Chiu and his allies ramp up their rhetoric, warning of a "war" on techies

|
(130)
David Chiu addressed the Share conference this morning.
Tim Daw

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and his campaign for the California Assembly aggressively courted votes and support from the technology community this morning [Wed/14] at the two-day Share conference, accusing opponent David Campos and his progressive allies of “calling for a war on you.”

Chiu spoke at the Opening Plenary session, the only elected official invited to address this $795 per person conference on the “sharing economy,” the term adopted by Airbnb, Lyft, TaskRabbit, Yerdle, Uber, and the rapidly growing list of companies that facilitate peer-to-peer online economic transactions.

Also speaking at that session was venture capitalist Ron Conway, a key funding source of many of these companies and Mayor Ed Lee’s political ambitions — and someone whose household just funded a nasty independent expenditure mailer attacking Campos for his vote last year against removing Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office.

Conway called on attendees to lobby their supervisors to support current legislation by Chiu to legalize and regulate Airbnb’s business model in San Francisco. “This legislation by David Chiu is crucial, legislation the whole country will be watching,” Conway said. “David Chiu needs your help. This would not pass if it came to a vote today.”

While it’s unclear how much support the measure has, it is true that there’s a lot riding on this for Airbnb, which has been valued at $10 billion by Wall Street as it moves toward an initial public stock offering, even though the short-term rentals it facilitates are illegal in its home city of San Francisco.

Chiu spent more than a year crafting his Airbnb legislation, which was greeted with mixed reactions last month, including being slammed by a coalition that has pledged to put a rival measure on the November ballot, a campaign that Chiu today implied Campos was  part of (Campos told us he has not taken a position on either the Chiu legislation or the proposed ballot measure).

“I thought it was a reasonable solution, but two weeks later there was a press conference attacking it,” Chiu told Share attendees, ramping his rhetoric in describing “people throwing rocks at Google commuter shuttles” and other alleged local hostilities directed at the tech industry.

“They are calling for a war on you, even though they don’t realize that what you are doing is helping to make sure we’re addressing our income inequality, we’re empowering everyday people by building community and using technology,” Chiu said.

Before the session began, a Chiu campaign worker stood outside the conferene entrance at the Marine Memorial Building handing out photocopies of an anonymous May 11 hit piece on the new blog called SF Techies Who Vote entitled “3 Things Every Tech Worker Should Know about Supervisor David Campos.”

Campos told the Guardian that the attacks, including the Conway-funded mailer that just hit mailboxes today, shows that Chiu and his supporters are desperate with just 20 days until the primary election, but that Chiu’s tone belies his claims to focus on civility and getting past the divisive political rhetoric of old.

“For someone who says he tries to bring people together, David Chiu is trying to scare people into thinking there’s a war going on. I don’t know where that comes from,” Campos said. “The idea that we have a war on the techies and the tech industry is ridiculous.”

Instead, Campos said that he and his progressive allies have been trying to address the eviction and displacement crisis that is connected to the tax breaks and other special treatment that Chiu, Mayor Ed Lee, Conway, and their allies have given to big technology companies.

“Asking that they pay their fair share doesn’t mean we’re against them,” Campos said, noting how overtly Chiu has recently been casting his political fortunes with Lee, Conway, and their economic policies. “It seems that David Chiu and Ron Conway are joined at the hip.”  

We at the Guardian will have much more coverage for the Share conference and its claims to be the “new economy” that will change everything — including some revealing interviews that I did at last night’s reception at the Airbnb headquarters — in next week’s Bay Guardian. 

Comments

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 4:02 pm

looks like chiu and techies have smoked a little too much weed and are getting seriously paranoid

war on techies?

are we all going to throw our smart phones in the trash now...?

yeah... right...

looks like chiu us getting desperate

Posted by anonymous on May. 14, 2014 @ 5:35 pm

been a lot of venom hurled at the tech industry, tech shuttles and blaming the tech industry for just about any ill or ailment around here.

It's nonsense, of course, but that doesn't stop class warriors like Campos from stirring it up,

Chiu is correct to call them out on it.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 5:50 pm

a handful of progressives sending some justifiable venom and criticism towards the tech industry is not a 'war on tech'

it is honest grassroots organizing to call attention to problems that the tech community should be the first to magnanimously step forward and rectify

Posted by anonymous on May. 15, 2014 @ 11:00 am

people and then, if a majority are happy with tech, they would decide to have no protests.

