All of the important political and economic issues that affect people's lives are based on state (and federal) laws - housing affordability and availability; taxes; education; criminal justice; water; energy; land use (which they egregiously delegate to counties); regional transportation; etc. A group that purports to be a "political party," but doesn't define how it stands on these issues in a clear and meaningful way that the common public can understand, I don't believe is a credible organization worthy of two seconds of consideration. And it seems a bit arrogant and self-important for a local group of "greens" to usurp the name of the "Green Party," which has been built up over a couple of decades of work by people all over the world, and use it as a marketing tool to elect their favored politicians at the local level. This approach leads to part of the problem we have in San Francisco - politicians and other "leaders" who are either extolled or demonized, depending on the cadre of people who are "elected" or appointed to the County Council or who become "active". It's absurd to think that such a small group of people can think they should have such importance to those of us living "regular" lives and ride the "Green Wave" phenomena much as our mayor has done. More importantly, I couldn't disagree more with John-Marc's suggestions about the State Party, especially his suggestion that there should be a massive resignation of the state representatives. In my opinion such a maneuver would seriously decapitate the state party for many years to come - which would be great for the Democrats and the Status Quo! And the suggestion to reduce the state party to more of an "administrative role" would effectively mean there was no Green Party in the largest state in the country, which also happens to be the world's 5th or 6th largest economy, and would lead to random autonomous groups using the name for their own political purposes. I think this only leads to the fixation on personalities and fascination with power politics, and has nothing to do with changing the economic status quo, which is why I'm involved with politics. As I say as many Green meetings, "What does the Green Party stand for? What kind of housing system are they proposing? What kind of tax system are they proposing? What kind of criminal justice system are they proposing? Do I get to own a home in a Green world? Do I get safe streets and will I be able to earn a living to support my family in a Green world?" This is why I believe we need a strong national and state party - to answer these important questions. Besides, the local Green movement in San Francisco may actually not be such a good thing - lots of "green sympathizers" have moved into the Mission, Lower Haight and Western Addition in droves in the past decade - many of them like me who are fairly homogeneous in income (higher than the median), college education and are often socially liberal or "alternative." Great. The Mission and Western Addition and Lower Haight are cool, vibrant neighborhoods. But where do the poorer, often Latino, African American and other nationalities live or get to own a home to raise their families after the cool people all move in because they can afford the higher housing costs that San Francisco commands? Tracy? Manteca? Dixon? Gilroy? Modesto? I think many of us would agree that just because people have to move from San Francisco and don't live around us any more, that we shouldn't be concerned with the land use in those areas, or the energy use, or the crime, or the taxes people pay, or the pollution or transportation costs associated with their living situation. If the consensus of the current CC and "active" SF Green Party members is to support a weakened state party, then I hope they at least have the decency to start using another name besides "Green" in their local political club name. dw John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: Hi, There is some discussion of plenary proposals on the grns-cal-forum listserv, for people who are subscribed there. You can subscribe at this URL: http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum It looks like we're not going to get a chance to meet in person prior to the plenary (unless tomorrow night), so let's discuss any plenary proposals on the "delegates" and "active" lists. I'm still of the opinion that we should reject all agenda topics other than a reorganization, with decentralization of power and funds from the GPCA to the locals. I think this is the only effective solution to stop the GPCA infighting--leave them no substantial decision-making authority or budget to fight over. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Delegates mailing list Delegates@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates