top
San Francisco
San Francisco
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Ed Lee's Shill/Flack Randy Shaw CEO of City Funded THC Wants Press To Get More Lee Support

by repost
Randy Shaw who is a shill and flack for SF Mayor Ed Lee is concerned that not enough of Lee's supporters are getting media coverage. Shaw get more than $22 million from Lee for the Tenderloin Housing Center and has a racist history of targeting African American workers who call the place a plantation.
Shaw also helped support SEIU 1021 President Roxanne Sanchez by giving her a job at the THC so she could run for SEIU president and supporting Alysabeth Alexander who is the SEIU VP for Politics.
sm_shaw_shilling__media_for_lee_oops-copy.jpg
Who Booed Ed Lee? Ed Lee's Shill/Flack Randy Shaw CEO of City Funded THC Wants Press To Get More Lee Supporters On The Air
http://www.beyondchron.org/booed-mayor-ed-lee/
WHO BOOED MAYOR ED LEE?
by Randy Shaw on May 31, 2016

Facebook Twitter Google+ Email Print Share
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee
In his May 28 column, “low-key Ed Lee gets criticism from all sides,” the SF Chronicle’s C.W. Nevius observed “there were boos and catcalls” when the mayor took the stage at the Hillary Clinton rally at the Tenderloin’s Hibernia Bank last week. I heard the same. It got me thinking about who was doing the booing, and what it says about perceptions of San Francisco politics.

Who Booed?

I could not make out who in the audience booed Mayor Lee, but I can state with certainty who did not boo: Chinese-Americans (aka the mayor’s core political base). I was enjoying the spectacularly dolled out Hibernia for three hours before Clinton spoke and was struck by how few Chinese-Americans were present. The crowd, which came from the entire Bay Area (I was sitting next to a Latino family from Modesto), was quite diverse in most ways but not in its Chinese-American representation.

Why so few Chinese-Americans? I don’t know. Event attendance was primarily first come, first serve, and the line began forming before noon for a 4:15 pm speech. The crowd was primarily made up of fanatical Clinton backers, challenging claims that Clinton suffers from an enthusiasm gap.

None of the Clinton diehards behind the speaker’s podium booed. And once Lee began tearing into Donald Trump and hailing Hillary Clinton, cheering dominated (Lee was also savvy enough to keep doing call outs for the Warriors).

Booing SF Mayors

Booing San Francisco mayors is a long tradition. Mayors simply make too many decisions that alienate one constituency or another, unlike U.S. Senators or State Legislators who operate above the fray.

Willie Brown would get large boos, showing that people will jeer mayors who, unlike Lee, are not low-key. And while Gavin Newsom was warmly received when he introduced Clinton, I heard him booed when he was San Francisco mayor.

Booing is an easy way to express displeasure with politicians. But what struck me about the booing, like the intense media coverage of five hunger strikers demanding Lee’s resignation, is how minority perspectives routinely skew coverage of San Francisco politics.

Whose Voices Are Heard?

The constituencies that twice elected Ed Lee as mayor—particularly Chinese-Americans and homeowners—have become part of the new “forgotten majority” of San Francisco. Their voices are infrequently quoted on police, neighborhood safety, public health, the housing crisis or other general issues—and their impact on the city seems to be primarily demonstrated in election results

Who does the media quote on these issues? Critics of Mayor Lee. In fact, for some reporters criticizing the mayor is how they define news in San Francisco.

I understand that conflict drives news, and a press conference of those who support the mayor on an issue in the Sunset or Richmond sounds boring by comparison. But if we want to understand where most San Franciscans are on an issue, there is no excuse for focusing on those parts of the city where a politician is less popular while excluding their political base.

I made this point two years ago about the media’s obsession with Valencia Street. I wrote, “it’s no mystery why reporters flock to Valencia Street for stories on how tech has transformed San Francisco. Putting aside the fact that Valencia became a hotbed for bars and restaurants prior to the 2011 tech boom, a very different portrait would result if the media sought to depict a changing San Francisco by measuring the transformation of Clement Street. Or Irving Street. Or Ocean Avenue.”

