How the Free Speech Movement was born

And how it helped Ronald Reagan into the White House



In September 1964, university officials at Berkeley banned students from using the campus for political causes. The officials had been under pressure from the Board of Regents to ban expression of views considered communist. America was still in the grasp of communist witch hunts by the FBI and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Berkeley hoped that keeping the university and its students out of politics would reduce the likelihood of politicians meddling in campus affairs.

By order of Vice Chancellor Alex Sherriffs (who, it later turned out, was a secret informer for the FBI) the university extended the ban to include students who set up card tables and leafleted for civil rights and other causes at the entrance to campus along a public area on Telegraph Avenue.

Berkeley students claimed that the crackdown was a violation of their constitutional right of free speech and an attack on the Civil Rights movement. They tried negotiating with campus officials but got nowhere.

On October 1, a mathematics graduate student named Jack Weinberg was arrested for setting up an information table on the plaza in front of Sproul Hall, the administration building, on behalf of the Congress of Racial Equality.

When campus police drove onto the plaza to arrest him, thousands of Berkeley students spontaneously sat down around the police car and held it captive for 33 hours in protest of the University rule against political activity on campus. Finally, the university administration and the protesters agreed to a truce and the students released the car.

Over the next days, the demonstrators named themselves the Free Speech Movement. The FSM set up an executive committee, with representatives of campus groups ranging from the Young Socialists to the Young Republicans. A steering committee of 11 handled day-to-day decisions, but the FSM’s larger strategic decisions were based on mass meetings and consensus.

Yet the ban on political activity continued. When negotiations between the FSM and the administration failed, FSM members marched to where the university’s board of regents were meeting. Although the regents did not allow students to speak, they decided to allow limited political advocacy on campus.

The movement was reignited when the university filed legal charges against FSM leaders for the police car protest and the FBI planted a story in the San Francisco Examiner charging the FSM with being a Communist front group.

On December 2, the FSM rallied on Sproul Plaza. Mario Savio, a graduate student and one of the FSM’s leaders, said to the crowd:

There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free the machine will be prevented from working at all!

After the speech, more than a thousand students filed slowly into Sproul Hall and occupied all four floors.

California Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown initially agreed to take no action against the protesters, allowing them to leave the building with impunity. Hours later, Brown changed his mind, and ordered the largest mass arrest in decades.

Nearly half of all Berkeley students boycotted classes in protest.

On December 7, university president Clark Kerr called a campus-wide meeting in Berkeley’s large outdoor Greek Theater, where he agreed to further ease the ban but not rescind it entirely.

Just as Kerr finished speaking, Savio, in suit and tie, strode to the podium, although he had been denied permission to speak. Police officers grabbed him by the throat and dragged him to the ground as the packed theater let out a collective gasp. After the crowd chanted, “Let him speak!” Savio was allowed to return to the stage and say a few words.

But the police officers’ excessive force angered many in the university, and the next day Berkeley’s faculty voted to back the FSM’s demand to repeal the ban entirely. A few weeks later, the university’s board of regents conceded that students had full constitutional rights on campus.

The FSM established that students have the fundamental right to free speech necessary for participation as full-fledged individuals. It sparked mass protests and demonstrations at other universities across the nation. And helped inspire the antiwar, ethnic studies, women’s, gay rights, and environmental movements. The FSM stands as a model for nonviolent mass organizations built on transparency and consensus.

The FSM won, but the win came at a political price.

By late 1965, Ronald Reagan was considering a run for California governor. He had come to the state to be an actor, and once in Hollywood became president of the Screen Actors Guild. (He also became an FBI informer, sometimes naming fellow actors on the scantiest of evidence.)

Reagan’s talks gradually became more political. They evolved into an impassioned critique of what he saw as a complacent, if not morally corrupt, system. Like Savio, Reagan attacked bureaucracy, elitism, and the loss of individual freedom. But Savio’s critique emerged from the civil rights movement. Reagan’s, from what he deemed unwarranted government intrusion into American life.

As Reagan campaigned around the state, he heard about the trouble at Berkeley. Many Californians, accustomed to the campus complacency of the 1950s, were shocked by the student protests. Reagan tapped into their anger and resentment, thundering:

Will we allow a great University to be brought to its knees by a noisy, dissident minority? Will we meet their neurotic vulgarities with vacillation and weakness? Or will we tell those entrusted with administering the University we expect them to enforce a code based on decency, common sense, and dedication to the high and noble purpose of the University?

