Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Gavin Newsom As "Punishing Parent" Of Homeless People
Scott Bravmann is a San Francisco Citizen who helped house a wheelchair bound homeless woman named Carolin Jack who saves stray cats. Scott writes a letter to Gavin Newsom about the Supervisor's use of Prop N to infantalize people without homes.
Scott Bravmann is a San Francisco Citizen who helped house a wheelchair bound homeless woman named Carolin Jack who saves stray cats. He did this as a concerned friend. This April 2002 he found her an apartment near Market Street, co-signed, and helped her pay her initial deposit and rent. He also gives ongoing financial and emotional support to his formerly homeless friend.
Following is the text of a letter he wrote to Gavin Newsom about Care Not Cash. Scott gave me permission to send his letter to Indymedia. - Carol Harvey
"Supervisor Newsom and other irrational anti-homeless folk should consider this:
I spent most of April (and $2,000) getting a disabled homeless friend a place to live. My friend's Social Security income is more than twice the current General Assistance grant and she had a middle-class employed white man with a long rental history, flawless credit, and a Ph.D. as her cosigner. Yet still it took almost two weeks for the landlord (reluctantly) to accept her application. After rent, she is left with $104 per month and is ineligible for food stamps.
Of course, "solutions" like this are impossible ways to create safe and stable living environments. One might hope that any serious candidate for mayor of San Francisco would show substantially more skill in crafting social policy than a punishing parent who cuts a child's already meager allowance because that child cannot afford to house, feed, and clothe herself.
Scott Bravmann"
Following is the text of a letter he wrote to Gavin Newsom about Care Not Cash. Scott gave me permission to send his letter to Indymedia. - Carol Harvey
"Supervisor Newsom and other irrational anti-homeless folk should consider this:
I spent most of April (and $2,000) getting a disabled homeless friend a place to live. My friend's Social Security income is more than twice the current General Assistance grant and she had a middle-class employed white man with a long rental history, flawless credit, and a Ph.D. as her cosigner. Yet still it took almost two weeks for the landlord (reluctantly) to accept her application. After rent, she is left with $104 per month and is ineligible for food stamps.
Of course, "solutions" like this are impossible ways to create safe and stable living environments. One might hope that any serious candidate for mayor of San Francisco would show substantially more skill in crafting social policy than a punishing parent who cuts a child's already meager allowance because that child cannot afford to house, feed, and clothe herself.
Scott Bravmann"
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
::Of course, "solutions" like this are impossible ways to create safe and stable living environments. One might hope that any serious candidate for mayor of San Francisco would show substantially more skill in crafting social policy than a punishing parent who cuts a child's already meager allowance because that child cannot afford to house, feed, and clothe herself. ::
As a general rule, children are not handed an allowance and then told to use it to house, feed and clothe themselves. On the contrary, because they are children, the adults who are furnishing their support make those choices for them. If homeless people are to be cast as "children"incapable of caring for themselves, then it stands to reason that they should be cared for by the "adults" who are paying the bills, in whatever manner those adults deem most appropriate.
And as parents the world over have been saying from time immemorial: "If you don't like the rules around this house, go get your own house and then you can do whatever you want."
As a general rule, children are not handed an allowance and then told to use it to house, feed and clothe themselves. On the contrary, because they are children, the adults who are furnishing their support make those choices for them. If homeless people are to be cast as "children"incapable of caring for themselves, then it stands to reason that they should be cared for by the "adults" who are paying the bills, in whatever manner those adults deem most appropriate.
And as parents the world over have been saying from time immemorial: "If you don't like the rules around this house, go get your own house and then you can do whatever you want."
child abuse is illegal, though, and if you do it the police will come into your house and change the rules, in the name of society.
Weren't you an SSI fraud? Not that I care but you did make millions (as you started your record label) while living of my (as in taxpayers) dime? When do i see my royality check?
::Weren't you an SSI fraud? Not that I care but you did make millions (as you started your record label) while living of my (as in taxpayers) dime? When do i see my royality check?::
1. Never received SSI.
2. Did receive Social Security disability, which as I'm sure you know, is an insurance program based on money paid into the system while I was working.
3. Was judged by half a dozen government doctors and officials to be qualified for Social Security, so whether that constitutes "fraud" probably depends on how much you trust the government to police its own expenditures.