The media’s disproportionate coverage of mayoral critics confuses city politics. That’s why a media that defined Mayor Willie Brown as the incarnate of wrongdoing had a hard time reconciling this with his landslide, 19% re-election victory in 1999 over Tom Ammiano. It took the objective measure of an election to offer a reality check on the city’s alleged widespread opposition to Mayor Brown’s policies.

I think the media’s inflated coverage of mayoral critics has also hampered progressives efforts to win mayoral elections. Since Agnos’ win in 1987 Matt Gonzalez is the only clear progressive to come close to winning a San Francisco mayoral election, and Matt was also the unique progressive who actively courted input from Westside homeowners and other traditionally “moderate” interests.

The vast majority of those who supported Mayor Ed Lee in 2011 still do. That’s why he won re-election without major opposition and would defeat any recall attempt in a landslide. And unlike one-term mayors Agnos and Jordan, Lee’s base remains strongly loyal to the mayor despite the crises impacting all major cities today.

The media would strengthen the critiques of opponents of the mayor by making them address the views of his supporters.This approach would also enhance the media’s own credibility with the elected officials it criticizes. After all, when a politician feels that a media outlet is relentlessly negative toward them, they stop listening.

Elections are the only objective political reality check. That’s because a vote carries a lot more weight than a boo.

Randy Shaw is Editor of Beyond Chron. He will be discussing city politics with Alex Clemens, Melissa Griffin-Caen, Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, and David Latterman at the RFK Democratic Club on June 2 from 7-8pm at Laborer’s Local 261: 3271 18th St. (the event starts at 6pm).

To leave feedback, go to feedback [at] beyondchron.org

SEIU 1021 In Collusion With Randy Shaw
http://www.bluoz.com/blog/index.php?/archives/703-third-Randy-Shaw-protest.html
On July 30, 2009, I was informed by National Labor Relations Board agent that Randy Shaw is no longer willing to waive the time limitations in order to ensure that the arbitrator addresses the merits of the dispute. Therefore, the National Labor Relations Board will resume processing the charge. We { several union members at Tenderloin Housing Clinic} have been told by our union representative that SEIU 1021 attorneys were working on an arbitration date with THC attorneys. I have attempted to contact Field Director Pattie Tamura for months to get clarification about what the SEIU 1021 position is on going to arbitration, no call back. SEIU 1021 Field Director Tamura received a letter in June - no answer. This behavior indicates to me that Randy Shaw and the SEIU 1021 management have a cozy relationship at the expense of the rank and file workers at Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Apparently SEIU 1021 did not file for arbitration ------ SEIU reputation for not representing members is nothing new -- I filed charges against SEIU 1021 last year for not representing me. It's call a Duty of Fair Representation. The good fight goes on with Randy Shaw and SEIU 1021 in bed together. This should send a strong message to members about who 's really representing them but then when members receive intimidating and threatening messages like the Human Resources Department sends out to workers and no one stands up --- It"s a Shame. This is America --- we the people can no longer let these racist thugs and union busters violate our rights and stand by --- doing Nothing. Randy Shaw and SEIU 1021 WILL BE EXPOSED, THEY MUST DO THE RIGHT THING OR LEAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.




A pattern is emerging where Randy Shaw is missing when these protests happen. The first part of the video shows Nate Holmes having a chat with current Tenderloin Housing Clinic senior property manager James Holland, who himself was promoted by Randy Shaw after a whole slew of senior management were fired after the last big scandal. Randy Shaw denied there ever was a problem at the Mission hotel, but never explained why so many senior management staff were fired after that article came out

background story on this protest



Eli Hernandez of the Coalition on Homelessness likes to film things too

<3779692952_8364f26bf3.jpg>

Progressive media is constantly complaining about privatizing public entities, yet says nothing about privatizing care for the homeless, which is exactly what Tenderloin Housing Clinic is. If THC was a public entity, Randy Shaw himself likely would have been fired by now. "No accountability" is a recurring chant among the protesters, which is a big reason why people warn about the dangers of privatizing

Privatization is a recipe for corruption. There always has been and always will be some level of graft, corruption, and incompetence in government operations; there will always be the occasional city employee who sleeps on the job, fudges time cards, doesn't do the job right, and somehow manages to avoid being fired. But that sort of small-time problem amounts to peanuts in comparison to what happens when large amounts of public money are turned over to the private sector.