Reagan later claimed, erroneously, that applications to Berkeley had decreased because of the turmoil. When University officials said they were actually on the rise, Reagan countered that it was only because the school had lowered standards.

In the November 1966 election, Reagan defeated Pat Brown by nearly 1 million votes, instantly transforming Reagan into a national political figure.

In one of his first acts as governor, he requested a private FBI briefing on Kerr and the protests at Berkeley. Several weeks later, at the first regents’ meeting attended by Reagan, the regents fired Kerr.

While Brown had not attended most regents’ meetings, Reagan made a point of attending them, often holding press conferences that turned the meetings into media spectacles.

Reagan cut the university’s budget and pushed the regents to impose fees — in effect, the first tuition in the school’s history. Reagan continued to charge campus misconduct, heightening public outrage. He complained about “subsidizing intellectual curiosity,” and his auditors suggested the University sell its rare book collection to generate state revenue.

None of this quelled the unrest at Berkeley, but Reagan’s attacks undermined public support for higher education in general.

The FSM also gave Ronald Reagan the public platform he used to become President of the United States — one of the most reactionary leaders in living memory.

Breed’s Treasure Island developer bailout is a serious problem

Peskin, Chan amendments offer accountability—but where is the affordable housing, and why are details still secret?


APRIL 22, 2024 (

The supes will consider Tuesday/23 a risky plan to bail out the developers of the Treasure Island housing development. This so-called “Alternative Financing” plan, embodied in the Disposition and Development Agreement amendment, could leave the city on the hook for more than $200 million at a time when the city is already facing a huge deficit.

This should be taken seriously.

Alarmingly, many in the city, led by Mayor London Breed and Supervisory Matt Dorsey, have remained conspicuously silent about the plan’s obvious deficiencies, even in the face of the board’s own budget analyst’s dire warnings.

Mayor London Breed wants a developer bailout that could hurt the city

Instead, the mayor and the D6 supe are rushing to pass the plan without questioning if it constitutes an undeserved bailout that puts the city’s bank account and its future bond ratings, as well as the economic stability of the entire City and County of San Francisco, at risk.

Both the developers’ shortcomings and the legal dispute among the consortium’s own members, suing each other over a shrinking amount of profits they themselves project to be available, suggest they are a bad risk, not worthy of the “double down” gamble they seek from the city. Such an obvious omission would make any financial analyst nervous.

Compounding that anxiety is the testimony of the board’s own analyst at the Budget and Finance Committee’s meeting April 17. He informed the committee that he was unable to do his job of advising them on the proposal’s fiscal soundness since he had not been given a copy of the study that staff referred to in a couple of the committee hearings as proof of their due diligence in structuring the COPs. So that analysis is “unavailable” to the BoS, he told the committee.

“We consider approval [of the Alternative Financing plan]  to be a policy matter,” he concluded.

Fortunately, Supervisor, Connie Chan, who chairs the committee, with the support of President Aaron Peskin, proposed amendments to the plan to deal with these issues. She said she had reservations about taking on the level of debt issuing COPs (Certificates of Participation, a form of city bonds) would entail — a $115 million loan that when interest is added will leave the city with a $235 million payment. Would this loan action set a precedent for when other projects get in trouble?

The amendments:

(1) The COPs would be issued in three tranches, one per year (first year $50 million, second year another $50 million and third year $15 million).

2) Issuance of the COPs wouldn’t start until after the city revises its 10-year capital plan to hold the issuance of the COPs accountable to the city’s long-term plan.

3) The city would defer debt service fees to the last year.

4) Before each of these three tranches are issued, a performance review and assessment must be done for transparency and accountability.

The city and the developers have not been transparent on when and how the development’s promise of 27 percent affordable units will be finished.

The TI project was sold to the people of San Francisco as an affordable housing project, one that would have 27.3 percent of its units being affordable. That means of the 8,000 units planned, 2,175 must be affordable. When asked at the April 4 meeting when those units would come on line, TIDA Executive Director Robert Beck only mentioned that 290 units are currently built with another 200 projected in the next couple years. He gave no indication when the remaining 1,775 affordable units would be available.

This record leaves us with a lack of confidence in the program and wondering who is being held accountable, especially in a project that is more than $1billion over budget and eight years behind schedule, according to the BoS legislative analyst.

Chan’s amendments to the financing plan are reasonable and rational, and should be adopted by the Board. In the meantime, a couple of other issues should be addressed now before the vote.

In accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance and the city’s commitment to transparency, the board should demand the release of the fiscal impact study the staff has cited to assure board members that the numbers will all work out. If it proves it, prove it.

The supervisors need to take the legislative analyst’s advice to “pause” the Alternative Financial Plan until that is done.

In the meantime, the board must demand a plan for when and how the promised affordable housing will be built, and tell anxious TI residents when it will be ready for occupancy.

Steve Stallone is a retired journalist and a founding member of the Treasure Island Organizing Committee.

Rev. Cecil Williams, Evangelist of Equality and Dignity for All and Founder of GLIDE, Dies at Age 94


Reverend Cecil Williams, who until today had been a living testament to the modern era of San Francisco and its reputation for accepting all varieties of the human condition, has died at age 94.

Williams, who retired for the third and final time a year ago February, had maintained the title of minister of liberation and chief executive of the GLIDE Foundation — the nonprofit offshoot of Glide Memorial Church which has built a reputation for providing services to the poor and drug-addicted, as well as housing a Center for Social Justice.

Back in 1963, as a Methodist minister from West Texas, Williams was sent by the church to take over as minister for the struggling Glide Memorial Church — itself founded in 1929 by wealthy widow and Methodist philanthropist Lizzie Glide. By the early 60s, as Williams was fond of saying and as he told the New York Times last fall, “he found six old white people in the pews, all wrapped in the same shawl.”

He set about recasting Glide as a less overtly religious, non-denominational space of worship and communal gathering, which gained high-profile parishioners including the poet Maya Angelou, and billionaire Warren Buffett. (The church was already a haven for liberal Christian theology in the 1960s where other ministers, like Rev. John Moore, published a three-part sermon series in the Chronicle advocating for Christian acceptance of alternative sexualities.)

The Rev. Cecil Williams accepts the Pioneer Award at the 17th annual GLAAD Media Awards at the Marriott Hotel on June 10, 2006 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images)

Over the decades, Glide gained a reputation for being a center of gospel music in San Francisco, with its 100-person choir and weekly Sunday Celebrations drawing large audiences.

And under Williams’s leadership, it simultaneously became known for its charitable work in the heart of the Tenderloin neighborhood, which for much of the church’s existence has been a nexus of poverty and drug addiction. In addition to counseling and treatment services, Glide serves about a half-million free meals each year through its daily free-meal program — and city residents are familiar with the annual media coverage of Glide’s holiday meal, which include a Thanksgiving dinner, a Christmas Eve luncheon catered by House of Prime Rib, and a Christmas Day dinner.

Mayor London Breed put out a statement, calling Reverend Williams the “conscience of our San Francisco community.”

“He spoke out against injustice and he spoke for the marginalized,” Breed said. “He led with compassion and wisdom, always putting the people first and never relenting in his pursuit of justice and equality. His kindness brought people together and his vision changed our City and the world.”

Williams lost his wife of many years, poet Janice Mirikitani, in mid-2021. And he had slowly faded into the background at Glide, appearing only occasionally at events. After a bout with COVID last fall, Williams ended up moving into an assisted living facility, Coterie, that is a few blocks away from Glide.

The Times’ Heather Knight asked Williams in December how he looked at the current state of San Francisco, and he said, “We have serious problems, but I think we can face it because we’ve faced it before. We still have a commitment for humanity. We don’t give in. We go on. We’re just beginning.”

Top image: George Lucas and Rev. Cecil Williams during Columbia Pictures Special Screening of “The Pursuit of Happyness” in San Francisco at AMC Metreon in San Francisco, CA, United States. (Photo by E. Charbonneau/WireImage for Sony Pictures-Los Angeles)


Richard G. WilkinsonKate E. Pickett

A groundbreaking work on the root cause of our ills, which is changing the way politicians think. Why do we mistrust people more in the UK than in Japan? Why do Americans have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than the French? What makes the Swedish thinner than the Greeks? The answer: inequality. This groundbreaking book, based on years of research, provides hard evidence to show how almost everything—-from life expectancy to depression levels, violence to illiteracy-—is affected not by how wealthy a society is, but how equal it is. Urgent, provocative and genuinely uplifting, The Spirit Level has been heralded as providing a new way of thinking about ourselves and our communities, and could change the way you see the world.

About the author

Profile Image for Richard G. Wilkinson.

Richard G. Wilkinson

Richard G. Wilkinson (Richard Gerald Wilkinson; born 1943) is a British researcher in social inequalities in health and the social determinants of health. He is Professor Emeritus of social epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, having retired in 2008. He is also Honorary Professor at University College London.

