letter to the editor

Letter to the Editor: A Case for Electing Supervisors by District


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

1 reply »

  1. Well said David.
    I’m glad someone pushed back against the recent trope that was tossed out based upon the ridiculous moniker of Animal Farm.
    I commented a rebuttal to that post myself.
    Thanks for laying out the reality. The big bucks want to run the show under the pretense of democracy, which is why Breed pressured the committee that redrew various district lines to do what they did. She did what her masters told her to do because that’s the game they play.
    Governing by political stunts and saying curse words into a microphone is also what her masters want her to do, while she gives her masters what they want in the background — while violating all of the sunset/daylight provisions in the meantime.
    They roll out this stuff about “parochial” “ward” “narrow-minded” politics because they think the voting public has forgotten the past, and they can pull a fast one over low-information/single-issue voters with misleading, dishonest political ads.

    When people show you who they really are, believe them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s