It’s unfortunate when one’s opponents get desperate enough to launch these kinds of false attacks.

Here’s the truth:

I SUPPORT RENT CONTROL

I support rent control.  I actively campaigned against Prop 98, which would have repealed rent control.  The head of the Tenants Union said that I have a “pro-tenant voting record” on the Democratic County Central Committee.  Thus, the attacks claiming that rent control will somehow be repealed if I am elected, and that people will lose their homes, are false.  This is a desperate scare tactic that has no basis in reality.

NON-EXISTENT CONTRIBUTION FROM REPUBLICAN LANDLORD

Another false attack is the claim that I accepted a $225,000 contribution from Thomas Coates, who sponsored Prop 98, which would have repealed rent control.  As noted above, I campaigned against Prop 98.  More important, I NEVER ACCEPTED A PENNY FROM MR. COATES.  This claim is an outright lie.

I’M ABOUT AS BIG A DEMOCRAT AS THEY COME BY

Here’s the most absurd and over the top claim — that I am somehow aligned with Republicans.  I am a lifelong Democrat and served as Chairman of the San Francisco Democratic Party.  Under my leadership, we rebuilt the party and registered 15,000 voters.  I also co-chaired the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, served on the California Democratic Party Executive Committee, and worked hard to elect Democrats across the country.  I am proud to have the support of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Senator Mark Leno, and Mayor Gavin Newsom.

I SUPPORT HOSPITALS AND HIV SERVICES

Another lie is that my election will somehow result in the closure of Davies Medical Center and St. Luke’s Hospital and that I will cut funding for HIV/AIDS services.  Again, this is a lie.  I have fought for years to create health care access.  I supported Healthy San Francisco, our city’s universal health care plan.  I’ve advocated for funding for HIV services and have protested when the Governor cut that funding.  I am committed to our community hospitals, including Davies Medical Center, which is my own neighborhood hospital.  As a gay man who has lost friends to HIV and has friends living with the disease, I find it despicable that political operatives would level these false charges.

IMMIGRATION

I am a strong supporter of our immigrant communities.  Immigrants in San Francisco contribute significantly to our economic and cultural life.  No one respects our immigrant neighbors more than I do.  I am proud to have the endorsements of the janitors union (SEIU Local 87) and United Healthcare Workers West.  These unions are primarily comprised of immigrants.  I support San Francisco’s sanctuary policy — a policy that protects our immigrant families.  What I do not support is extending that policy to people who commit crimes.  I stand by that position.  The claim that I am against sanctuary is simply false.

***

Elections create pressures to win at all costs.  Ethical campaigns resist this temptation and tell the truth — focusing on the differences on issues among the candidates.  Desperate campaigns lie.  Join me in rejecting my opposition’s swift-boat tactics.

Scott has been a daily Muni rider for the past 13 years and has seen firsthand the up’s and down’s of the system. He is committed to reforming the system, getting its costs under control, and making smart physical changes so that it can do more even in an era of constrained budgets. As a result, Scott strongly supports Prop G and is proud to have Prop G author Supervisor Sean Elsbernd’s endorsement. Rescue MUNI’s stamp of approval is just additional proof that Scott Wiener is the transportation reform candidate in this race.

Rescue MUNI joins a growing list of endorsers of Scott’s candidacy, including 400 district 8 residents.

We are now in the home stretch of the campaign — less than three weeks until voting begins and less than seven weeks until election day. Now is the time to get involved. We need volunteers to knock on doors, phone voters, hand out literature, etc. Whether you can donate an hour of your time or many hours, please get involved today by contacting Adam Taylor, adam@scott2010.com.

Thank you for your continuing support of the campaign!!

In explaining their endorsements of Scott Wiener, Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Speier stressed Wiener’s long track record of leadership and accomplishment in the Democratic Party and the community. According to Speaker Pelosi: “Scott Wiener is part of a bold, new generation of leaders for San Francisco, and he has my support for District 8 Supervisor. Scott Wiener gets things done. He oversaw the registration of 15,000 new voters as Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, and played a critical role in building the LGBT Community Center and co-founding Castro Community on Patrol.”

Similarly, Congresswoman Speier emphasized Wiener’s proven ability to get things done and his collaborative style: “Over the years, I’ve seen firsthand Scott Wiener’s leadership style — Scott brings people together to get things done for San Francisco. Scott Wiener’s leadership in the Democratic Party and in the community is exceptional. I am proud to support him for District 8 Supervisor.”

