Friday, April 18, 2014

Gilead on Weinstein & Truvada = Party Drug; AHF Got $10M in Grants 

Earlier this week, the executive director of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation Michael Weinstein had this to say to AP reporter David Crary about using Truvada as a pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV infection among negative gay men:

"Let's be honest: It's a party drug."


Talk about scientific ignorance and adding stigma to Truvada and gays using it properly to avert acquiring HIV. Sheesh. That comment, and years of bullying on a host of AIDS issues by Weinstein, pictured, triggered a much-needed backlash and Los Angeles gay leader Eric Leue began a petition to have him removed from AHF.

Curious about how much money Weinstein and AHF have accepted from Gilead over the years, I pored over the IRS 990s for the Gilead Foundation and here are the figures I found:

2005: $600,000

2006: $750,000

2007: $1,500,000

2008: $1,750,000

2009: $1,000,000

2010: $1,000,000

2011: $1,000,000

2012: Zero

Total:
$7,600,000

That total apparently is not the full amount.

I reached out to Gilead's representative Amy Flood who is a director of their foundation, asking questions about these numbers and any other donations they have made to AHF, and for a reaction to Weinstein's "party drug" remark. Flood replied:

With regards to grant funding, in some cases your numbers are off (that may be because in certain years the Gilead Foundation grant was paid in two installments). Gilead Foundation funding from 2005-2011 totals $10,600,000. 

Over roughly the same time period, other grant funding or project support from Gilead Sciences, Inc. totals approximately $600,000. Gilead also provides funding for a direct product donation to Uganda Cares, a clinic in Uganda, not captured in the previous numbers. 

With respect to Michael Weinstein’s statement, we aren’t going to comment other than to say Gilead believes PrEP has an important role to play as part of the HIV prevention landscape, as evidenced by clinical data. 

As you are likely aware, we are not promoting Truvada as PrEP but we are actively engaged in helping to communicate accurate and appropriate information about its usage. We have, for example, supported (and we continue to support) the efforts of community-based organizations and public health agencies to educate their constituents about the role of PrEP as part of comprehensive HIV prevention. 

One question among many I'd like Weinstein to answer is why he's biting the Gilead hand that has so generously fed his AHF coffers. He should be subject to much more scrutiny regarding his opposition based on ignorance against Truvada as an HIV prevention option.

NYC Gay Councilman Corey Johnson's Ties to Corrupt Hotelier

There can never be too much scrutiny of elected officials, especially in America's big cities. The recent indictment against California State Senator Leland Yee on several corruption charges is a huge reminder that office-holders need constant monitoring by law enforcement agencies and good government watchdogs.

(Johnson with Hillary Clinton. Public domain photo.)

This week, I was made aware of two items related to corruption and Manhattan's District 3 representative on the City Council. First up, this news from Seth Barron at City Council Watch:

Councilmember Corey Johnson took Transition and Inauguration contributions from a hotel magnate who pled guilty yesterday to violations of federal campaign finance law.

Sant Singh Chatwal, who owns and/or manages a number of luxury Manhattan hotels, including Chelsea’s hip Dream Hotel, gave Corey Johnson’s TIE committee $2,500. Councilmember Johnson, who lives one block from the Dream, is the only Council candidate or member ever to receive a contribution from the billionaire. [...]

As I reported in City & State last month, developers associated with the Dream Hotel (including Sant Chatwal) gave Corey Johnson $15,000 towards his transition expenses; the latest revelations beg the question of whether Sant Chatwal was perpetrating a similar scheme on the local level, inducing his associates to make contributions for which they were reimbursed. [...]

I must note that there is no evidence that any of the beneficiaries of Chatwal’s machinations knew about his illegal efforts on their behalf, and one must assume the same ignorance on the part of Councilmember Johnson.  Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that during his campaign Corey Johnson assiduously steered clear of associations with real estate interests, only to accept large donations from that sector once he was elected.