4. Never earned any money from the record business while collecting Social Security because, as required by law, I notified the government as soon as I started earning money, and my Social Security was then discontinued.
5. Subsequently paid approximately 50 times more in taxes than I ever collected in Social Security.
6. Not to mention all the taxes paid by the approximately 300 full and part-tim jobs created by my business.
7. Even if there were any truth to what you say and I had committed welfare fraud, while that might make me a hypocrite, it wouldn't make my points on the welfare/homeless issue any more or less valid.
8. Similarly, if anyone who had ever broken the law were disqualified from holding a political opinion, pretty much everyone on this site would have to shut up, and quick.
1. Never received SSI.
2. Did receive Social Security disability, which as I'm sure you know, is an insurance program based on money paid into the system while I was working.
3. Was judged by half a dozen government doctors and officials to be qualified for Social Security, so whether that constitutes "fraud" probably depends on how much you trust the government to police its own expenditures.
4. Never earned any money from the record business while collecting Social Security because, as required by law, I notified the government as soon as I started earning money, and my Social Security was then discontinued.
5. Subsequently paid approximately 50 times more in taxes than I ever collected in Social Security.
6. Not to mention all the taxes paid by the approximately 300 full and part-tim jobs created by my business.
7. Even if there were any truth to what you say and I had committed welfare fraud, while that might make me a hypocrite, it wouldn't make my points on the welfare/homeless issue any more or less valid.
8. Similarly, if anyone who had ever broken the law were disqualified from holding a political opinion, pretty much everyone on this site would have to shut up, and quick.
The current system of how SF treats it homeless is broke and it’s time to admit we are throwing Millions of Dollars into a system that doesn’t work. There has always been a homeless problem in SF and over the past 10-15 years the homeless problem has become increasingly worst.
It’s time to change the system and let the people of SF vote on the new direction.
It’s time to change the system and let the people of SF vote on the new direction.
it kinda strikes me as odd how voting for Prop N which is nothing but smoke and mirrors geared to promote a politicians political campaign for mayoral office even begins to address the issue of homelessness. if it does pass, which it probably will since amerikans are looking for targets for thier rage of late, will only create more homeless people do to the nature that most homeless people are not street people or drug addicts or alcoholics. It just hurts alot of innocent people. For instance, my former store manager that was homeless with a kid and used her GA to get a good job pay for daycare and move up the ladder.
And the proof of this is?
And the proof of this is?
he doesn't need proof. The onus is on the people who make the assumption that they ARE in the first place, to prove their case. If they do then he must prove his position. If I were to say all Republicans were alcoholics I should be forced to prove my point before those who disagreed with me had to.
>he doesn't need proof.
>The onus is on the people who make the assumption that they ARE in the first place, to prove their case.
These two statements contradict. He said the the overwhelming majority of the homeless were addicts, etc. Therefore the onus is on him to provide evidence that what he says is true.
>The onus is on the people who make the assumption that they ARE in the first place, to prove their case.
These two statements contradict. He said the the overwhelming majority of the homeless were addicts, etc. Therefore the onus is on him to provide evidence that what he says is true.
my mistake, I misread. You are correct.
My apologies for insuating that you did anything wrong. I believe what you say. You may even be 100% right about policies towards the homeless. I thought I smelled some hypocrisy but I guess I was wrong.
The political ambitions of the San Francisco developer mafia are a form of social cleansing perfected in New York City by Herr Giuliani. This Americanized fascism *is* social cleansing and will be treated as such. This ain't New York City.
The homeless have driven a lot of people out of S.F. beause we just don't want our kids to see people sh****ng and shooting up on the street. You can call development "social cleansing" but who is going to pay for all your assinine progressive social experiments when there is no one left in the city but activists and homeless.
S.F. has been generally lucky--it's superior location has helped it avoid the problems other cities faced where their tax bases moved out, leaving only the takers and leeches.
If you want to take in a homeless person and help them out, great. That's your right. My right to walk down the street with my kids was pretty much taken away in S.F. so I moved.
What is the progressive's ideal city? One in which every square inch of sidewalk space is covered with urine, feces, and screaming lunatics?