Wiener expressed gratitude for the endorsements: “Nancy Pelosi and Jackie Speier are role models for anyone aspiring to public office. For decades, they have shown leadership on the issues that matter, including health care, consumer protection, civil rights, the environment, and public transportation. I am deeply honored to have their support.”

Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Speier join a growing list of community and political leaders supporting Scott Wiener’s candidacy for District 8 Supervisor, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Mark Leno, Mayor Gavin Newsom, Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu, Rev. Cecil Williams and Janice Mirikitani of Glide Church, Ambassador James Hormel, and neighborhood and merchant leaders from around the district. Wiener has also been endorsed by labor and community organizations, such as the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, United Healthcare Workers West/SEIU, Firefighters Local 798, SF Police Officers Association, Janitors Local 87/SEIU, SF Building and Construction Trades Council, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 16, Plumbers Local 38, and Teamsters Joint Council 7.

For more information, or to get involved, go to www.scott2010.com, or email info@scott2010.com.

I am committed to public policies that promote and sustain arts and entertainment in San Francisco. Having a vibrant arts and entertainment scene is critical to the City’s cultural vibrancy.

This commitment includes:

Supporting our City’s arts institutions, including those in which the City plays a direct role like the Asian Art Museum and those where the City simply needs to facilitate the creation of arts opportunities, like the expansion of the Museum of Modern Art. I will show leadership in ensuring that the City facilitates the creation and growth of cultural institutions.

Supporting arts education in our public schools, including continuation of Prop H funding. I will be skeptical of efforts to undermine Prop H funding by substituting cash contributions with in-kind contributions.

Ensuring that the arts receive adequate funding. I will support the City’s funding of arts through the hotel tax and will protect funding for institutions like the symphony and opera, which are important to the City’s cultural life and which provide educational opportunities for kids. Bad budget years require sacrifice by everyone, including the arts, but I will oppose efforts to dramatically reduce or eliminate this funding.

Supporting affordable housing opportunities for artists. This is an expensive city, and we need to be proactive in supplying artists with housing opportunities so that the City continues to have a diverse population. This includes support for planning policies that lead to artist collectives as well as more traditional affordable housing opportunities such as the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Advocating for our street fairs and festivals. These outdoor events are part of the City’s cultural lifeblood, and the City has not been supportive of them. Indeed, the City has created many obstacles, financial and otherwise, to their continued existence. San Francisco needs to embrace, work with, and promote these street festivals.

Supporting our City’s nightlife and music scene. Both are under intense pressure in San Francisco, including increased costs as well as regulatory and development pressures. Having an active and vibrant nightlife, including live music venues, is critical to San Francisco’s economy, tax base, and cultural identity.

I look forward to working on all of these issues to ensure that San Francisco remains a diverse, lively, and interesting place.

You’ll recall that a few weeks ago, it was reported in the press that the park was going to shut down entirely for a year or more.  It turns out that this was not accurate — or to put it another way, a decision has not yet been made about total closure vs. phased closure.

Here’s the situation.  As part of the 2008 parks bond, the voters authorized $13.2 million for renovation of Dolores Park.  The park hasn’t had a major renovation in decades.  It has some significant problems.  The irrigation system is a mess, as anyone who’s stepped or sat down in a puddle on a clear day can attest.  The restroom building is not in good shape, and there’s always a long wait to use it.  And, given the park’s high usage — which makes it so unique and fun — it’s getting worn out.

There are two parts of the renovation. First, the playground, which is a stand-alone project, will close down in October of this year for a few months for a complete re-do.  It’s a $3 million project, half of which comes from the city and the other half of which comes from a private grant.  The amazing Friends of Dolores Park Playground has been moving the playground project forward, and the playground plans have been approved and are in place.

Second, we have the re-do of the park.  The actual renovation will start in January 2012.  Yes, you have two more years of fun before the renovation begins.  Starting in May or so, there will be a series of public meetings to get as much input from users, neighbors, etc., as possible.  This will help Rec & Park determine exactly what needs to be done (in addition to the obvious things like irrigation, the restroom area, the worn down tennis courts, ADA issues, etc.).  Rec & Park will then bid the project, the plans will be drawn up, and ultimately the Rec & Park Commission will approve the plans.  Renovation will then ensue.

The big issue, of course, is whether the entire park will close down or whether it will close down in phases so that portions of the park can be used at all times.  This decision hasn’t been made yet, and it will be informed by public feedback.  Supervisor Dufty asked for a straw poll of the 100 or so people present (a diverse group of users), and unless I missed someone, every single person who raised a hand voted for a phased closure.  One of the Rec & Park people asked whether people’s votes would change if total closure meant an 8 month renovation vs. a 3 year renovation for a phased closure.  A vote wasn’t taken on that, but it was food for thought.