Over at the NY Daily News site, is a story from February that I wasn't aware of about councilmembers and how the speakers buys their votes, literally, with cash bonues. The politicians on the wrong-side of this issue, according to the papers are "weasels". Try to act surprised that Johnson is among them:

A grand total of 10 members of the City Council have so far kept their pledges to spurn the stipends that empower the speaker to buy votes. 

It took dedication to public service for the 10 to turn back annual amounts ranging from $5,000 to $15,000, while an additional 20 members are breaking their word to constituents. 

In keeping with a long and lousy tradition, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito last month published the list of who among her 51 members would be getting so-called lulus. The Council calls the payments compensation for committee leadership, but she denied money to only four members, all of whom are on the outs with her. [...]

Four members who called for restricting lulus are pocketing the money: Corey Johnson and Ydanis Rodriguez of Manhattan, Daneek Miller of Queens and Vincent Gentile of Brooklyn.

Color me very blase about Johnson for lying and failing to keep his word to constituents. He was the Gay Inc groomed and Democratic Party politician in his November 2013 against out lesbian Yetta Kurland, and he received beaucoup amounts of donations from A-Gays who probably see nothing wrong with his double-dealing on lulus.

Expect Johnson to continue enjoying deep support from those A-Gays, while civic watchdogs keep him under the microscope.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

AIDS Healthcare Fdtn's New IRS 990 Online: $514M in Revenue

The czar of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's empire is Michael Weinstein and according to his organization's most recent IRS 990 for FY 2012, his salary that year was officially $398,650. I know this not because Weinstein is committed to transparency. He refuses to post AHF's tax filings on their site, something I've kvetched about for years.

However, because I am familiar with IRS statutes require a nonprofit to provide members of the public a copy of their latest tax filing the day it is accepted from the accountant and filed with the Treasury Department, is the day they have to make the 990 open for public inspection, I requested the 2012 filing in January. AHF emailed me an electronic version of it and I've now posted on my Google docs page for all read. Click here to read it.


That salary amount for Weinstein is not such an outrageous amount when considering AHF's revenue was over $514 million, pictured. The chief financial officer Lyle Honig explained:

I wanted to point out that page one does summarize the financial information with identifying $188,296,151 in revenue. Please review Schedule D Part XI. This section reviews the Reconciliation of Revenues and Expenses between the Audited Financial Statements and the Revenue and Expenses reported on Page 1. Please find line 1 Total Revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements identifying the total $514,734,211.

The reason why I've posted the AHF filing is because Weinstein is facing much-needed criticism and controversy over his comment that Gilead's drug Truvada, when used by sexually active gay men, equals a party drug and I am doing my part to make as much of AHF's financing as transparent as possible.


Down in Los Angeles, leather and AIDS leader Eric Leue has started a petition calling for Weinstein to be removed and more than 2,000 people have signed it. Leue and others are also pushing the Twitter hashtag #RemoveWeinstein to build awareness about this campaign to hold this executive director accountable.

Part of Leue's petition reads:

In 2012 the FDA approved the medication Truvada for use by people at high risk for HIV—including gay men, sex workers and HIV-negative individuals in relationships with people living with HIV—to help prevent transmission of the virus. Yet rather than embrace Truvada, one of the most revolutionary developments in the history of the AIDS epidemic, Weinstein poured considerable resources into fighting its approval, and called the HIV-prevention pill "a party drug." This statement needlessly stigmatizes individuals trying to protect themselves from AIDS by likening them to illicit substance abusers. 

Truvada ain't no party drug and we don't need AIDS executives stigmatizing it that way not to mention adding stigma to men using Truvada for PrEP purposes.


I would like Weinstein to not only post his five most recent IRS 990s on the AHF web site, but to also fully disclose all sources of his income. Does he own stock in condom or drug or medical devices corporation? Some activists speculate that he has income way above the $398,650 listed on the FY 2012 filing and the AIDS community needs for Weinstein to be way more fiscally transparent.

