Editor:

City-wide elections for the Board of Supervisors (BOS) means just one thing: money spent on advertising will determine who gets to become a Supervisor.  

I have lived in San Francisco since 1978, the last 30 years in the Richmond District. The idea that supervisors elected by District leads to “a much narrower and more parochial world view,” (as stated in a recent letter to the editor) can’t be right just on the face of it.  If you have ever attended a  BOS meeting, you know that every supervisor is intimately acquainted with the concerns of the other supervisors.  How could it be otherwise?  They have to work together to address neighborhood issues all over the City. Really, if I live in the Richmond, does that somehow insulate me from the concerns of the rest of the City? Representative democracy means having many different voices at the table, not just those who can afford to run a city-wide campaign.

With District elections, supervisors and candidates can literally walk every block in their District and get to know the residents and local businesses. The only way to reach all of the voters in a city-wide election is through expensive television, internet, radio and print advertising, and mass mail and email campaigns. Rather than serving the common good, supervisors would more likely be beholden to the interests of the wealthy donors who made it possible for them to be in office.  

We saw what out-of-town Republican political donations did in the recall of Chesa Boudin. A popularly elected district attorney was recalled after right-wing recall supporters raised $7.2 million, most of it from billionaires, in a campaign that highlighted dis-information, lies and fear-mongering targeting the Chinese-American community.  Mayor London Breed’s rise to political prominence was paid for by billionaire venture capitalist, Ron Conway.  Let’s keep money out of politics and keep District elections.

David Romano