I continue to believe that if it’s feasible, we should do a phased closure.  The only things that would change my opinion would be (a) if phasing would significantly increase project costs and make the renovation significantly less effective and (b) if there were a truly dramatic timing difference between total closure and phasing, i.e., if phasing would draw the project out so long that it would end up making everyone miserable.  At this point, we don’t have enough information to answer either of these questions.

We have almost two years of this process and then a year or more of renovation work.  Get ready for a fun and (I hope not too) frustrating ride!

The article raises a very good point — one that’s received a lot of attention lately — about modern America’s lack of investment in our infrastructure.  We’ve seen the results of this under-investment in crumbling bridges and roads, and President Obama attempted to address the issue by providing billions of dollars to shore up our infrastructure for “shovel ready” projects.

Yet, as important as the infrastructure aspect of the stimulus is, it begs the larger question of our continuing and consistent commitment to maintain the infrastructure that we have to and to create new infrastructure that will improve our quality of life, and the quality of life of our children and grandchildren, for decades to come.

There are two ways that we have fallen short on infrastructure.  First, we have under-invested.  For example, in San Francisco, we have almost half a billion dollars in deferred maintenance on our roads alone.  Our public transportation system, Muni, has outdated technology and communications systems.  A number of Muni vehicles are or will shortly require mid-life rebuilds, yet we have little or no money set aside to cover that important capital cost.  Our sewer and water systems have aged without adequate investment.  We are now starting to address these problems as a city and to dig ourselves out of the hole we have created — a hole that exists because we haven’t been disciplined in budgeting adequately to maintain our infrastructure.

Recently, on the bright side, we have been spending more in annual appropriations for road maintenance, though only enough to prevent further deterioration as opposed to enough to start improving road quality.  We passed a bond to retrofit our water system and another one to rebuild San Francisco General Hospital.  And, we are gradually replacing 100-year-old sewer pipes.  In addition, we now have a 10-year capital plan (http://www.sfgov.org/site/cpp_index.asp?id=39210), which is updated each year and which (in a very realistic and sobering way) catalogs our many infrastructure needs, puts a price tag on them, and proposes funding mechanisms for at least some of the needs.  If San Francisco is able to follow this plan, we will move in the right direction to dig out of our infrastructure hole.

The second way we have fallen short is in our vision to create new, smart, and big infrastructure projects that fundamentally improve our quality of life.  For example, the pace of creating new public transportation in this country is pathetic.  There is an important movement afoot to create a national high-speed-rail system, which will have dramatic positive impacts on transportation and economic growth.  However, the federal stimulus allocates a meager $8 billion to help fund what will require hundreds of billions of dollars to build nationally in any meaningful way.

In San Francisco, we have no shortage of vision in terms of major new infrastructure.  The Transbay Transit Center, which will be a transit hub for the entire Bay Area, from high-speed rail to other transit, is moving forward.  Muni recently launched the Third Street Rail, which extended the light rail system to the southeast section of the city.  The Central Subway is moving forward, despite concerns (which I share) about whether this was the best use of approximately $1.5 billion in scarce transit dollars. Bus rapid transit (where buses are physically separated from cars and thus do not have to contend with vehicle traffic congestion) appears to be moving ahead on Van Ness and Geary.  And, we are seeing more and more of a push to change sidewalks and street crossings to improve pedestrian safety.

So, San Francisco is actually moving in the right direction on new infrastructure, particularly in the transit arena.  That is a very good thing.  However, we need to ensure that we are taking care of the infrastructure that we already have, from our roads to our waterfront piers (with billions of dollars in deferred maintenance) to the Hall of Justice (which requires either complete replacement or a massive retrofit to survive a major earthquake) to the current Muni infrastructure.  Accomplishing this will require budgetary discipline, and it will not happen overnight.  When budget season comes around, we need to make sure that infrastructure investment — which benefits everyone from all walks of life on a daily basis — is right up there with other critical priorities like health care and public safety.  It also will require budget reform like devoting one-time revenue to one-time expenses (i.e., capital expenses).  This budget reform hasn’t gotten traction yet, but it is a sensible way to start devoting more funding to infrastructure and to make some big changes in the long run.