Let the sun shine in!

Gay Homeless Org Wasted $150,000 on NYT Pope Francis Ad

There are hundreds perhaps thousands of homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning homeless youths in New York City's five boroughs, and I don't know if a single one was in any way assisted by the Ali Forney Center's full page Open Letter ad in the national print edition of the New York Times.

Penned by the nonprofit's executive director Carl Siciliano, the ad was a plea to Pope Francis on behalf of troubled gay youths needing housing, healthcare and other basic necessities. As far as I know, the Pope has not replied to Siciliano.

Pardon the expression, but Lord knows I have no problem provoking the Catholic Church and its leaders in the Vatican and the center's New York Times ad was designed to elicit a response. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but I was curious how much the ad cost and was fully aware that gay furniture executives paid the tab for it. I sent my own Open Letter to Siciliano requesting info about the cost and he replied:

The ad was paid for by the furniture company Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, so you should consider directing your inquiry there. The Ali Forney Center had no involvement in the payment of the ad.

Just like the Pope brushing him and his concerns off, Siciliano was unwilling to find common ground with me about this transparency issue. I wrote back that while the center had no hand in the actual payment, I would expect him to at least know what the ad cost and requested more communication with him. If he doesn't know the price tag amount, he should. Siciliano is ignoring my pleas for dialogue.


The New York Times' rate card shows a full page ad in the national print edition costs between $139,000 and $153,000. That's a healthy chunk of change paid out by Gold and Williams. In my view, the funds were wasted on a PR stunt that did nothing of direct benefit to Ali Forney Center clients, but sure bought a lot of gushing media and blogger coverage.

Using the $150,000 potential cost for argument's sake, I say that money could have been put to much better use paying for motel vouchers or subsidizing apartments for homeless New York City gay youths.

From the Washington Blade to GLAAD to Q-Notes to Bilerico to the National Catholic Reporter to Pink News UK and a whole host of other online sources, no one reported the cost of the ad or asked what the amount was and how and if the ad would actually help a homeless gay young person find a warm bed and good meal this week.

I hope Siciliano agrees to communicate with me about the ad's impact on his clients and if the money was wisely spent.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Charlotte Shultz Charity's Lawyer Pleads Ignorance to Sunshine Violations

The more I dig down on the San Francisco Host Committee, based in Menlo Park FYI, operated by Protocol-Chief-For-Life Charlotte Shultz, the more I learn how privileged this charity is and the woefully inadequate compliance monitoring by the City's General Services Administration. Newly released public records prove my point.


Bill Barnes, GSA's project manager, last month informed me that on March 14 his boss City Administrator Naomi Kelly had written to the host committee regarding my complaint that the nonprofit for the six past years had failed to hold a single public board meeting as required by law. Kelly reminded Shultz's charity that section 12L of the Nonprofit Public Access Ordinance is explicitly clear: any charity receiving $250,000 or more in City funds must hold at least two well-publicized open board meetings, and the host committee met that threshold.

Kelly says after reviewing the response, she will consider their arguments and "issue a determination" and Barnes wrote "we will have a determination shortly after their reply". The City has had the reply for almost two weeks, but no word on their determination.



Shultz's attorney at the downtown multinational law firm of O'Melveny and Myers, George Riley, on March 28 replied to Kelly stating:

"[T]he Host Committee was not aware of the opening meeting requirements of Chapter 12L for nonprofit organizations, nor was it aware that its acceptance of additional would trigger these requirements. These provisions were only recently brought to the attention of the Host Committee by the City Administrator's letter of March 14."

To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, I believe Shultz's operates with an attitude of laws only apply to the little people and not her. Here we have a top adviser to several San Francisco mayors, married to a former U.S. Secretary of State, and with a huge law firm providing (pro bono?) services, local attorney Thomas E. Horn is on the committee's board, and she and her cohorts haven't noticed this key provision of their City grant?