He is best known for his 2009 book (with Kate Pickett) The Spirit Level, in which he argues that societies with more a equal distribution of incomes have better health outcomes than ones in which the gap between richest and poorest parts society is greater. His 1996 book Unhealthy Societies: The Affliction of Inequality had made the same argument a decade earlier.


Meanwhile, in Laguna Honda, Trees Down, Toxic Herbicides Up

Posted on April 23, 2024 by SF Forest Alliance

On both sides of Clarendon Avenue, the trees that shaded the sidewalks and provided habitat have been chopped down. There’s a scene of stumps and logs instead.

And of course, they’re spraying toxic herbicides. Roundup (glyphosate); Milestone (aminopyralid); Polaris (imazapyr). They’re nasty, and we’ve been fighting their use for years. See this article: Toxic and Toxic-er

Here’s where they’re being applied, in this lovely forest, where people walk with kids and dogs.

The San Francisco Forest Alliance reiterates its opposition to unnecessary tree-felling and all use of toxic herbicides in our parks and watersheds.

Supreme Court hears critical case on homeless policy (SF wants to legalize sweeps) …

… Plus: Is the SF Zoo really capable of hosting pandas, and is the city ready to start letting developers off the hook for the impacts their projects create? That’s The Agenda for April 24-31


APRIL 21, 2024 (

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday/22 on a case that could have massive implications for how San Francisco deals with homeless people.

The high court will consider whether to overturn the Grants Pass decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that cities can’t criminalize the unhoused (by, among other things, sweeping encampments) if there’s no place else to people to go.

San Francisco has joined other cities in filing briefs seeking to overturn the decision—and allow the brutal, sometimes deadly, sweeps to go on without limit.

Should it be legal to criminalize people who have no place to go?

That is: The Court could rule that cities can steal people’s possessions, force them into the rain and cold, and seek to drive them out of town for the crime of not being able to afford a place to live.

A broad coalition of activist groups is planning nationwide demonstrations, starting in San Francisco at the Federal Building at 10am. Among those involved at the Coalition on Homelessness, POOR Magazine, the Anti Police Terror Project, and the Western Regional Advocacy Project.


So the San Francisco Zoo is supposed to be getting some pandas, and Mayor London Breed is taking full credit. This may (or may not) help her struggling re-election campaign.

But I can say this much: The current Zoo, with its current management, is in no way prepared to accept, manage, and take care of the precious Chinese visitors.

This is zoo (run by the private Zoological Society) that allowed a tiger to escape its cage and kill someone. It’s the zoo that was fined by the feds for allowing a door to crush a baby gorill. It’s the short-staffed zoo where a grizzly bear nearly got to a zookeeper just last week.

Public records show that the Zoological Society loses millions of dollars every year, and the city has to put up about $4 million to keep it afloat. The cost of a new Panda enclosure: At least $25 million

The source for that money? At this point, there isn’t one.

From the Chron:

Travis Shields, who was a zookeeper and assistant curator at the San Francisco Zoo until last year, said he does not know how the zoo can afford to bring in pandas when it faces difficulties maintaining its existing facilities and building new ones. For example, the zoo broke ground on an ambitious new Madagascar Center in 2018 that finally opened to the public last year but is not complete. “Honestly, I don’t know where that money would come from, because they struggle now to build new exhibits and complete them,” Shields said. 

And imagine the international incident if something bad happened to the pandas at the San Francisco Zoo.

The Planning Commission Thursday/25 will hear a report from the agency that coordinates spending on infrastucture projects in the areas that have specific neighborhood plans. (That’s Balboa Park, Rincon Hill, Transit Center, Vis Valley, Soma, the Eastern Neighborhoods, and Market/Octavia.)

The concept: The plans allow for new development, and the developers pay fees into a fund that covers the cost of the road improvements, transit, parks, water and sewer, child-care centers, and other impacts that the new development creates. Fair enough—although typically the fees are nowhere near enough to cover the actual impacts, so the taxpayers have to cough up the rest.

But it gets worse. Because nobody is building much right now, thanks to economic issues that have nothing to do with city zoning rules, not that much money is coming in. Then the mayor and the supes agreed, in an  effort to spur development, to defer all of the fees until after the project is complete. As a result:

Because of the slowing of revenue, and the now anticipated delay and reduction of fee revenue moving forward, IPIC is recommending that no new projects be appropriated for the next two years. Instead, IPIC will look to prioritize funding projects for which previous commitments have been made.