Dolores Park Works isn’t the only example of people working to improve their neighborhood parks.  For example, Friends of Duboce Park has done a tremendous job cleaning Duboce Park as well as working with the City to ensure that the recently reopened Harvey Milk Rec Center and other capital improvements are usable by the neighborhood.  Similarly, Friends of the Noe Valley Rec Center has made sure that the Upper Noe Rec Center is a nerve center for the neighborhood.

And, neighborhood stewardship isn’t just about parks and rec centers.  I’ve previously written about the City’s “Pavement to Parks” program that takes under-utilized and pedestrian-unfriendly street space and turns it into mini-plazas.  As president of my neighborhood association, I worked with the Castro/Upper Market Community Benefit District (CBD) and Supervisor Bevan Dufty to create the 17th Street Plaza in the Castro.  The CBD has done a tremendous job maintaining and creating programming (such as musical performances) in the plaza.  The new plaza at Guerrero and San Jose is similarly a great new community space — a space that is maintained by the neighborhood for the neighborhood.  The Guerrero Street area came together previously to green the Guerrero median.

In the end, each of us is responsible for doing our part to make sure that our public spaces, from parks to plazas to rec centers to every other kind of public space, is clean, vibrant, and safe.  By doing so, we can play a big role in making our neighborhoods the interconnected and wonderful places they should be.

First some history.  Several years ago, Trader Joe’s tried to come into the neighborhood at Sanchez and Market, in the old Dulux Paints site that is now Chase.  There was significant opposition in the neighborhood because of concerns about traffic.  After all, the Trader Joe’s on Masonic has created what can only be described as a traffic disaster.  There was also support for the Sanchez/Market site, but the no’s won out.

Now, Trader Joe’s is back, and I think it’s a very good fit.  The Tower Records space has been vacant for years, and that vacancy has had a significant negative impact on the small businesses around it.  Big empty spaces are almost never a good thing, particularly when that space used to be an anchor store that drew foot traffic into the neighborhood.  And this is not an easy space to fill, given it’s size and odd configuration.

It’s critical that we fill that space with a retailer that adds to the neighborhood’s vibrancy.  Trader Joe’s does exactly that.  It provides reasonably priced and interesting food choices — very different than your standard Safeway fare.  It also treats its employees well and has a great reputation.  Trader Joe’s will benefit the neighborhood as a whole, by providing a new food alternative, and it will help the small businesses around it.

There are several concerns with the project.  The biggest is traffic/parking, and we definitely need to hold Trader Joe’s feet to the fire in terms of coming up with a good plan to make sure we don’t turn into another Masonic, either on Market Street or in the Noe/Beaver area.  One option is to have very limited parking so that people don’t think of driving to the store.  There are 39 parking spots on the roof of the building.  That’s already a relatively small number for a supermarket.  It could be made even smaller to make the store a walking destination, like the Trader Joe’s in Boston, which has no parking.  In any event, there will be a traffic study before anything is approved, and we’ll get to iron out whatever issues the study raises.

Another concern is the possible impact that Trader Joe’s will have on nearby small businesses, particularly small food retailers.  This is a legitimate item to watch, but I don’t think it outweighs the benefits of the project.  As an initial matter, I’m not convinced that Trader Joe’s will cannibalize smaller markets like Harvest Market.  Larger and smaller food markets always coexist near one another.  People go to a larger or smaller market for different reasons (e.g., the weekly shopping trip versus the daily small shopping trip).

But in assessing the potential impact on surrounding small businesses, it’s important to keep in mind the almost-certain positive impacts.  Trader Joe’s will generate foot traffic that will benefit surrounding retailers, restaurants, etc.  It will bring much-needed vibrancy to that location.

Once we work out the kinks, particularly parking and traffic, Trader Joe’s will be a solid addition to the neighborhood.

The department is also seeing strong results in the Ingleside District, which spans from Bernal Heights through Glen Park, Upper Noe Valley, Diamond Heights, and Forest Hill.   Ingleside is a test station for a number of proposed SFPD reforms, including improved technology and innovative staffing ideas.  Ingleside also is lucky to have Captain David Lazar, who is energetic, willing to try new things, and extremely connected to the community.  For example, Captain Lazar has been aggressive in having undercover officers ride Muni regularly to improve Muni’s safety record (crime on Muni has gone up even as crime citywide has gone down).  We’re now seeing the results, as robberies in the Ingleside District have dropped.  Robberies have been a big problem, particularly in Glen Park and Noe Valley, but things appear to be improving.  (http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/under-the-dome/Robberies-continue-to-drop-steadily-in-Ingleside-63487587.html)

It’s great to see the department moving in the right direction.  San Franciscans want to live in safe neighborhoods, and we’re moving in that direction.