S.F. has been generally lucky--it's superior location has helped it avoid the problems other cities faced where their tax bases moved out, leaving only the takers and leeches.
If you want to take in a homeless person and help them out, great. That's your right. My right to walk down the street with my kids was pretty much taken away in S.F. so I moved.
What is the progressive's ideal city? One in which every square inch of sidewalk space is covered with urine, feces, and screaming lunatics?
The homeless have driven a lot of people out of S.F. beause we just don't want our kids to see people sh****ng and shooting up on the street. You can call development "social cleansing" but who is going to pay for all your assinine progressive social experiments when there is no one left in the city but activists and homeless.
S.F. has been generally lucky--it's superior location has helped it avoid the problems other cities faced where their tax bases moved out, leaving only the takers and leeches.
If you want to take in a homeless person and help them out, great. That's your right. My right to walk down the street with my kids was pretty much taken away in S.F. so I moved.
What is the progressive's ideal city? One in which every square inch of sidewalk space is covered with urine, feces, and screaming lunatics?
S.F. has been generally lucky--it's superior location has helped it avoid the problems other cities faced where their tax bases moved out, leaving only the takers and leeches.
If you want to take in a homeless person and help them out, great. That's your right. My right to walk down the street with my kids was pretty much taken away in S.F. so I moved.
What is the progressive's ideal city? One in which every square inch of sidewalk space is covered with urine, feces, and screaming lunatics?
The only things that needs cleansing are the sidewalks and the space between the "progressives" heads.
Why do the rights of the homeless trump the rights of everyone else in the city? I'm paying more than $6,000 a year in property tax and can't even let my kids play in the small park near my house because it's used as a toilet by the homeless.
Fortunately, we'll soon be out of S.F. When more people "vote with their feet" and leave, who is going to be left to keep paying the salaries of the homeless advocates who are the only ones who profit from the current situation.
Why do the rights of the homeless trump the rights of everyone else in the city? I'm paying more than $6,000 a year in property tax and can't even let my kids play in the small park near my house because it's used as a toilet by the homeless.
Fortunately, we'll soon be out of S.F. When more people "vote with their feet" and leave, who is going to be left to keep paying the salaries of the homeless advocates who are the only ones who profit from the current situation.
"The homeless have driven a lot of people out of S.F. beause we just don't want our kids to see people sh****ng and shooting up on the street."
Have you ever been to a city planning meeting? Or a supervisor's meeting? Have you even tried to participate to change things in SF? Are you a part of any neighborhood group? Have you ever walked precincts for a cause?
By 'cleansing' SF of the homeless, all you're doing in playing right into the hand of the corporations that are sponsoring this - they could care less about your kids or your family, they only care for a correct 'shopping' environment, as is obvious by the state of the schools and huge wealth that corporations have gotten from feeding off SF.
Stand behind the ordinary citizens who don't have a bed to sleep in or had a f**'d up childhood and take drugs to keep from killing themselves - it's the corporations that we all need to unite against. Together, the people of SF can find a solution, but don't let the corporate lackey fool you on this one - it's poverty cleansing and it's not well-thought out at all.
Your knee-jerk responses are what they're counting on. Homeless out today, poor out tomorrow, middle income out next . . .
Have you ever been to a city planning meeting? Or a supervisor's meeting? Have you even tried to participate to change things in SF? Are you a part of any neighborhood group? Have you ever walked precincts for a cause?
By 'cleansing' SF of the homeless, all you're doing in playing right into the hand of the corporations that are sponsoring this - they could care less about your kids or your family, they only care for a correct 'shopping' environment, as is obvious by the state of the schools and huge wealth that corporations have gotten from feeding off SF.
Stand behind the ordinary citizens who don't have a bed to sleep in or had a f**'d up childhood and take drugs to keep from killing themselves - it's the corporations that we all need to unite against. Together, the people of SF can find a solution, but don't let the corporate lackey fool you on this one - it's poverty cleansing and it's not well-thought out at all.
Your knee-jerk responses are what they're counting on. Homeless out today, poor out tomorrow, middle income out next . . .
Let me give you an example--my neighborhood is trying to raise $50,000 on our own to build a neighborhood playground. Last year, ONE homeless man who REPEATEDLY drinks himself into a stupor and REFUSES TO GET HELP went to the hospital almost every day, costing more than $2 million.
