RSS Feed
Add a Comment
Stay Connected
What's Hot
Angry veterans demand end to disability claims backlog
Oakland may have to spend millions on new police computer system
Suspect Arrested in Connection with Sierra LaMar's Disappearance
No Union Forum with Mirkarimi
Read Mayor Lee's Letter to the Warriors
Lee Now Says He's Considering Running for Mayor in November
After his appointment as interim mayor, Ed Lee told Bay Citizen reporters and editors that he had no intention of running for the position in November
Lee, who was named interim mayor in January when former Mayor Gavin Newsom was elected the state's lieutenant governor, has previously said he wanted to return to his old job as city administrator after his term ends rather than run to stay in the mayor's office.
But Tuesday, following his signing of the city's budget for the next fiscal year, Lee said talks with some current members of the Board of Supervisors have him reconsidering whether he wants to give up the spot.
"There's a lot of people talking to me, including members of the Board of Supervisors," he said.
He declined to identify which supervisors were pushing him to run, and said "it's not a decision I've made at all yet."
Two current board members -- Board President David Chiu and Supervisor John Avalos -- are already running for mayor this November, along with state Sen. Leland Yee, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting, former supervisors Bevan Dufty, Michela Alioto-Pier and Tony Hall, and venture capitalist Joanna Rees.
Lee said he has also talked to his family about whether they would want to go through four more years of dealing with the long hours and busy schedule required of a mayor.
"I've spent some good time with the daughters and wife, talking about what we want to do, and what it means," he said. "They've also been asking how I feel, if I'm healthy, and when I'm going to play another round of golf."
More than 30,000 people have signed a petition supporting a campaign titled "Run, Ed, Run," organizers of the campaign said last week.
Lee has until Aug. 12 to decide whether to file papers with the city's Department of Elections to run for mayor.
Related
About Us
Reporting Staff
Stay In Touch
- About Us
- Events
- Support Us
- Careers
- Corrections
- Letters to the Editor
- Privacy Policy By accessing this site, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them.
© The Bay Citizen, 2012
- Katharine MieszkowskiEnvironment and Health
- Reyhan HarmanciArts, culture, nonprofits
- Zusha ElinsonTransportation
- Shoshana WalterCrime and punishment
- Jennifer GollanRegional government
- Aaron GlantzHousing, real estate, development
- Trey BundyEducation
- Matt SmithSF politics and government
- Andy WrightNews and engagement specialist
- Marie McIntoshPublic engagement manager
- Adithya SambamurthyVideo and Photography
R T
Go Ed Go. Miles above any of the other candidates.
Rob Anderson
At least we'd have an admitted liar in the campaign.
Seej Cane
Weasel.
R T
I am not sure how a "promise" made to a bunch of politicians who were seeking said promise in order to help their own election hopes and dreams is really worth all that much. The fact is that Ed has done a good job. People like him and there is a strong support for him to run. The whole "you need to promise us you won't run" thing was sleazy in itself.
Let democracy work and the people decide.
Kay Walker
But this is not the "people' deciding - it is money deciding -his backers of course who want to run City Hall even more than they do now. S.F. is rapidly shifting to the right with the very wealthy gaining more control here. Most are SF nouveau and our culture is being devastated.
The average candidate cannot decide to run a few months before a race and have the funds to do so. The money for this candidate would be coming from people who have bucks and also influence in political cliques.
The "people" need not apply, run or expect support in SF without a struggle.
R T
Sorry- would much rather have Ed Lee- someone who actually knows how to run a city in charge of things than someone that is beholden to the "progressive" agenda. These are the folks that have brought us people like Chris Daly- Peskin, etc.
When you say SF is shifting to the right- in reality it is shifting to the left center from the far far- People's Republic of Berkeley left. A little moderation never hurt anyone.
Mission Rosalind
ROFLMAO! Only in the San Francisco political bubble could one believe that "S.F. is rapidly shifting to the right". ALL City politicians, even those vilified by the Bay Guardian crowd as unacceptably conservative, such as Gavin Newsom, fall far, far to the left everywhere else in the US.
