Just before he was excoriated from the dais in front of some 250 politicians and labor officials at Friday’s Cesar Chavez breakfast, Supervisor Matt Dorsey ducked out of the Longshoreman’s Hall.
The incident was precipitated when speaker Olga Miranda, the bombastic president of the janitors’ SEIU Local 87, spotted Dorsey in the crowd. Referencing his recent efforts to alter the city’s sanctuary policy to ease the deportation of fentanyl dealers, multiple speakers recall Miranda telling the crowd that she hoped that Dorsey had paid for his own breakfast.
Dorsey’s proposal has been roundly panned, both by organized labor and within the immigrant community, and Miranda told the crowd that the supervisor was demonstrating considerable chutzpah in showing up at a Latinx unionist event.
Dorsey says his early exit was not connected to Miranda unloading on him; he had only planned on putting in a brief appearance, and left to attend another Friday event when his ride showed up.
“I didn’t walk out in a huff,” said Dorsey, who also said he did not hear Miranda’s speech: “The audio wasn’t great.”
This explanation raised eyebrows with more than half a dozen attendees, all of whom had been puzzled to see Dorsey in attendance — and all of whom said they could hear Miranda just fine.
“It’s Olga, right?” noted a union official in attendance. “The audio can never be bad enough that you can’t hear her.”
Following Miranda’s speech, “there were a lot of eyes looking for [Dorsey] and he wasn’t to be found.”
Dorsey, in late February, proposed altering the city’s sanctuary ordinance to include fentanyl-dealing as a carve-out that could enable greater cooperation between local and federal authorities. “I think this is something that will help save lives,” he said in March. If he didn’t try to address the burgeoning overdose crisis, “I couldn’t sleep at night.”
The freshman supervisor’s colleagues believe he’s sincere, but also had little compunction in ripping his efforts. In a Feb. 28 meeting, Supervisor Ahsha Safaí stated that Dorsey’s ordinance is “one of the most misguided pieces of legislation I have seen in six-and-a-half years” as supervisor, and that “there is no way, shape, or form it will have any impact at all. … People selling the drugs and destroying communities should be held accountable, and I 100 percent believe that, but making this into a immigration debate is a complete distraction and not the way we want to turn this issue around.”
Dorsey’s legislation does not have a co-sponsor, and it does not appear he has the support of any of his 10 colleagues. While he has continued to maintain he could signature-gather to place this matter on the ballot in 2024, on Monday he said he is in no hurry to do so, and would also want to have discussions with the federal Department of Justice before moving forward.
“I may rethink going to voters with an additional sanctuary exception if this isn’t something the federal authorities would make use of, or if they feel it wouldn’t make any difference, or if they have ideas of something else they are going to do,” he said. “I am open to other approaches. But the status quo isn’t working here.”
Miranda and Dorsey would seem to be in agreement here: She notes that her union’s offices are in the Tenderloin, and that a man was shot only feet from its door over the weekend.
But she clearly did not appreciate conflating immigration and public safety issues. A recent study by the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute found that the vast majority of fentanyl smuggled into the country is done so by U.S. citizens. Several hours after the Cesar Chavez breakfast, the DOJ filed charges against Joanne Marian Segovia, the 64-year-old executive director of the San Jose Police Officers Association, alleging that she had been running a fentanyl-smuggling ring out of the police union office for nearly a decade.
Miranda said she felt compelled to make her off-the-cuff remarks because “I was really upset at the fact that [Dorsey] thought he could show up to the Cesar Chavez breakfast and wear a button and say ‘Si Se Puede’ and you’re okay. You’re really not. You’re not an ally of our community if you try to chip away at Sanctuary City.”
“His chipping away at the ordinance is not going to confront the crisis he is supposedly confronting,” she continued. “Our union hall is in the Tenderloin. I understand the crisis.”
“I know Olga feels strongly about it,” countered Dorsey. “And I feel strongly about what I am doing.”
In 2022-23, 350 SF overdose deaths were tied to methamphetamine and 450 were tied to fentanyl. Fentanyl sensationalism makes it convenient for Dorsey to draw the line so as his proposed policy leaves off his drug of choice and he doesn’t risk his past behavior being drawn into the conversation.
Dorsey’s proposed policy is promoting double jeopardy, as does SF’s sanctuary policy generally speaking. Isolating certain crimes makes clear that a civil measure is being used as a criminal measure to increase punitiveness.
I am sure there are good arguments for keeping the Sanctuary City status in place, just are there are for dismantling it, but I will say this, the name ‘Sanctuary City’ implies a criminal free-for-all by the bay. I would get a better copywriter.