If it weren't for that man's selfishness, 40 playgrounds could have been built that HUNDREDS of kids could enjoy. Instead, we get one selfish drunk who puts his alcoholic pleasure above the needs of everyone else, and a bunch of protestors who defend his right to do it.
If it weren't for that man's selfishness, 40 playgrounds could have been built that HUNDREDS of kids could enjoy. Instead, we get one selfish drunk who puts his alcoholic pleasure above the needs of everyone else, and a bunch of protestors who defend his right to do it.
the savings and loan bail-out cost $500 billion. How many parks could that purchase?
C-mon now. We all know that alcoholic ain't taking pleasure in it.
>>> the savings and loan bail-out cost $500 billion. How many parks could that purchase? <<<
This is absolutely true and many people went to jail as a result (not enough, unfortunately, but that's another discussion). If you even suggest putting the homeless who commit crimes in jail you're branded a fascist.
This is absolutely true and many people went to jail as a result (not enough, unfortunately, but that's another discussion). If you even suggest putting the homeless who commit crimes in jail you're branded a fascist.
My sister lives in a small/medium-sized city that will go unnamed to prevent activists from stirring up trouble.
Recently, they found a homeless man living in a patch of privately owned woods. He was arrested and immediately charged with vandalism, arson (for a campfire), tresspassing, and a host of other charges.
This is extreme, and most of the charges probably won't stick, but the upside is that people who live in her city can walk around in peace without being harassed, don't have to step over urine and feces on the street, don't have syringes in their parks, etc.
Recently, they found a homeless man living in a patch of privately owned woods. He was arrested and immediately charged with vandalism, arson (for a campfire), tresspassing, and a host of other charges.
This is extreme, and most of the charges probably won't stick, but the upside is that people who live in her city can walk around in peace without being harassed, don't have to step over urine and feces on the street, don't have syringes in their parks, etc.
>>> Have you ever been to a city planning meeting? Or a supervisor's meeting? <<<
Speaking for myself, most of these meetings are held during the day when those of us who pay for all this nonsense have to work to earn the money to do so. It seems meeting times are generally rigged so that only the professional activists can attend and us working slobs are not represented.
Speaking for myself, most of these meetings are held during the day when those of us who pay for all this nonsense have to work to earn the money to do so. It seems meeting times are generally rigged so that only the professional activists can attend and us working slobs are not represented.
Our city has become a haven for bums, drug dealers, drug users and related scum. I am for providing _some_ services but I am not willing to have my taxes increase to support an ever increasing homeless population. I have had the displeasure of working on Market Street [corner 7th] and that neighborhood has been turned to sh*t by Ammiano and his misguided, ill informed and generally useless minions.
"This is extreme, and most of the charges probably won't stick, but the upside is that people who live in her city can walk around in peace"
Yes, best to arrest them all rather than to deal with the real problems, which probably costs a LOT less than putting them through the legal system.
As one person said recently about the war on terrorism - its like going after cells of mosquitoes to stop the West Nile Virus.
Arresting people for actions they often cannot control - alcoholism wouldn't exist if people could easily control it - won't end homelessness. And trying to *hide* the problem with endless arrests won't either. Take a look at today's Sunday NYT - the homeless are back, visible, and they don't even know why. The article puts forth several different theories, but none has solid facts.
Sure, arrest them and a few people won't have to look at them for awhile, and meanwhile the whole society moves toward fascism as we chip away at our rights, first the homeless, then the poor, then the middle income . . .
What if, instead of people not wanting to step over human feces, it was rich people not wanting to look at poor people's cheap clothing? Then you could be arrested for having bad or cheap taste. Do you think a homeless person *wants* to be lying in excrement?
Things will only escalate when you're arresting people for having mental disorders, alcoholism, and other things that - not all, but - many of them cannot control.
Watch out - the corporate interests in SF are using you people like pawns to get their way. In the end we'll all lose when we try to go after 'cells of mosquitoes' to cure the virus.
On top of it all - only 30% of the homeless are even *on* GA - so this prop won't even do sh-- to change anything. If nothing else, that should be a warning flag to you that you are being manipulated.
Yes, best to arrest them all rather than to deal with the real problems, which probably costs a LOT less than putting them through the legal system.