For argument's sake, let's accept that ignorance of the law and instead focus for a moment on the City Administrator and the many similar nonprofits receiving enough taxpayer dollars to trigger section 12L, and ask what method of compliance monitoring are they following because I sure don't get the sense there is any such monitoring taking place.

I shudder to think of the number of nonprofits receiving a quarter million of our dollars and ignoring sunshine laws.

The O'Melveny and Myers letter further stated:

"For the current fiscal year, the Host Committee has received $218,935 from the City Grant Programs, plus an additional $5,000 from the Port tied to French President Francois Hollande's visit in February 2014. The Host Committee does not anticipate receiving more than $250,000 for the current fiscal year."


There is one teensy-weensy problem with this allegation by the law firm. The agreement for this fiscal year shows the host committee is receiving $260,000, so section 12L is triggered.

We, the people, are subsidizing Shultz's host committee so she can carry out diplomatic functions of questionable value to taxpayers, even though another law, this one being Prop F passed in 1998 by the voters barring spending City money on diplomatic functions, seems to be flouted and of no concern to the City Administrator, the City Attorney or the District Attorney. Barnes provided this update about where my complaint on this matter stands:

The Proposition F issue, which we are treating as a separate request, relates to a ballot initiative from 1998 which references policies in effect in 1989. Therefore, additional research is required to properly respond.  Once that research is complete, we may find it necessary to consult with the City Attorney.  Such consultation would be subject to attorney-client privilege. We will inform you once we have completed this research, received advice, if any, and made a determination of how to proceed.

Sure does not sound like there's any rush to look into this nor a commitment to transparency of benefit to the taxpayers.



Let's not overlook the host committee submitting only copies of adding machine print outs of figures and no itemization of how they spend our money. Wanna know where $104,000 of the current $260,000 grant went? Better luck finding the missing Malaysian Airlines plane's black box than invoices from Shultz.

We see Shultz's lawyer pleads ignorance about 12L and incorrectly argues that the charity is not currently obliged to met the 12L required provisions of open board meetings. The host committee receiving City funds appears to violate Prop F and Shultz doesn't bother producing invoices or itemizing her expenses. All the while, the City Administrator has paid no attention to these breeches and lack of accountability.

What penalty, if any, will the City insist be exacted from Shultz and her committee for breaking the law for six, possibly more, years and presently out of compliance? Time will tell.

Compare all this with the travails of the SF Pride committee and its paltry $55,000 annual City grant. Turn your attention to what the Bay Area Reporter noted in September 2013:

In 2010 former Supervisor Bevan Dufty and [Sup. David] Campos had the city controller's office audit SF Pride. Its finding was that the organization had "both financial and governance shortcomings." [...] 

Three years ago, SF Pride was cited with not filling the 15 maximum allowable seats on its board, inconsistent methodology, outdated and undocumented vendor contracts, and noncompliance with citywide nonprofit monitoring standards.

Interesting that Shultz rakes in $250,000 annually for her parties with very restricted invitation lists, has all the baggage I've cited, and she escapes even a modicum of City scrutiny, while the SF Pride group scrapes by with a $55,000 amount and was audited, must meet myriad recommendations and changes and face heightened monitoring by the City, and puts on events without any invitation limits that attract hundreds of thousands of people and millions of dollars flow into local coffers because of SF Pride.

I'd like to see the host committee's funds withdrawn from Shultz's hands, after she's properly penalized for violating the law, of course, and the money redirected to the SF Pride committee. Could happen if enough of us spoke up for this change.

We'll see if GSA does anything public to hold Shultz and the host committee accountable to the taxpayers.
Why SFPD Amended Officer-Involved Shooting Deaths' List

One name was missing from the recently released list of civilians killed in officer-involved shootings by members of the San Francisco police force, that of Sheila Detoy, a young woman shot while riding in a car of unarmed people one of whom was wanted on an outstanding drug warrant. The names of the dead since 1980 were made public due to my public records requests.