Outside of the "progressive" reality distortion field, SF is as right as a left-turn.
Kay Walker
The person with average means living in SF is far from being in any kind of bubble. The country itself is moving to the right. What passes for progressive here (except for a few social issues) would have been termed moderate or liberal and would have been your run of the mill democrat's value system several decades ago. Look at the debate in Congress having to do with decimating Social Security and Medicare. It was the dems (under FDR) who developed these programs and the now the dems can only fight to keep these programs intact. What was once mainstream America is being attacked along with the institutions which supported it.
Newsom is somewhat socially progressvie ie Gay marriage but fiscally is very much on the right of some mainstream democrats from all over the US. Bernie Sanders, by the way, reminds me of many dems I used to listen to as a teenager in S.F. Some people call him a Commie which he is not. What has happened in Wisconsin would have been unthinkable in years past and is another indication of how right wing this nation is now leaning.
Wall St. by nature, is fiscally right wing and has the nation held hostage.
No Mission Rosalind, your statement that San Francisco is so relatively progressive is a cliche touted by right wingers everywhere. San Francisco is no differnt than many towns in the US when it comes to public opinion and we are moving to the right due to the fact that the entire nation is going in that direction -partly because of PR by the press backed by the wealthy and partly because most people don't know their own history including labor history. In SF there are now many extremely wealthy people living here who put their interests before that of the community. This group is trying to gain control of the politics in SF which they might be able to do because they have the money to spend on backing political issues and people. That includes some wealthy democrat party hacks as well. Part of the problem with SF and the nation is that working people do not have a party which represents their interests.
Time to think out of the PR box Rosalind!
Mission Rosalind
Dear Kay,
Thank you for making my point far more effectively than I did. I hope we have the opportunity to discuss other articles on this website in the future.
Thanks again!
Love,
MISSION ROSALIND
R T
"What passes for progressive here (except for a few social issues) would have been termed moderate or liberal and would have been your run of the mill democrat's value system several decades ago"
If by, several decades ago- you mean the 60's- then yes the rest of the country has grown up and moved on from that era while SF, Berkeley and a few other enclaves around the Country are still right there. You name Gavin as to the right of some Mainstream Dems- name a few please? I am interested who you think is Mainstream and to the left of Gavin.
As for the press-other than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal- the rest of the mainstream press is pretty far to the left. Just look at the coverage Obama got during the election. Is the Chronicle more conservative than the Bay Guardian- of course it is- but it is far to the left of the WSJ and very closely in line with the New York Times, and other major papers across the country.
Mission Rosalind
What's the difference? Lee is just as much of a puppet (in Lee's case, of Rose Pak and Willie Brown) as all of the other mayoral candidates who currently hold an elected office. A real change for SF would be for a Michael Bloomberg-type to run, somebody who is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, independent of political and party machines, and not solely dependent on income derived from governmental activities (no, this does NOT describe Joanna Rees).
I'm not holding my breath though, given the stranglehold the Bay Guardian crowd and City-funded micro-non profit executives have over SF politics.
SFVOTER
Mission Rosalind: Yes, Ed Lee is clearly a puppet of Rose Pak and Willie Brown. In fact they likely threatened him in order to make him run against his own wishes. As Mayor he will answer to them and do their bidding. This is patently obvious.
@RT clearly doesn't understand how "democracy" works in this country. When wealthy/powerful people put electeds in power, they get what they want. RT is hopelessly delusional if he thinks Ed Lee will serve the interests of ordinary San Franciscans if he is elected mayor.
But Rosalind you are yourself delusion if you think the "Bay Guardian crowd" has a "stranglehold" on the SF political scene. There's no evidence for this whatsoever. The Mayor and the majority of the board are now pro-big business, and essentially, for lack of better term, "conservative" with the exception of a few social issues. If you want a multi-billionaire Republican (yes, Bloomberg was a Republican his whole life before he became "Independent") then I suggest you move to NYC. San Francisco has been delightfully different since pretty much forever. That's why the city has been special. Is it too much to ask to have one major city in the world that isn't run entirely by the wealthy and powerful? Sadly, I suppose it is. *Sigh.*