That’s right: No new transit, or parks, or street upgrades, or anything else in any of those neighborhoods until 2026 (at the earliest).

The impacts don’t go away. The money just does.

This could be a model for the new normal: The developers at Treasure Island want a $115 million bailout because their projects aren’t making enough money. And at the Budget and Finance Committee hearing on the issue, Sup. Rafael Mandelman made a remarkable statement. I’m not sure anyone else noticed, but it was a pretty big deal.

He said that since the passage of Prop. 13, which limited the ability of local government to bring in from property taxes revenue to cover the costs of growth, cities have found ways to use fees to charge developers for the impacts of their projects.

That, he said, may have to change: “San Francisco has to think—can we really put all these infrastructure costs onto private developers?”

Changing that process—in other words, putting on the backs of the local taxpayers the cost of serving the needs of massive corporations funded with speculative capital—would be one of the most profound changes in city policy I’ve seen in my 43 years covering San Francisco politics.

I sometimes disagree with Tom Radulovich, who runs Livable City, but he is an urbanist, and he has often told me that “growth should pay for growth.”

If San Francisco is about to give up on that, we could be in a world of financial trouble.

Tim Redmond

Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

LIVE From Columbia University Students Protest Encampment for Gaza

Status Coup News • Streamed live on Apr 22, 2024 • Students at Columbia University walk out to demand amnesty for student and faculty protesters. They are joined by protesters in New York to demand a Free Palestine and Ceasefire in Gaza as NYPD increase their violence against them. We’ve covered OVER 40 CEASEFIRE NOW protests in NYC, D.C, and LA. Please SUPPORT SC for $5-10 bucks a month: @jonfarina on Instagram

Meet the District 9 candidates: ‘Who do you endorse for mayor?’

by OSCAR PALMA APRIL 22, 2024 (

All of the candidates running for the District 9 supervisor seat in this 2024 election.
Illustration by Neil Ballard

In our “Meet the Candidates” series, we are asking every supervisorial hopeful in the November 2024 election one question each week. Candidates are asked to answer questions on policy, ideology and more in 100 words or less.

Answers are being published individually each week, but we are also archiving the weekly series here.

In terms of political happenings this week in the district, District 9 candidate Roberto Hernandez will be at Manny’s at 3092 16th St. for a community conversation and a town hall meeting on Wednesday April 24 at 6 p.m.

If you know of other political events, let me know and I will add to the post.

I will be at Martha & Bros. Coffee Co. at 745 Cortland Ave. on Thursday, April 25, at 11 a.m. to say hello and talk about the district or you can email me at

This week’s questionWho are you endorsing for mayor?

A cartoon of supervisorial candidate Stephen Torres.

Lived in District 9 Summer 2001 to Fall 2003, and returned in the Summer 2010

Stephen Torres

Bartender at Twin Peaks Tavern, Customer Service at Flowercraft Nursery and freelance writer. Tenant.

I have endorsed Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin. Throughout his career, he has maintained a community-centered approach that preserves self-determination of neighborhoods and prioritizes a livable and accessible San Francisco for middle- and low-income residents over giveaways to the City’s top percent.

In terms of knowledge of how our city works and functions and developing relationships with its many departments and stakeholders, one would be hard-pressed to find a more appropriate candidate for the city’s top administrator. On a personal note, his dedication to the preservation of our City’s rich history and culture as well as his … Read More.

Endorsed by: Mark Leno, Former State Senator, Aaron Peskin, President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Hillary Ronen, Supervisor, District 9. More here.

A cartoon of District 9 supervisorial candidate Trevor Chandler.

Has lived in District 9 since July 2021

Trevor Chandler

Public School Teacher since 2023Former director of government and public policy at Citizen, a public safety app. Tenant.

My focus is on ensuring District 9 gets the attention and resources it deserves, no matter who is elected mayor. Too often, D9 has been neglected because of a poor relationship between the mayor and our Supervisor. My foremost priority will always be putting D9 first, so we get the respect, attention and services we deserve from City Hall.

That’s why I will not be endorsing in the mayor’s race, and will be happy to talk with anyone running for mayor about D9 priorities and ensuring their campaigns take our voices, and our votes, seriously.

Endorsed by: Latino LGBTQ political organization HONOR PAC, State Senator Scott Wiener, Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur, Brownie Mary Democratic Club, Supreme Court Marriage Equality Lead Plaintiff Jim Obergefell. More here.