What you have here is the opposite of a grassroots movement. you have a few extremists, led by people like Campos, who want to attack techies while the majority are quite happy with tech.

No grassroots activist EVER asked me what I wanted. He only tells me what I should want.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 11:18 am

ever seeing campos out in the street at any of those protests, so your claim that he 'led' them is bullshit

and the protests in fact have several legitimate complaints about the impacts of tech boom 2.0, which indeed need to be addressed, so your claim that there is nothing to complain about, is also bullshit

wise leaders like campos are addressing those impacts in a real way, which is why he is gaining more traction in the election

finally, what you want, or don't want, is not our concern

what *we* do not want, from you

is what is at issue

if you don't like living in a progressive city, get the hell out

Posted by anonymous on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:11 pm

Seriously? He was leading the mob, bullhorn in hand, at nearly every one of them.

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2014 @ 5:27 pm

"i don't recall ever seeing campos out in the street at any of those protests, so your claim that he 'led' them is bullshit"

Here ya go...

http://sfappeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CamposAtRally-1024x768.jpg

So now you have seen Campos out in the street at one of the rallies.

Are you still going to tell us that *OUR* claims are bullshit?

Most likely you will.

Posted by One who doesn't have to prove anything on May. 16, 2014 @ 5:48 pm

but i'm sure he was invited to speak and did not organize the event

the point is that you claimed he was some sort of ringleader of the thing

he wasn't, he was a supporter of the cause

Posted by anonymous on May. 16, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

I'm not the same Guest that you were talking to...I just like to read these boards because I find it amusing how Progressives think that they can say whatever they like and it must therefore be true.

But it is nice of you to admit that he was there...inasumuch as there is a picture of him, on stage, microphone in hand, apparently shouting and gesturing with his finger in the air.

He is also standing in front of a sign decrying the Twitter Tax break of $56 million despite the fact that he CO-SPONSORED a similar bill that would have been a tax break of $53 million.

I just find Progressives amusing.

Posted by One who doesn't have to prove anything on May. 16, 2014 @ 8:30 pm

You mean we can't take progressives at their word when they swear something is true (even when they have no proof)? Like when Greg and Steven said that the SFBG's politics are more in line with the views of more San Franciscans when compared to the Chronicle's?

Posted by Guest on May. 16, 2014 @ 9:52 pm

I was having a bit of trouble deciding between the 2 Davids but it now seems clear that Chiu is connected to the growth factors that increase the city's tax base, which is what we need.

Campos seems to have his head stuck firmly in the sand.

I'm going Chiu.

Thanks!

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 4:33 pm

David Chiu is supported by Republicans!
Ron Conway is a lifelong Republican, the party of anti-immigration, anti-gay rights, pro-big business and now hes funding David Chiu

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 6:18 pm

candidate?

Is that easier than never having to think about an issue?

Chiu is slightly less left-wing than Campos so it makes sense that moderates might support him. So what?

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 6:51 pm

Why would a "moderate" or a Republican not support the Republican in the race? David Chiu is one of those "Democrats" who has no political values to speak of except for self-preservation and advancement.

Posted by marcos on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:34 am

cannot win. Under RCV, I'd put him first and Chiu second and leave Campos off. but that doesn't apply here.

So this election calls for Republicans to vote for Chiu over the GOP candidate, to keep Campos out at all costs.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 6:26 am

He was the lead sponsor for the illegal immigrant voting initiative. Both of them supported it, but Chiu was the lead sponsor. Both of them are so lousy that I'm leaving it blank if both make it to November. The jungle primary sucks, because people like me have no choice in November!

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

But he isn't as bad as Campos, and one of the two of them will win.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:14 pm

Exactly. David Chiu can count on extensive Republican support.

Posted by marcos on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:12 pm

Do you mean anti-immigration or do you mean anti-illegal immigration?

I suspect the former, and thus the author really has no point.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:06 pm

vote. Chiu would be wise to hit that issue HARD - Mirks has majority disapproval in EVERY supervisor's district and Campos knows that. It's a losing issue and if you're explaining - you're losing. So he's running from this issue as fast and he and his family did across the border.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 4:45 pm

over-emphasize RossGate, as bad as that was for Campos.

