Steve Moss is getting a lot of attention at the SF Bay Guardian as allegations fly surrounding improprieties in residency, money diversion, ties to a group that promotes condo conversions and rails against tenant protections, etc. in articles in their paper:
Steve Moss, carpetbagger - 09/10/10
Steve Moss Responds - 09/13/10
Five Things You Should Know about Steve Moss - 09/14/10
Plan C Endorses Sweet and Moss - 09/21/10
The Real Steve Moss - 09/23/10
No other candidate has gotten this kind of scrutiny besides Lynette Sweet:
Lynette Sweet and IRS Strange Story - 09/02/10
Lynett Sweet, the "no-comment" candidate - 09/20/10
Plan C Endorses Sweet and Moss - 09/21/10
Lynette Sweet's Finances: Curiouser and Curiouser - 09/27/10
Why is it that SFBG and other local news outlets aren't pressing the other candidates on the skeletons in their own closets that are perhaps just as bad, or, at the very least, simply raise questions about these candidates' willingness to disclose information to voters or help us figure out how they'd operate as our supervisor?
Has Ms Sweet's tax evasion "mix-up" simply faded and become a non-issue? Maybe not, as SFBG has a piece on it today and BeyondChron mentions it as a reason Ms Sweet has dropped out of the lead pack. An allegation by a commenter here on D10CanWatch regarding a large unpaid tax bill for Tony Kelly's "Thick Description" theater company may raise eyebrows, and questions like these need to be answered directly by the candidates so as to tamp down the rumor-mill. As Mr. Kelly responds to voters, in part,
"Like so many small theatre companies in this economy, the one I ran - Thick Description - has had its share of tough times.
"Thick Description has a significant tax debt to the IRS. The company has a proposed repayment plan for that debt, based on the proceeds of Thick Description's contract with another company to help them run their new theater, opening in the summer of 2011. While the IRS considers that repayment plan, and even during that repayment, the agency will hold liens on the company to protect its claim; those liens will be released as the debts are paid off over the coming five years."
Read Mr. Kelly's full response here.
I've heard a couple of times as-yet-unfounded allegations regarding Ms Sweet and Ms Cohen actually living in the district. Of course, these latter allegations could be completely bogus, but since no one in the main stream media seems to be looking into these things and asking (and finding answers to) the truly tough questions of the candidates, we may never actually know.
I'm still waiting to hear back from Ms Sweet and Ms Cohen on these questions, but, in one case, a quick look in the phone book lists Malia J Cohen as living on Silliman Ave in 94134, which is indeed outside D10. Is this our candidate Malia Cohen's actual home? Her candidate filing papers all list a 94134 ZIP, but since the actual address is redacted in the publicly available version of those papers, it's not possible to tell anything more. If this is her, why is she listed in the phone book as living outside D10, and when did she purchase her home in D10 as she claims on her website to have done?
My point is, sure, some skeletons are less important than others, but are all the other candidates so squeaky-clean that the media isn't even going to do more investigation on them? Why aren't the candidates themselves publicly asking these tough questions of one another? Have they all taken a vow of silence on these issues, and if so, would that be the backroom kind of political dealings that we would want from our next supervisor?
