Ken McCarthy is an Internet consultant with a cause: He is convinced that something stinks in San Francisco's recent vote to build a new football stadium, and he doesn't think the city's media is doing enough about it. So he's making his case on the Web.
McCarthy's Web page highlights what he says is "mounting evidence" of fraud and a cover-up. "I don't know exactly what the conspiracy is, or what the shakedown is," McCarthy said, "but I know one thing for sure: There's a pile of evidence that people are not seeing."
On 3 June, San Francisco voters passed two stadium measures by the slimmest of margins, after both had trailed in polls for months. The votes mean that the city of San Francisco will float a US$100 million bond and rezone land to help build a combination stadium/shopping mall adjacent to the site of 3Com (nee Candlestick) Park.
City officials said they have received a handful of complaints regarding voter fraud, one of which has already led to the arrest of a San Francisco man accused of voting more than once. However, "there does not appear to be evidence of a conspiracy," said Julie Moll, deputy city attorney for San Francisco. She said the city is investigating the claims and passing any evidence of criminal wrongdoing to the district attorney.
Among his charges, McCarthy believes mainstream newspapers have turned a blind eye to the problems because they have much to lose if the 49ers lost the vote and left town. His effort underscores a growing trend on the Web in which nonprofit and grassroots groups are taking to the Internet as a low-cost medium to publicize their causes, garner support, and find an alternative way around traditional media.
Local papers insist they've done their job. Sharon Rosenhause, managing editor in charge of news for the San Francisco Examiner, said the paper has closely followed both the events leading up to the election and the alleged voter fraud. The Examiner has written at least three stories about alleged voter fraud.
"In the news columns of this paper, we had no fear or favor as to whether the vote passed or whether the 49ers stayed or didn't stay," Rosenhause said, adding that the Examiner continues to follow the story. "Anyone who knows this paper knows we don't roll over on anything."
Jerry Roberts, managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, echoed Rosenhause's sentiments and said the paper has had a reporter following the alleged voter fraud. The Chronicle has written several stories about the accusations of voter fraud, including one which reported the city's findings that there was no widespread voter fraud.
McCarthy posted his Web site on 5 June. So far, his vigil has been a lonely one - logs indicate that about 280 people have come to the page over the past six weeks, and 200 have signed up for email updates on the issue.
The site draws its content from individual complaints about the election and from several organized political efforts, such as from The Committee to Stop the Giveaway, which has been critical of the commitment of taxpayer dollars to the new stadium.
McCarthy's site lists "14 points of concern" that indicate potential fraud. For instance, the site alleges that stadium supporters worked as unofficial poll observers, and may have had control of ballot boxes. The site also alleges that polling places known to be against the stadium were moved or closed early.
More generally, McCarthy said that certain facts and figures simply don't add up.
"The turnout was enormously higher in some precincts than the last election - up 30 percent, 40 percent, 70 percent," McCarthy said. "Yet this election was on a rainy day, on an off-season [election], and the trend-line San Francisco voting is down."
McCarthy said that while he has not reached a conclusion about what happened in the election, he believes that the evidence he is finding is more than hearsay. "These are hard facts, canceled checks, eyewitness testimony," he said. "It's something the people of San Francisco aren't going to see unless they come to the Web site."