You want to help elect Trump fight on the hill of protecting fentynal smugglers. There’s a winning proposition for you.
Coming to the US for a better life is understandable. What they do with that opportunity is another topic of discussion.
The city of San Francisco wants to nuance everything under the sun but holds certain items sacred which IMO holds back any new thoughts or ideas to flourish. If you commit a crime and are repeatedly told to stop but continue committing that crime, I don’t understand how it makes sense to allow that individual’s rights to trump everything else.
Term Limits for all elected positions with no back-ended way to get back into power would be something Mission Local should maybe report on or recommend? Also since I know Joe E reads the comments, any interest in maybe talking about city wide elections for supervisors rather than this micro district division that seems to allow majority voices to be quieted like our US Senate?
The failed notion of generalist supervisors versus specific district supervisors is once again being regurgitated by billionaires and Tech moguls seeking to control the public’s access to local government and elected representatives, and to chill public engagement in decision making. With an increase in Tech friendly astroturf “media” outfits like the newly formed SF Standard, Hear Say Media along with the now gutted local papers like SFChron and SF Examiner, the public’s access to independent media and transparent, informed coverage of local events and electeds is diminished. Demonizing supervisory districts as fringe is silly when you consider the distinct and different neighborhoods in SF. Look around. Michael Moritz and his chosen (and well funded) messengers and surrogates like GROWSF, SAFERSF, Kanishka Cheng (who worked for Breed and has close ties to the SF Chamber of Commerce, SF Realtors Association, Big Tech, Ron Conway & Co.) all continue to tout the generalist supervisor model as a fix. Who cares that THE primary function of a district supervisor is 1) to listen to their constituents and be a mouthpiece at City Hall, and 2) to be a check on a mayor’s irresponsible and tone deaf decision making. The Board of Supervisors exists as a counter point to power tripping, corruption and knee jerk decision making. Also: we don’t want or need a bunch of ideologue arse kissers like Dorsey, Engardio, Stefani and Mandelman speaking for us in the Richmond, the Mission, the Tenderloin, the Haight or North Beach. The different district supervisors are NOT the problem. The unaccountable Mayor and her apologists/enablers are. Support local, indy journalism like Mission Local: the antidote for brain rot and mind control. Donate today.
Dean Preston definitely represents the tenderloin! Just acknowledge there are other voices in SF besides billionaires and techies. A lot of folks are fedup with the BOS who are more interested in solving the US’s problems rather than talk about what we need here in the city.
Are you fed up with the mayor? If you think a single supervisor, or even three or five of them have as much power as the mayor, you are sadly mistaken. But sure…..go ahead and stoke fear and loathing by using a single supe as your punching bag.
Mayor runs a citywide election, a supervisor from another district preaching an idealistic solution is something else. I rather start with none of the current leadership but have to start somewhere.
I wish Copaganda Promoter Dorsey felt as strongly about incidents like the white woman and former head of the San Jose Police Union and her fentanyl distribution drug ring. Something like +60 shipments over 8 years!?!?! Ain’t no way SJPD and others didn’t know. I’m waiting for a photo of Dorsey standing next to her at some Police Officers Union Ball with that goofy shirt eating grin. Even Safai knows Dorsey’s moronic legislation is DOA.
It’s been wild to see the ways SF’s “progressive” orgs are mischaracterizing Dorsey’s proposal as a broad attack on Sanctuary City protections and a racist anti-immigrant gambit. Carving out an exception specifically to deport fentanyl dealers, the No. 1 killer of homeless people, would seem like common sense ― but apparently not for the group who finds people’s racial identity more important than their character and actions. Of course not all of these death dealers are undocumented immigrants, but removing some from the city by whatever mechanisms we have available would undeniably help the crisis. But in that classic “progressive” way, all we get is an outraged “no, that solution is not acceptable and you’re racist for even suggesting it”, and then zero follow up on what we SHOULD do instead, as these dealers keep openly selling poison on the streets to SF’s most vulnerable.
This sort of performative-outrage progressivism makes for great clickbait headlines (this one a great candidate for slamblast.com) but terrible leadership.
Max Chan I agree with your statement😘
Actually, immigration is tied to the recent drug epidemic. While one must say that undocumented immigrants do make up the bulk of drug dealers in the Tenderloin and many are trafficked by cartels, but with a caveat.
What most immigration advocates won’t tell you is that undocumented dealers owe an average of about 20000 to 25000 dollars to those who get them here. These dealers pay off their debt within 2 to 6 months of dealing death to our most vulnerable residents.