Tens of millions in city contracts go every year to private nonprofits that fight like hell to avoid sunshine and accountability.


Ironically, if there were to be a large campaign against privatization of San Francisco public resources, many progressives here would have to campaign against themselves, and this could be a problem

<3778885349_0a2e8fa5f6.jpg>

<3778884755_237736358c.jpg>

<3778884263_a9aff7122e.jpg>

<3779690206_25053609dd.jpg>
Posted by in Tenderloin Housing Clinic at 13:48 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: tenderloin housing clinic
Related entries by tags:

• Tenderloin Housing Clinic grant denied because of tenant complaints

• Mid Market's highest crime building

• 900 Innes historical cottage gets graffiti abatement

• Beach Motel to stay as tourist motel

• Bay Guardian does another Beyondchron critique


City Contractor And Union Buster Randy Shaw Supports Privatization Of Botanical Gardens

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9063#more

SF Botanical Gardens
The Strange Story of San Francisco’s Botanical Garden Non-Resident Fee
by Randy Shaw‚ Apr. 07‚ 2011
0digg
As San Francisco faces its most brutal budget cutting in history, everyone is looking for ways to either save or raise money without sacrificing essential services. One would think that an obvious strategy would be to continue a $7.00 fee on non-residents choosing to attend the city’s Botanical Gardens. After all, unlike San Franciscans, non-residents do not pay taxes to maintain the Gardens, so paying a user fee to cover the cost of their attendance seems only fair. And considering that the Board’s progressives are always looking for ways to increase revenue, charging an admissions fee to non-residents is a painless way to raise at least $250,000 to fund at-risk city services. That logic prevailed in 2010, when the Botanical Gardens fee was first imposed. But a fee backed by former Supervisor Chris Daly in 2010 is now being opposed by his closest Board ally, John Avalos, who is sponsoring a measure to eliminate it. It’s a strange story, and the Board's decision next Tuesday could reverberate throughout the budget process.

I ran into the head of a nonprofit group this week and learned that the Human Services Agency was cutting their budget even more than expected. She asked me for advice, and I told her what I have often written---that she needed to show the Supervisors where they could find money to fund her group. And I added that she should not rely on the obvious places that Beyond Chron has harped on for years----such as excessive and overpaid Fire Department upper management---as they were just as likely to survive this year’s budgetary process as in the past.

Later that day I read an article about the controversy over the Botanical Gardens non-resident fee, and efforts to eliminate it. While the original legislation creating the fee in 2010 said that it would be removed if voters approved tax increase measures---which they did last November---one might assume that the state and local budget crisis would lead the Supervisors to do everything in their power to stop another $250,000 hit to the general fund.

But that assumption would be wrong. It would also be wrong to assume that supervisors who backed measures like last year’s proposed alcohol fee would be the group leading the fight to keep the non-resident Gardens revenue. Instead, a fee that Chris Daly described last year as “not one of the hard” budget decisions has become extremely controversial.

Ginsburg’s Agenda v. Budget Realities

Opponents of maintaining the fee argue that the Gardens should be free for all, that San Francisco residents get frustrated when they are denied free entry because they lack identification, that the administrative costs are too high (Harvey Rose reported 59% of fees in past year went for administration), and, most importantly, that the fee is part of Park and Rec Head Phil Ginsburg’s broader plan to “privatize” the Park.

Proponents cite the city’s critical need for revenue, the specific need for money to keep the Gardens open for school visits and other weekday uses, and the fact that the money is being raised from non-residents who are otherwise not financially supporting the Garden’s upkeep.