A cartoon of District 9 supervisor candidate Jackie Fielder.

Lived in District 9 Sept. 2017 to June 2018, Oct. 2019 to Aug. 2020 and April 2021 to present

Jackie Fielder

Nonprofit co-director at Stop the Money Pipeline. Former educator at San Francisco State University, co-founder of the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition. Democratic Socialist. Tenant.

I’m supporting Aaron Peskin. We may not agree 100 percent of the time, but he is the clear progressive choice, and I know he will restore good governance.”

Endorsed by: City College Board President Alan Wong, Former D9 Supervisor David Campos, Former Mayor Art Agnos, City College Trustee Vick Chung, D3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin. More here.

Supervisory candidate H. Brown.

At current address for nine years, redistricted into District 9 in April 2022

h brown

Retired special education teacher. Tenant.

Aaron Peskin, because he’s been training to be Mayor his entire life.

This is a guy who has hit over .400 in Triple A for more than 20 years.

He knows every crack and crevice of SF’s City government at the top levels and, most importantly, knows every top civil service employee.

He won’t have to waste time being briefed by staff and consultants and lobbyists and friends and family about whom he should trust or hate across the negotiating table.

I just wish he were smart enough to let the voters choose their own elected police chief.

Lurie’s my second.

A cartoon of District 9 supervisorial candidate Jaime Gutierrez.

Born in District 9 in 1967 and, except for three years spent in the Army, has resided here ever since

Jaime Gutierrez

 Transit supervisor for SFMTA/Muni. Tenant.

Whichever mayoral candidate gets elected, I will be able to work with. Whoever it is should have roots in the city, who is not business as usual, and has a vision that will return San Francisco back to a destination for tourism and conventions.  Public safety and small-business promotion and retention should be a priority, along with getting rid of needless bureaucracy.  Leadership is the key to the change that the city needs right now,  Mark Farrell, I believe, exhibits these qualities.  Aaron Peskin is an apt fit for this job as well, and Dan Lurie might be considered.

Endorsed by: Transportation Workers Union Local 200. More here.

A cartoon of supervisorial candidate Roberto Hernandez.

Born in the Mission in June 1956 and has not left.

Roberto Hernandez

CEO, Cultura y Arte Nativa de Las Americas (CANA)Homeowner.

As a lifelong District 9 advocate, I’ve worked with every mayor, from George Moscone to Art Agnos to London Breed, to get things done on behalf of our community. While I haven’t always agreed with them, I believe in the power of collaboration — and accountability — in service of building a better city. 

I’m not endorsing anyone in the mayoral race at this time, as I’m focused on my own campaign and would like to hear more specifics from the candidates in the coming months. However, as District 9 Supervisor, I’ll continue to work collaboratively with, and hold accountable, our mayor.

Endorsed by: State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Supervisor Shamann Walton, State Senator Scott Wiener, BART Director Bevan Dufty. More Here

A cartoon of District 9 supervisorial candidate Michael Petrelis.

Has lived on Clinton Park since May 1996, which became part of District 9 in April 2022

Michael Petrelis

AIDS and LGBTQ activist

Petrelis said he wishes not to participate.

Endorsed by: Not seeking endorsements, and I see much of the Endorsement Industrial Complex as corrupt, rife with payola and favor-trading, and for gotcha responses.

A cartoon of District 9 supervisorial candidate Julian Bermudez.

Born SF in 1996, raised on and off in District 9 until he left for college in 2015, then the army in 2019 and now back, living in the Mission

Julian Bermudez

Works in and directs his family business, Rancho Grande Appliance. Tenant.

At the moment, I do not support anyone or have made a decision on who to vote for in this coming mayoral election.

More Here


Oscar is a reporter with interest in environmental and community journalism, and how these may intersect. Some of his personal interests are bicycles, film, and both Latin American literature and punk. Oscar’s work has previously appeared in KQED, The Frisc, El Tecolote, and Golden Gate Xpress.More by Oscar Palma

Sproul Sprawl

Courtesy of JP Massar and Jessica Christian – April 23, 2024

I’d say there are a little over 50 tents here on the steps of Sproul Hall at UC Berkeley. Students are stopping to take pictures or ask what supplies the campers need as they walk by to class @sfchronicle

The start of the encampment (and the unveiling of a banner about it) at today’s rally begins at about 49:32 in this video:  



Breaking: UC Berkeley students just mounted a Gaza solidarity encampment at Sproul Plaza. “We will hold the encampment until UC divest from the war”