Tony Kelly BOS 10 questionnaire

Tony Kelly BOS 10 questionnaire

Postby Jeff_W on Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:30 pm

Questionnaire for Board of Supervisors Candidates District 10,
November, 2010 General Election
Candidate/Campaign Information:
Candidate name:
Tony Kelly
Contact person:
Tony Kelly
Mail address:
1459 18th Street #266, SF CA 94107
Telephone:
415 933 1515
Email address:
Tony @tonykelly2010.com
Web address:
Tonykelly2010.com
Anticipated Budget:
143,500
Funds raised to date:
Approx. $72,000
Percentage of donations under $50
54%
Please write a brief response (less than 150 words) to each question. You will have additional
opportunities to address these issues.
1. Why are you running? Why should we vote for you?
I’m running because District 10 needs to be in charge of its own future, with a Supervisor who
comes from the neighborhoods, who knows the neighborhood issues, who recognizes that we
know our district better than anyone.
San Francisco has changed so much in the last eight years, with so much more on the way. We
have seen the effects of gentrification, of schools and services that are poorly budgeted and
maintained, of deeply rooted environmental problems – and a growing sense that government
can’t do much to help. But more than ever, there are people who need affordable housing,
children who need a good education, neighborhoods that need to be free from the threat of
violence, and workers who need a future for themselves and their families. I know that local
government can help these problems, because I’ve seen it through a decade of leading
community advocacy efforts.
2. What sets you apart from your opponents?
I have a far wider and deeper range of experience on the specific issues of District 10, from
redistricting in 2002 to the Hunters Point Shipyard right now. For more than a decade I have been
volunteering and leading neighborhood efforts for sustainable land use, working-class jobs, open
space & transit planning, affordable housing, and environmental justice. We improved the
Eastern Neighborhoods plans, we are closing the City’s power plants, we are turning around our
neighborhood schools and public housing. Because my experience comes from grassroots work
with residents and workers, I know that the people of District 10 are the experts about the future
of District 10.
If we’re going to build a new, more sustainable future – in the economy, in the environment, in the
neighborhoods – we have to listen to all the people more, and better, than we ever have before.
3. San Francisco for Democracy is committed to grassroots involvement. Please explain how you
are involving ordinary citizens in your campaign?
Through my years of volunteer advocacy, I’ve developed a network of hundreds of neighborhood
advocates throughout the district through a decade of shared volunteer work; I will use that
network and new recruits to build affinity groups, walk precincts, distribute literature, hold house
parties, and identify and contact supporters and voters.
I want to continue this involvement and citizen access after I am elected. There are many
communities in the district who feel disconnected from City Hall, especially during the last few
years of budget and service cuts; moreover, many thousands of neighborhood and issue activists
don’t necessarily identify themselves that way. I would work with activist communities and
ordinary citizens to connect them with other neighborhood volunteers and organizations on a
regular, ongoing basis - to connect them to the political process, build a foundation for shared
empowerment, and bring shared ideas to the general/voting public quickly and accurately.
4. San Francisco for Democracy endorses fiscally responsible and socially progressive candidates.
Please give examples of why you fit these criteria?
I have the most substantial record of advocacy of anyone in this campaign, through hundreds of
neighborhood meetings and City Hall hearings. I have continually pushed for front-line services
and opportunities in our communities, especially for the poorest, most disadvantaged populations;
and against overpaid management, corporate subsidies and outright giveaways. My advocacy
has often aligned me with the progressive majority of the Board of Supervisors.
One example: During the Eastern Neighborhoods re-zoning process, I built a cross-neighborhood
alliance with affordable housing advocates and neighborhood organizations in the Mission and
SOMA. We were a strong influence on the re-zoning plans, saving light-industry jobs and
affordable housing opportunities throughout the southeast portion of the City, and demanding
better open space and transit services.
For my leadership in the arts community and the communities of District 10, I was named a Local
Hero by the San Francisco Bay Guardian in 2006.
5. What public safety strategies currently being implemented by the San Francisco Police
department do you agree, or disagree with? What will be your agenda regarding public safety, if
elected supervisor?
6. What is your position regarding Sit/Lie?
7. Do you believe San Francisco should be a Sanctuary city?
I will answer these three questions together in 400 words.
If we are not looking at alternatives to detention for youth offenders, alternatives to incarceration
for misdemeanor offenders, and fully supported re-entry and probation programs for ex-offenders,
then we are simply not serious about addressing our City’s public safety issues. Instead, we are
forced into discussions about criminalizing our youth with gang injunctions, criminalizing our
homeless with sit/lie ordinances, and criminalizing our immigrant population (in a City that is 40%
immigrants!) with the gutting of our Sanctuary Ordinance.
This is not just bad policy, this is abusive – it leads to victims in my district not reporting crimes to
the police because they believe they will be deported.
Further, regarding Sit/Lie: I agree with Supervisor Dufty that we should not be writing laws that
depend on selective enforcement to be effective, and I agree with the SF Planning Commission
that this proposed Sit/Lie law contradicts City policies for the past decade intended to promote
sidewalks and the public realm as accessible, livable spaces. Existing laws, enforced by
community policing procedures and foot patrols, can handle any perceived problems on our
sidewalks in certain neighborhoods.
We need a substantial commitment to community policing measures such as:
o Regular foot patrols, by officers who know the district and its neighborhoods
o Civilianizing staff support positions within the SFPD, to get more officers onto the streets
o Improving language services, so there are multilingual services at our police stations 24/7