The Detoy omission led me to followup with the SFPD questioning how they compiled this list and the answers are revealing. The addition of her name to the list means there have been 84 OIS deaths since 1980 and not 83 as previously reported.

Here's the email from the department's legal counsel Maureen Conefrey, with underlining added:

The following is the response from Lt. Plyer of the Homicide Detail to your most recent request: 

1) Attached is the list with Sheila Detoy's name added. 

2) There is no "master list" of OIS fatalities. We were asked for the information and we looked through records that have been kept here over the years to provide the most accurate response we could. 

3) If there is a change in the way police department records are kept, you will have to contact the Police Commission

4) Is there a possibility that an OIS death case was "inadvertently" left off the list? Certainly it is possible, but I guarantee that nothing was left off on purpose. Most of these entries, going back to 1980, were made years ago. Were they all accurately documented? Are they always easy to interpret now? The mistake with the Detoy OIS was because it showed as an OIS but the suspects were charged with manslaughter for their participation in the crime and her death. If you did not have personal knowledge of what happened it would be easy to leave her off the original list and we did. That was not done on purpose. 

5) When we get requests for public information at the Homicide Detail we provide the most accurate information possible, with the information that we have. I have been assigned to the Homicide Detail for over a year and I have never been asked for this information before.

While the department doesn't keep a master list of OIS deaths, there is one for officers killed in the line of duty. The names of the dead law enforcement officials are engraved in granite in the lobby of the entrance to the Hall of Justice where police brass are headquartered. Where's the comparable public memorializing of OIS civilian deaths?


In the back of my mind, I was vaguely aware that the commission could direct the department to establish and maintain the OIS deaths list of names and I'm glad the SFPD reminded me of this fact. Something so simple as making a list and up to now no one has requested it, and it happens to be this good government advocate.

Despite having progressive David Campos, pictured, on the police commission for three years from 2005 to 2008, not to mention transgender leader Theresa Sparks serving as president for a number of years, and Alice B. Toklas lawyer Julius Turman currently on the commission, and other liberals on it, none have seen fit to push the police to create the OIS list. I got it done to bring more accountability to the SFPD.

One more reason why I ask you to support and donate to my race for District 8 Supervisor this November. Please like my campaign Facebook page and consider making a donation via PayPal using the Petrelis4Sup2014@aol.com addy.

The date of the commission's next hearing has not been set as of today.

Monday, April 14, 2014

D8 Sup. Race Update: SF Ethics Commission Certification 

The past three weeks of additional organizing for my campaign for District 8 Supervisor have been full of many small steps, necessary to getting on the November ballot and asking district voters to give me one of their three ranked choice votes. Let's get to the updates.

1. My husband Mike Merrigan agreed to serve as my treasurer and he's been his usual fantastic great life-partner at my side. Btw, I've decided to use the word husband to describe Mike and my committed relationship with him, regardless of not being married.

It's cumbersome to say he's my life-partner, sounding somewhat legalistic, so husband is my word of choice until we come up with a better term for us queer couples who are in long-term relationships and unmarried. After 18-years together, we're more than entitled to call each other hubby.

2. We've opened an account at the Redwood Credit Union at Fox Plaza on Market and Polk Streets. As we completed the banking tasks with the adorable chub cub Jesse, walking past the large plate glass window was reporter David Elijah-Nahmod who also banks at this credit union. On the sidewalk, we had conversation about the race.

The name on the account is Petrelis 4 Supervisor 2014. Checks and money orders should be made out to that name, and be sure to include the required details about your address, city and state, occupation and employer.

3. A mail box has been rented at the post office on 18th Street in the Castro. Send contributions, letters of support and other materials to this address:

Petrelis 4 Supervisor 2014
PO Box 14943
San Francisco, CA 94114

The banking and post office box details have been provided to the elections and ethics agencies, so that info is current with them. Both agencies are always ready to answer my questions and give expert advice.

