As a person who often agrees with Breed, Wiener and Chiu, especially when they are pushing to build more housing, it hurts to admit it but this is probably true. I've been pretty consistent that they made a disastrously wrong call on this particular endorsement last year.
how do you know that that is not a plan? (and also, pay attention to the fact that both this and last year are consecutive election years....)
-
-
what if a group unilaterally effectively took away your negotiating leverage for a comprehensive ask in a future non-election year?
-
and did this literally the week you were sworn into office? (Again, I'm not agreeing with her decision, but I can totally see this POV.)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
i have a hard time answering this, since it's a line of reasoning that ends only in: don't create new specifically allocated funding sources, because you might someday want other specifically allocated funding sources
-
somehow, some way, none of the prior school bonds have yet kept us from passing subsequent park bonds. somehow, none of the earmarked revenue sources of the past have kept us from creating subsequent earmarked revenue sources
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.