Secretary of Commerce.
c) The Shultzes wrote a letter of support for new conservative neoliberal San Francisco Mayor London Breed. Some 60,000 of these were sent out to Republican voters.
d) Mark and Suzy Tomkins Buell are notorious. Buell, a developer, tried to bulldoze all of Mt. San Bruno. Suzy, who is banned from Esprit headquarters (a company she founded with her late ex-husband, who went on to found Patagonia) is HRC’s BFF and a solid supporter of corporate “lean in” “feminism.”
They have worked to privatize public parks in Marin and San Francisco through the use of “nonprofits.”
As those familiar with San Francisco politics already know, Gavin Newsom has long supported the career of fellow corporate conservative London Breed.
Both have long had the aim of having the city better serve the needs of the area’s wealthy who can never be too greedy and never have enough and never have enough opportunity to remake San Francisco into a gated vertical community for the wealthy, a theme park for techies and tourists.
Here, notable political consultant Frank Chu, a legend among long-term residents, tells us why he supports Mayor London Breed and ex-Mayor and gubernatorial aspirant Gavin Newsom.
We hope that these two wonderful politicians will reward Chu’s fealty with an investigation into the Twelve Galaxies!
Frank Chu definitely needs to be paid for his work as a movie star. Breed and Newsom need to increase social equity in a way that only such stalwart progressives and civil rights-advocates can!
Spoiler: This is a fake photo!
It is important to note that Gavin Newsom was selected by elites to replace Willie Brown. Ed Lee worked under Willie Brown as City Manager, a post whose powers Brown had watered down substantially.
Before Ed Lee served as City Manager, he had been in charge of DPW, an agency now headed by Breed “mentor” Mohammed Nuru, who has presided over unconscionable sweeps of encampments inhabited by San Francisco’s abandoned people.
The essential players in the power structure, despite their horrific record (gentrification, eviction, displacement, outright tech colonialism of the city and its streets and commons) have not changed in decades.
San Francisco Magazine/Modern Luxury, says:
“After that, the Chinese share of the voting public continued to grow, providing Brown’s successor, Gavin Newsom, with his margin of victory in 2003. Newsom would prove less solicitous of the Chinese community than Brown, but by then it hardly mattered. The wheels were turning faster. The return to district elections in 2000 (replacing at-large elections, which had been in place since the 1978 assassinations of Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk) yielded a bumper crop of Chinese-American supervisors within the decade. And, of course, when Newsom ascended to Sacramento, he helped engineer the installation of Ed Lee as interim mayor—the new, extravagantly mustachioed face of the establishment.”
“If you can’t trust Gavin with your best friend’s wife, how can you trust him with the state?” — Travis Allen
This was said at the gubernatorial debate.
Newsom went to one woman, who runs Delancey Street, and was miraculously cured of alcoholism! (And cocaine abuse also?)
But there is also the controversy regarding Tippy Rourk’s payout for government service.
Unfortunately, all four Dem candidates voiced their support for the “high-speed rail” project, an insanely expensive boondoggle which is to run between SF and LA. (Don’t count on ordinary people being able to pay the fares!)
See Allen’s comments here.
Gavin Newsom markets himself as a friend to undocumented migrants.
But is he really?
The Mercury News reports:
A fight over sanctuary policy a decade ago when Newsom was mayor of San Francisco suggests that he wasn’t always as strident a defender of immigrant rights.
In July 2008, Newsom imposed a city policy that reported undocumented youth arrested for felonies to federal immigration authorities. That decision — made the week after a father and his two sons were killed by an undocumented immigrant — meant that some kids were put at risk of deportation even if charges against them were later dropped.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to overturn Newsom’s policy in 2009, mandating that minors could only be referred to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement if they were convicted of a felony. But Newsom’s administration simply ignored the board, continuing to turn juvenile arrestees over to ICE for the rest of his term.
Meanwhile, according to emails obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Newsom’s administration also conducted a review of people in the city’s probation system and referred more than 350 suspected undocumented immigrants to ICE.
San Francisco immigrant advocates say Newsom’s record should call into question his commitment to defending California’s sanctuary policies.
“Don’t try to rewrite history and portray yourself as a champion of immigrants when you yourself were prominently involved with a policy that led to the separation of families,” said former Supervisor David Campos, who led the fight against Newsom on the issue.