You can also make donations via PayPal using the Petrelis4Sup2014@aol.com addy.


4. Last week, we attended the mandatory training workshop put on by the Ethics Commission, which was held on the fourth floor at City Hall during the lunch hour. Of the dozen or so folks around the table, first time potential candidates all, we were the furthest ahead with a campaign and many of those folks are still in the gathering-info phase. Kudos to assistant ethics deputy Shaista Shaikh who was extremely informed and prepared, and ran the workshop with finesse and charm.

I received a certificate from ethics stating I had attended and it was another step on the road to November's election.

5. One of the potential challengers at the workshop was Juan-Antonio Cabrallo, who may run in District 2, asked for my contact info afterward so I could give him advice on the steps we've taken thus far. I'm encouraging him to toss his hat in to the ring and get started on filing the appropriate papers to do so.

6. Longtime friend and confidante Todd Swindell continues to do amazing work maintaining the campaign Facebook page and TTwitter account. Be sure to like the FB page and follow the tweets, and tell all your friends and family folks to do the same, please.

Thanks, donors and all supporters!

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Weekend Woof #71: Young Muscle & Bald Beauties

My week has gone very well on many fronts. The race for District 8 Supervisor rolls on and my friend Todd Swindell continues as a volunteer extraordinaire with the campaign Facebook page he's created and maintains. Be sure to like it.

On the eye-pleasing front, there has been a wealth of attractive dudes on the streets of the Bay Area gracing the lens of my camera and a few of them appear here.



How's this for some wonderful contrasts? A mature man light haired bald beauty and a young cub with dark facial fuzz and also sporting a smooth scalp, both sharing their handsomeness with this homo.


This tall and chunky man of a few colors can't hide his sexy bald black head with thick headphones to block out the noise of his Department of Public Works buddy jackhammering away.






I captured these young muscle guys on my camera as they were hanging out at the corner of Castro and 18th Street, on a very sunny and warm day.


When I saw this construction worker on a Berkeley street, I did a double-take because he resembled my hunky friend Frank Cerbo so much. And how was your week for male-gazing?

'Serious' SF Political Reporting & Ex-Editor of the Bay Guardian

There is minimal reason for me to take current or former editors of and writers at the Bay Guardian, because of their longstanding disdain for myself and my advocacy.

(Public domain photo.)

Prime example. Last April, before editor Tim Redmond, pictured, was fired, he penned a column about elected officials and their junkets on taxpayer money. He dismissed my criticism that City Attorney Dennis Herrera and the eight staffers who accompanied him to Washington for the Supreme Court's hearing on gay marriage, where Herrera wasn't needed because Ted Olson and David Boies were the chief litigants to answer the justices questions, misused City funds.

Redmond had no interest in determining how much money was spent to provide Herrera with a few media interviews raising his national profile, but the SF Chronicle did and the daily's interest in this matter was piqued by my blogging.

Occasionally, Redmond emails me fishing expeditions questions. Last spring, he was curious about the District 8 Supervisor threatening the budget of the Human Rights Commission because it might hold a town hall meeting about the Harvey Milk Plaza rainbow flag that used to belong to the public. He was trying to get in touch with the commissioner pushing the meeting with no luck, and I recommended Redmond contact the commission. Nothing ever came of it on Redmond's part.

To be fair, I expected not only the Guardian but other media outlets to show a smidgen of concern and coverage over a Supervisor jeopardizing a human rights panel's budget because they wanted to do their job, but I was wrong in that assumption. Just one more instance of lack of accountability media reporting in this town.

By the way, the commission dropped all interest the rainbow flag and public property controversy after the budgetary threats were made by the Supervisor.

Earlier this year, Redmond wanted to know what became of my requests to members of the Board of Supervisors for their December calenders, and my campaign to have them voluntarily post monthly calenders on their City-funded sites. Neither Redmond nor the Bay Guardian have pressed their progressive allies on the Board to disclose their calenders, nor have they pushed to have City department heads like Herrera and DA George Gascon post their calenders online along with their monthly expense and travel reports.