Much more important is that fact that Chiu is a "can do" candidate with a proven record of leadership and compromise. And Campos is a polarizing, divisive, identity politician.

That is the message that will drive Chiu to an easy victory.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 5:23 pm

By the way he's staying out of the fray and not resorting to negative campaigning, he doesn't look like he's afraid of losing at all!

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 5:06 pm

That's right. I saw him a few hours ago outside Trader's Joe's on California Street. I told him I would vote for him but not give him any money because Phil Ting had already taken me to the cleaners. We had a good laugh about that. I'm sure he'll win.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 7:42 pm

If the Mirkarimi vote mattered to Chiu he would have not of endorsed Jane Kim. But it only matters if you're running against him.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 6:16 pm

David Campos has done nothing to stop the hate baiting of individuals and businesses in in the Mission - we cant afford his style of leadership.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 5:07 pm

class war. He's disgusting, prejudiced and hateful.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 5:26 pm

He is also an evil bondage queen, intent on keeping landlords in city bondage for ever.

Posted by Guest on May. 20, 2014 @ 8:26 am

The key sentence from that article?

Even though the short-term rentals it facilitates are illegal in its home city of San Francisco.

What Airbnb does is illegal in many cities. Illegal, period. They don't care. The only people that are for this are those who make money from it, and those who save money staying in these illegal unregulated hotels that may be on your block.

Their public statement is basically--Yes, we knew what we were doing was illegal, but now we have enough money to pay you off? How about it? And please don't mention that the owners of these rentals may owe years of back lodging taxes for operating under the table.

Porn party anyone? A place to have our escort service do business with no one watching? Let's rent an airbnb. What is next? How about an illegal casino? Don't worry, you owners who rent the space will never know what we are doing, and if we destroy your place, Airbnb will pay for it. It's a win-win. Just tell your neighbors to stay out of our way, or else.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/unexpected-sex-party-destroys-pricy-...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/reality-hits-airbnb-after-users-home-is-va...

http://nypost.com/2014/04/14/hookers-using-airbnb-to-use-apartments-for-...

http://pando.com/2013/11/18/airbnb-host-left-violated-after-busting-fann...

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/06/top-5-airbnb-home-rental-h...
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/bed-bonkfest-hookers-abuse-air...

A commentator recently said this about this new sharing economy.

“Sharing? This looks a lot like renting to me”.

And the argument that we should ignore the law because this is new, or profitable?

Are you kidding? If the voters want the law changed, then so be it. Until then, why is any city allowing an illegal business to operate?

Posted by GuestBob on May. 14, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

What is wrong with porn parties or sex workers? Or playing a game of cards for a little cash? Do you report your office coworkers for betting on sports too?

Celebrate diversity!!

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 7:46 pm

You can count on one hand where the cities who claim that it is illegal, and they cannot enforce it anyway, so the illegality is moot.

If I want to share my home with someone, it is near impossible for a Big Brother government to stop me.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 6:27 am

Hi there! Someone in my Myspace group shared this website with
us so I came to look it over. I'm definitely enjoying the information. I'm bookmarking and will be tweeting this to my followers!
Outstanding blog and fantastic design and style.

Posted by a on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 3:34 am

Campos screams "class warfare!" to pimp the left and get them fired up to volunteer for him and his campaign. Campos can't escape the fact that he is creating division and pitting San Franciscans against each other, as Chiu says. Campos has to live with the fact that these same "class warfare" looneys that make up the Campos campaign also run around breaking windows, taking shits on Google buses, etc. when they aren't doing Campos' bidding. Or maybe that IS what Campos wants them to do...

Posted by SF Truth on May. 14, 2014 @ 8:13 pm

Well, I was all for Campos after that cheap shot regarding the passe Mirkarimi wife beating issue, but his own campaign claiming the socialists backing is so 1970's. For a Harvard educated guy, he doesn't have a clue about the techies. Typically, techies are "decline to state" or libertarians, without the Republican baggage. The closest this country is going to get to Socialism, with a capital "S" is under the guise of creeping fascism. Even the great hope has capitulated to the surveillance society that is so top down.

We need bottom-up solutions. Campos, update your image and rhetoric.