As one person said recently about the war on terrorism - its like going after cells of mosquitoes to stop the West Nile Virus.
Arresting people for actions they often cannot control - alcoholism wouldn't exist if people could easily control it - won't end homelessness. And trying to *hide* the problem with endless arrests won't either. Take a look at today's Sunday NYT - the homeless are back, visible, and they don't even know why. The article puts forth several different theories, but none has solid facts.
Sure, arrest them and a few people won't have to look at them for awhile, and meanwhile the whole society moves toward fascism as we chip away at our rights, first the homeless, then the poor, then the middle income . . .
What if, instead of people not wanting to step over human feces, it was rich people not wanting to look at poor people's cheap clothing? Then you could be arrested for having bad or cheap taste. Do you think a homeless person *wants* to be lying in excrement?
Things will only escalate when you're arresting people for having mental disorders, alcoholism, and other things that - not all, but - many of them cannot control.
Watch out - the corporate interests in SF are using you people like pawns to get their way. In the end we'll all lose when we try to go after 'cells of mosquitoes' to cure the virus.
On top of it all - only 30% of the homeless are even *on* GA - so this prop won't even do sh-- to change anything. If nothing else, that should be a warning flag to you that you are being manipulated.
1. work
2. hospital
3. jail
2. hospital
3. jail
1. change
2. leave
3. die in an earthquake
2. leave
3. die in an earthquake
That's what they get!
Burning is a form of tough love . . . isn't it?
Burning is a form of tough love . . . isn't it?
1. work
2. hospital
3. jail
2. hospital
3. jail
1. dum
2. dummer
3. dumdeedeedum
2. dummer
3. dumdeedeedum
Duh. Are you folks idiots? These are people who can't take care of themselves for whatever reason (alcohol, drugs, mental illness, whatever). It is inhumane to leave these incapables to the streets in the name of personal freedoms. Like it or not, these folk need to be institutionalized in some manner where they can be taken care of, and their standard of living improved. Look around - this is a blight that is destroying this city and the homeless are the casualties. Freedom to live and die on the streets - what nonsense.
Sadly, Prop N does NOT take care of homeless - in institutions or whatever - it only guarentees that their money will be taken away, and does not guarantee services.
Similarly, places like NYC, who have this program, are seeing increases in homelessness.
Furthermore, only 30% of the homeless will be affected by Prop N - this is a ploy by big money interests to get people to feel good about Newsom by making a false claim that he is 'helping' homeless.
Every mayor comes in with a new plan - have ANY of them stucK??? No, they always go back to the continuum of care program which has been around for the past SEVERAL mayors.
Because this only affects 30%, it is blatantly obvious that it is relatively pointless except to manipulate voters for Newsom's campaign.
Similarly, places like NYC, who have this program, are seeing increases in homelessness.
Furthermore, only 30% of the homeless will be affected by Prop N - this is a ploy by big money interests to get people to feel good about Newsom by making a false claim that he is 'helping' homeless.
Every mayor comes in with a new plan - have ANY of them stucK??? No, they always go back to the continuum of care program which has been around for the past SEVERAL mayors.
Because this only affects 30%, it is blatantly obvious that it is relatively pointless except to manipulate voters for Newsom's campaign.
I'm a New Yorker who loves San Francisco and just returned from a visit there. The atmosphere in your city reminds me of the air of menace and disorder, of unpleasantness and threat, that pervaded New York in the early nineties. NY came back from the abyss only when the city began to enforce minimum standards of conduct in its public places. It's about time SF did the same. And by the way, those of us who are responsible for the bulk of economic activity in your town--i.e., tourists--may simply stop coming if things get any worse. SF is a town that lives off its looks, and it's looking more haggard by the day.
"I'm a New Yorker who loves San Francisco and just returned from a visit there"
I dont know if you ever really lived here, but Ive been here a little over 10 years and the main thing Ive noticed is the takeover of the city by yuppies and conservatives. You cant walk anywhere in the city without seeing some self rightous assholes driving around in their SUVs and minivans. They are rude, direspectful, dont tip at restaurants, yell insults at homeless and disabled people and are basically an all around nusaince.