For more than a year, I've argued for this sort of easy expansion of government transparency that would be of minuscule cost to the City and you would think the progressive would have similar interests but you'd be very wrong.

In January, Redmond analyzed the state of the District 8 race:

[The] battle for D8, an overwhelmingly renter district, that focuses on tenant issues could leave room for a candidate running to Wiener’s left to mount a serious challenge. [...] But there are plenty of other possible candidates – and the one I am hearing the most about these days is David Waggoner. Waggoner, a public-interest lawyer who has represented numerous clients before the city’s Ethics Commission [...] is a former president of the Harvey Milk LGBT Club.

He’s experienced, articulate, and would have broad support in the progressive community. He hasn’t filed for the office yet, but I’d be surprised if he doesn't jump into the race in the next couple of weeks.

For guy who supposedly represented alternative political thinking when editing the Guarding, Redmond is quite square in his tired analysis and only interested in what he calls "serious" campaigns. He completely overlooks the importance and value of protest candidacies. Given how the November 2013 races for City Attorney, Assessor and Treasurer saw no serious challengers and not a single protest opponent in those three races, it would great to have a leading progressive writer get behind various candidacies.

Regarding Waggoner, a good man and decent activist, entering the race, well, he has not done so and there is no indication that he will.

This week, Redmond emailed me: I see you took out statement of intent papers; are you going to make a serious run against Scott in the fall?

There he goes again with that serious word! After he published his column, I replied it took him to notice four months after pulling papers at the Department of Election, and generating coverage in the Bay Area Reporter, POZ magazine, the SF Chronicle and the SF Weekly along with a robust smattering of attention from local blogs, that I was organizing to run.

When Redmond asks about a serious run, what he means is will I be seeking to kiss his Progressive Pope ring and solicit the endorsement of the usual progressive suspects at the Guardian, the Milk Club and public workers' unions, in short the local progressive machine.

My effort is a serious protest candidacy and frankly, I hope we see a few more such candidacies in all San Francisco political races. Here's what Redmond wrote this week:

There’s been plenty of talk about a challenge to Sup. Scott Wiener in D8, but Wiener’s got $150,000 on hand and nobody from the progressive side has come forward. At this point, it may be too late.

Proof of his narrow definition of progressive. If you depended only on factual reporting from this dude regarding the District 8 race, and a whole bunch of other matters, you'd not get the full picture. He's simply not a, um, serious reporter.

Considering not one of the three Supervisorial candidates endorsed by Redmond and the Guardian in 2010 won, only one of their three favorites for City-wide offices in 2011 was successful, their choices for District 5 Supervisor lost in 2012, and that the paper gave a kiss-of-death blessing in a gushing cover story last February to a revived ACT UP chapter that has unfortunately dissolved except for a Facebook page, I have some advice for the current Guardian staff and Redmond.

Please endorse the incumbent District 8 Supervisor!

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Castro's D8 Sup. Booed at Anti-Eviction Rally: 'Go Home!'

The Eviction Free San Francisco organization and a few other advocacy groups along with hundreds of demonstrators held a number of actions yesterday, April 10, in defense of moderate income teachers and others facing displacement from their apartments.

At one point, the activists gathered in Dolores Park where they rallied for protections of renters and against the greed of tech executives and their associates. It was that my opponent in the race for District 8 Supervisor was loudly told he wasn't welcome. There were a few Tweets, pics and a Vine circulating late night showing the displeasure with him.

Express your support of my race for the Castro's Supervisor by liking our campaign Facebook page, making a donation via PayPal using the Petrelis4Sup2014@aol.com addy and if you live in District 8, give me one of your three votes on November.

Many thanks to those who protested yesterday and everyone who shared their social media reports and images.


Tweet and photo courtesy of Beau Sepher. And the Vine was shot by Patrick Connors. Much appreciated!