Posted by Guest SFreptile on May. 14, 2014 @ 9:28 pm

Since you mention "creeping fascism" SFreptile, I have understood National Socialism or Nazism as a blending of big business with government, to generalize broadly. So how does one characterize the attempt of billionaires like Ron Conway trying to use their money to incite class war and to bring low smears in order to influence political campaigns? I'd say it's a kind of proto-fascism.

Posted by Barry Eisenberg on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:37 pm

fascism of labor and politicians that we find in Argentina.

Low smears, Campos complains that Chiu has paid lobbyists around, while Campos has paid lobbyists who escape the cities lobbyist law around, because they are union lobbyists.

Try again.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 8:58 pm

Well, I was all for Campos after that cheap shot regarding the passe Mirkarimi wife beating issue, but his own campaign claiming the socialists backing is so 1970's. For a Harvard educated guy, he doesn't have a clue about the techies. Typically, techies are "decline to state" or libertarians, without the Republican baggage. The closest this country is going to get to Socialism, with a capital "S" is under the guise of creeping fascism. Even the great hope has capitulated to the surveillance society that is so top down.

We need bottom-up solutions. Campos, update your image and rhetoric.

Posted by Guest SFreptile on May. 14, 2014 @ 9:32 pm

He's trying to be top-oriented on this campaign and his inexperience is showing.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 9:44 pm

Fascism does not creep nor otherwise proceed in any way towards socialism. The statement makes no sense.

Posted by Reptile SFguest on May. 17, 2014 @ 9:09 pm

Campos is going down baby!

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 9:48 pm

Campos will lose the election and be termed out of his Supervisor seat. Ideally he will then move to Oakland and become their problem.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 9:56 pm

We need to get him farther away. Daly bought two foreclosed homes in Fairfield and moved his family there, but that still doesn't keep him from sticking his nose in San Francisco business.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

What to make of the Bay Area Reporter endorsing the straight David over the gay David this week?

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 10:04 pm

Campos is repellent and shrill - he'd set us back a decade. Besides he's far more concerned about Latinos and illegal immigrants than he is any other group.

Posted by Guest on May. 14, 2014 @ 11:10 pm

Mollie Stone's the other day.

Chiu senses that Castro gays do not like the wormy Campos, and he is correct.

Also Castro is the most white neighborhood in SF, and being Asian plays better with whites than being Hispanic.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 6:29 am

Wow what a racist comment!

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2014 @ 7:59 am

Steven, you write that Conway's "household" contributed to the independent expenditure against Campos, knowing full well it was Ron's wife, Gayle Conway, who contributed. Do you really think it's necessary to employ such petty obfuscations? Has it occurred to you that Gayle is an independent person with her own ideas and opinions, or do you see women as merely puppets of their husbands? Perhaps you believe that only heterosexual women are philosophically indentured so? Does it strike you as impossible that a woman, on her own, might want to send a message that domestic violence shouldn't be tolerated? Are you incapable of fathoming a human being who might have a priority beyond economics?

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 2:22 am

Do you really think this distinction is important? Has Gayle Conway been active in San Francisco politics, pledging to defeat progressives such as Campos? No, that's Ron Conway who's been doing that -- incidentally, the guy who earned the vast majority of this household's income that is being used on this hit pieces. Has Gayle Conway even been publicly involved in domestic violence issues? Google her name and "domestic violence" and all I see are references to these anti-progressive IEs. This is a thinly veiled attempt to disguise the Conway's campaign against progressives, and nobody is buying it. Not now, and not when there was a similar IE against Christina Olague for crossing Conway's boy, Mayor Ed Lee, on a few different issues (starting with her CleanPowerSF vote, which pissed off the Mayor's Office long before the Mirkarimi vote). But if you're right that this really about Mirkarimi then I'm sure the Conways are actively finding someone to run against Sup. Jane Kim this year as we speak, right? After all, she voted to keep Mirkarimi on the job, even though she also sponsored the Twitter tax break and a bunch of other pro-tech stuff that Conway and Lee have wanted. Maybe Gayle Conway will even run against Kim herself, given her newfound interest in politics.  

 

 

Posted by steven on May. 15, 2014 @ 10:36 am

She was very clear about that, and about how she would vote to impeach Ross if that vote happened.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2014 @ 10:49 am

campos voted the way he did for exactly the same reasons, and said so

Posted by anonymous on May. 15, 2014 @ 11:06 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.