After the debt is paid they are generally free to go without the burden of the debt. It is not good business to hold someone against their will if you want quality work output and not have a ton of people ratting your operation out.
This is where the choice of staying in the drug trade comes in, and sadly this is where many dealers choose to stay. The money is just too good.
After the debt is paid and they choose to stay my empathy falls of the cliff. They , in my eyes, become the undesirable criminals whose only contribution to our society is the pain and misery they inflict upon so many black, brown and poor white people. These folks fall into the “get the fuck out” category and I have no qualms around arrest, conviction, deportation and a lifetime ban from the United States for them.
I do support earmarking existing funds to immigrant rights groups, there are plenty of them, toward outreach and intervention to those dealers who truly seek a path away from the chaos and destruction of this trade.
Also, SEIU should leave the Tenderloin bc their blighted, mostly unused building , is a magnet for drug dealers. SEIU has no real impactful presence in the TL other than sucking up space and giving this uncaring organization undeserved “cultural” cover which they don’t deserve.
“No se puede” 🤣
Good for Olga!
Dorsey and supporters if you’re reading this, please stop with this endeavor. This rhetoric and proposal harms the immigrant community as it does nothing to solve the fentanyl crisis. We need to go after the dealers and this is not the way to do it. Safai makes my eyes roll most of the time, but his quote in this article is on point. And for me this proposal is racist and xenophobic at the end of the day whether Dorsey sees it or not.
What Dorsey proposed was to deport non citizens that have been convicted of selling fentanyl or have committed a violent felony. It was not an attack on immigration policy or SF’s status as a sanctuary city. The remaining supervisors led by Dean Preston spun a misleading/false narrative to generate fear related to that policy and unfortunately this worked.
Soma Resident I agree 100% with your statement.
Ab..perfectly stated!! 🎯
Exactly, this was a valid proposal to give some actual thought and a shake. Instead it was abused for over-the-top political grandstanding.
No matter the circumstances and contrary to what the agenda conveyors sound off behind a mic, the vast majority of immigrants (community) distance themselves from the cartels and fent dealers as far as possible.
Olga is a labor gangster. If you order the wrong pizza, she screams at you. She’s not a source of good policy or logical solutions. The fact that she is merely associated with a labor union gives her a soap box. It speaks volumes about the issues in our City. I hope Dorsey will bring this to the voters, it will pass resoundingly. I doubt this post gets published because this site it fond of censorship. Regardless, it’s the truth, and someone will have to read it. San Francisco is changing. The status quo isn’t working. Mission Local should wake up and realize this.
BigFrisco..🎯
Olga is a loud slob. Agree with your comments. Dorsey’s proposal has been used by the progs to manipulate our minority communities. No hardworking minority gives a damn about a fent dealer getting deported.
Overall I find ML allows people to post their views.
Also dorsey is connected to the sf standard , the police union, and the recall od boudin, along with their slate of candidates for supervisors. Same funding as together sf, their non profit political arm. They censor their comment section just for pointing that out.
The SF Standard does not let the public comment on what they post. They don’t want informed readers pointing out the discrepancies and flaws in their orchestrated work. Echo chamber. Indoctrination and re education by elites, bureaucrats and neolibs. Fight truth decay. Support independent local journalism and media today.
Making it easier to deport drug dealers is a controversial stance? We get the government we deserve. Down the toilet we continue until voters come to their senses.
Stuck in the middle..🎯
Sir or madam —
We published your ingenious comment.
Regarding your allegations of “censorship,” Mission Local is not obligated to give a platform to people who spout ad-hominem attacks or use obscene or vile language or make unsubstantiated claims or, for lack of a better term, write things that are just plain stupid and have no redeeming value. We are not obligated to offer a give-and-take to every bad-faith troll with a propeller hat and an Internet connection.
JE
You know who is censoring comments that dont support their view. The sf standard. Not for vulgar reasons. Just for giving information or opinions that goes against their narrative. Its a straight political operative. Funded by tech, fired the editor who was a real journalist, and working with the conerservative political players from their non profit together sf. Bunch of nuru apprentices.
I made 3 comments over the years contrary to your opinion and you never published any of them. We all know you censor comments, common knowledge.
Derek —
You’re allowed to disagree with me. As noted above, you’re not owed a platform for objectionable or unsubstantiated or rude or just plain dopey commentary. If something has no redeeming value, I don’t need it on the website. And I do not need to get into the muck with every troll; you can find other things to do with your day.
Best,
JE