Underlying this dispute is Phil Ginsburg’s controversial decisions to change the longtime vendor at Stow Lake, and to close the Park’s recycling center long run by the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council. While some oppose the fee on the grounds that city parks should be free to all, the Japanese Tea Garden generates $2 million annually from non-resident fees without controversy. This says to me that Ginsburg’s other decisions have built opposition to the Gardens fee that would not otherwise exist.

One does not have to like Ginsbugh to conclude that a fee not even paid by local residents is preferable to layoffs of city or nonprofit workers or cutbacks in vital services. San Francisco needs the $250,000 the fee raises to avoid these results (proponents argue that the revenue generated will steadily grow, and that the past year was misleading because the fee was not collected in the hot tourist period of July and the first week of August).

A Premature Vote?

If the non-resident Gardens fee were up for Board consideration after the mayor’s budget was released and groups were storming City Hall to protest budget cuts, I find it hard to believe that the Supervisors would reject an easy way to secure at least $250,000. But the Board will instead decide the fee's fate at next week's meeting, well before budget cuts to specific groups are announced. And while there was a large turnout at the April 6 committee hearing on the fee, many groups dependent on city funding are likely still unaware of the issue.

I keep reading that the upcoming cuts will be more brutal than ever, and that the “easy” cutbacks were all made during the last two budget cycles. Well, it’s hard to think of an easier fund raising plan than to charge non-residents a fee to use a facility that residents are funding through their taxes.

It’s not Phil Ginsburg’s job that’s at stake if the fee is eliminated; rather, it’s the unionized gardeners, recreation center staff, or even social service workers whose jobs are lost to make up for budget shortfalls in Park & Rec.

As San Francisco prepares for layoffs and cuts to vital services, this is the wrong time for the Board to send a message that saving non-resident Botanical Garden visitors a $7.00 fee is more important than maintaining parks for residents, or protecting vital nonprofit and city jobs.

SEIU 1021, Randy Shaw And Who Is Roxanne Sanchez: SEIU 1021 Fired Steward Nate Holmes Speaks Out
http://youtu.be/WcegGGYPHoQ
San Franciso "liberal" and Executive Director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic Randy Shaw has played a key role in the politics of SEIU 1021 according to SEIU 1021 fired THC steward Nate Holmes. Holmes reports that he fought to defend fellow workers and enforce the contract and was illegally fired by Shaw. Top leaders of SEIU 1021 not only refused to fight for him but Shaw after firing him hired now SEIU 1021 president Roxanne Sanchez so she would be eligible to run for president of the Local. Sanchez who ran as a reform candidate according to Holmes helped THC Executive Director Shaw stop Holmes from coming back to work as a SEIU 1021 shop steward. Holmes reports that besides Sanchez, SF VP Larry Bradshaw, VP Alysabeth Alexander who also worked at the clinic as well as former SEIU 1021 Exective Director Josie Mooney betrayed him in his struggle for justice at SEIU Local 1021. Randy Shaw is also the editor of the Blog The Other Chron and is a supporter of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee. The Tenderloin Housing Clinic receives tens of millions of dollars from Mayor Ed Lee and the City of San Francisco and Shaw does PR for the Lee administration.
For more video go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFKofKXVBlY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJM8t_vsTdQ
Produced by Labor Video Project
http://www.laborvideo.org
§Shaw's Employees Lauded In Beyond Chron
by repost
sm_shaw__randy_text.jpg
Randy Shaw loves Roxanne Sanchez and Alysabeth Alexander two of his employees. When it came to backing up former TH chief steward Nate Holmes Sanchez and Alexander were MIA. They had their lawyer testify that Nate did not want to be represented in his grievance against union buster Randy Shaw in Federal Court.
§Ed Lee And Shaw
by repost
lee_and_shaw.jpg
Shaw has done damage control for corporate controlled racist Ed Lee.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$80.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network