o An end to gang injunctions
o More community programs, to maximize friendly contacts between police and our
communities and build trust and cooperation.
And we need a serious commitment to our youth, low-income, and immigrant populations to
increase access to City services, such as:
o Safe havens at schools so children don’t have to return to dangerous
home/neighborhood situations
o Alternatives to detention and incarceration throughout the criminal justice system
o Improved community health programs, including programs addressing traumatic stress
and HIV prevention
o Stable, ongoing youth and young adult programs for recreation and employment
o Wraparound and case management services to combat threats and barriers for families,
youth, employment, and re-entry concerns
And, if we’re not talking again about Citywide gun control, we’re not serious about reducing
violent crime.
8. What do you believe is the correct percentage of units to be set aside for affordable housing,
when property is redeveloped? Please explain why you believe that percentage is correct?
For publicly owned land, the correct percentage is 100% – there is no cost for the land or
entitlement and the financing is far cheaper. For privately owned land, I believe 30-40%
affordability is attainable with the proper application of powerful City financing tools, including
community banking (see below).
Our affordable housing crisis is crippling our economy, our diversity, and our community health,
and we won’t solve it by building more market-rate condominiums.
I am a primary supporter in District 10 of the HOPE SF rebuilds of our City’s worst public housing
– housing rebuilds that also promise more affordable housing at all income levels, and health,
family, and workforce services as part of the developments. I also support the acquisition and
rehabilitation of existing housing and the purchase of foreclosed and bank-owned properties
throughout District 10 and the City, to add to our permanently affordable housing stock.
9. Public transportation is dysfunctional in the City and County of San Francisco. Do you agree with
that statement? If not, why? If so, what is your analysis of why it is dysfunctional? What will you
do to make public transportation functional if elected?
We dedicate far too much of its land to support automobiles, and this policy is killing our people,
our economy, and our diversity. We have eight times as many asthma sufferers as other parts of
the City, and our average life expectancy is years shorter. With another 100,000 new residents
coming to the district in the next 30 years due to re-zoning and redevelopment, we have to act
now to make alternatives to cars much more attractive:
o Dedicating entire traffic lanes to transit vehicles, and to bicycles
o Diversifying our Muni fleet and routes to include shuttle-type buses and services, feeding
more riders into major lines on much more frequent service
o Increasing language and access services
o Stabilizing funding, which means an end to the work orders that make Muni a slush fund
for the entire City budget right now, and transit assessment fees for downtown
businesses.
10. What do you view as the top three issues in District 10? What are your solutions for these issues?
Do you believe these issues are consistent throughout the city? If they are not consistent, what do
you view as the issues outside your district that should be addressed in the coming years? Do you
have solutions for those issues?
We need to use the full power of our City budget to invest sufficiently in the infrastructure and
front-line services that really provide for the economy, health and safety of all our residents, and
the livability of all our neighborhoods.
We must manage the immense growth planned for the neighborhoods of District 10 (100,000 new
residents projected in the next 30 years), to preserve and create quality jobs in diverse industries
and the public sector, and maximize housing affordability, diversity and livability.
And we must get more serious about pollution and community health issues in southeast San
Francisco and specific health dangers affecting immigrant communities and people of color
throughout the City.
By approaching economic development creatively, and aggressively pursuing City income
streams that don’t raise taxes, we can increase the spending power of our people and budget
revenue by creating high-quality permanent jobs. (See below.)
11. What is your position regarding privatization in the public sector?
12. Do you favor the use of Project Labor Agreements in the public sector? Please explain your
position.
I will answer these two questions together in 300 words.
The current mania of privatizing public resources and operations must end quickly; rather, we
need to expand the application of public-sector labor standards, such as project labor
agreements, to the private sector. I would seek to leverage public resources to stimulate the
private economy in San Francisco. By doing so, we can expand the mandate for jobs with decent
wages and benefits, and increase opportunities for union organization in industries that have
been resistant in the past.
One example: Billions of dollars in City reserves sit in commercial banks every day. Why don’t we
put those reserves to work for us? We can respond to the worldwide credit crunch by creating a
new local credit market, via existing credit unions or possibly the creation of a municipal bank. I
would propose only two requirements on loans using that market: that loans are for businesses in
San Francisco or that employ City residents, and that those businesses provide high-quality jobs.
That way, we can require the use and implementation of project labor agreements, in the public
sector AND on private sector projects borrowing City money.
Another example: Billions of dollars of tax-increment financing for Bayview redevelopment have
been committed to building market-rate condominiums at the Hunters Point Shipyard, a tragically
flawed project that doesn’t serve District 10 and, in fact, makes the residents of Bayview pay for
their own gentrification by investing their future property taxes.
I would redirect Redevelopment financing away from the Shipyard and into more projects that
benefit the Bayview sooner – workforce programs like Jobs Now, smaller-scale development
projects along Third Street, an accelerated HOPE SF rebuild, pollution cleanup and open space
projects, and health, family and child services based at our public schools and community
centers.
San Francisco for Democracy Questionnaire for Board of Supervisors
Jeff_W
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:00 pm

Return to November 2010 General Election

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron