Editorials

SAN FRANCISCO — The city holds a runoff election for nine supervisors Tuesday that could determine the future of dot-com expansions and other projects that some say are robbing San Francisco of its bohemian character. 

Many residents are so fed up with spiraling housing costs, traffic gridlock and other side effects of the Internet boom that none of the 18 candidates campaigned in favor of the way the city has changed during Mayor Willie Brown’s five years as mayor. 

Even his allies – including Juanita Owens, a black lesbian running in the district that includes Haight-Ashbury – have distanced themselves from the mayor in speeches and campaign literature. 

“It angers me that some in City Hall have betrayed our community’s confidence and trust,” said Owens, a former school board president.  

“If you elect me supervisor, I’ll promise not to be ‘bought or bossed.”’ 

Nine of the 11 seats on the city’s Board of Supervisors are up for grabs on Tuesday. 

At the heart of Tuesday’s election is the pro-growth agenda backed by Brown and his allies. Supporters say it is critical to San Francisco’s economy, while critics contend it has changed the city for the worse. 

The races have been fierce: A group of developers, construction companies and downtown corporate interests has tried to preserve Brown’s control over City Hall by pumping almost $2 million since July into a block-by-block battle for voters. 

Much of that money came from out-of-town interests, such as Ohio-based Malrite Corp., which wants to develop a theme park on Pier 39m complete with a “thrill ride” through an imitation San Francisco. 

Voters voted 3-1 on Nov. 7 for an educational center instead, but the theme park idea isn’t dead yet. It and similar plans – including a proposed floating hotel and conference center built to resemble the Titanic – could ultimately go before the Board of Supervisors. 

The board also may have  

the final word on planning decisions for 724,000 square feet of new offices, mostly proposed for dot-com businesses that would be exempt from having to  

pay into the city’s affordable-housing fund. 

“It’s just really criminal,” said Tom Ammiano, one of the two supervisors elected outright on Nov. 7. “I think people want to be at the table.” 

It was Ammiano who mobilized an improbable grassroots write-in campaign last year that briefly threatened to unseat Brown and his Democratic Party machine, which has such a lock on local politics that there are no elected Republicans within the city limits. Brown defeated Ammiano, but the grassroots movement he spawned has only become more organized: Only four of the supervisor candidates Brown backed finished first in last month’s election. 

Brown himself has kept a low profile. Days before the general election, he did say he hoped anti-Brown forces didn’t “load us down with a lot of crazy people.” 

Among the “crazies” are Aaron Peskin, whose neighborhood association blocked a Rite-Aid drug store from opening among the Italian cafes of North Beach. It is one of many campaigns against chain stores in the city. 

“The mayor is more interested in doing large real-estate deals than making sure the buses run on time and making sure our infrastructure is in good shape,” Peskin said Monday. 

“This is a breath of fresh air that is sweeping over our city,” he said of the board elections. 

The mayor’s spokesman, P.J. Johnston, said both sides will soon find that they need each other to get anything done. 

“People should be elected on their ability to serve the city of San Francisco regardless of whether they differ or agree with mayor,” he said. 

“The basis of serving should not be totally whether they’re anti-Willie Brown.”