Ive seen a pretty sharp decrease in the visibility of the homeless in SF as the yuppies pushed them away from most parts of town so your weird complaint about the city being a mess seem a little strange.
As for NYC, before 9/11 everyone knew what Giuliani did to New York City.
"The torture of Abner Louima at the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn was just one extreme of a bell curve of injury and humiliation visited upon the people in the interest of Giuliani and his quality of life campaign" (http://shadow.mediafilter.org/shadow/S42/S42plungerpigs.html)
Here is another commentary on Giulianis style:
"More and more folks are becoming alarmed at Mayor Rudy Giuliani's reign of terror in New York City. He has clamped down on sidewalk artists, cabbies, squatters, community gardening activists, and just about anybody else that provides an alternative to the interests of the rich and powerful. Giuliani's push to improve New York's "quality of life" is just a form of friendly fascism that many find easy to like because it is aimed at THOSE PEOPLE. Giuliani's recent battles against sidewalk vendors and cabbies also shows how racist Giulianism can be. Don't think that this is all the result of one fascist politician; it will be coming soon to your town.
Don't forget to wave at the security cameras installed in your neighborhood for your safety.
"
http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/giulianism.html
"Like much of America, New York City has become a more violent place -- thanks to violent cops, not criminals on the streets -- because its top politician ushered in an intimidating atmosphere of "zero tolerance." Of harassing squeegee guys who clean windshields at highway exits. Of joining the national crusade to turn law enforcement into a domestic "war."
Giuliani speaks like a general who wants to wipe out subhumans -- so it's no surprise his cops behave like soldiers devouring the enemy. "
http://www.cjpf.org/Police/ruderudy.html
I HOPE that SF does not fall prey to the heavy handed style of the fascist from NYC, but Newsom would probably act very much like him and the SF business community would LOVE to destroy the last vestiges of progressivism in this city. One things for sure, if Newsom gets elected mayor the message to progressives in SF will be in the words of Officer Justin Volpe “It’s Giuliani time.”
I dont know if you ever really lived here, but Ive been here a little over 10 years and the main thing Ive noticed is the takeover of the city by yuppies and conservatives. You cant walk anywhere in the city without seeing some self rightous assholes driving around in their SUVs and minivans. They are rude, direspectful, dont tip at restaurants, yell insults at homeless and disabled people and are basically an all around nusaince.
Ive seen a pretty sharp decrease in the visibility of the homeless in SF as the yuppies pushed them away from most parts of town so your weird complaint about the city being a mess seem a little strange.
As for NYC, before 9/11 everyone knew what Giuliani did to New York City.
"The torture of Abner Louima at the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn was just one extreme of a bell curve of injury and humiliation visited upon the people in the interest of Giuliani and his quality of life campaign" (http://shadow.mediafilter.org/shadow/S42/S42plungerpigs.html)
Here is another commentary on Giulianis style:
"More and more folks are becoming alarmed at Mayor Rudy Giuliani's reign of terror in New York City. He has clamped down on sidewalk artists, cabbies, squatters, community gardening activists, and just about anybody else that provides an alternative to the interests of the rich and powerful. Giuliani's push to improve New York's "quality of life" is just a form of friendly fascism that many find easy to like because it is aimed at THOSE PEOPLE. Giuliani's recent battles against sidewalk vendors and cabbies also shows how racist Giulianism can be. Don't think that this is all the result of one fascist politician; it will be coming soon to your town.
Don't forget to wave at the security cameras installed in your neighborhood for your safety.
"
http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/giulianism.html
"Like much of America, New York City has become a more violent place -- thanks to violent cops, not criminals on the streets -- because its top politician ushered in an intimidating atmosphere of "zero tolerance." Of harassing squeegee guys who clean windshields at highway exits. Of joining the national crusade to turn law enforcement into a domestic "war."
Giuliani speaks like a general who wants to wipe out subhumans -- so it's no surprise his cops behave like soldiers devouring the enemy. "
http://www.cjpf.org/Police/ruderudy.html
I HOPE that SF does not fall prey to the heavy handed style of the fascist from NYC, but Newsom would probably act very much like him and the SF business community would LOVE to destroy the last vestiges of progressivism in this city. One things for sure, if Newsom gets elected mayor the message to progressives in SF will be in the words of Officer Justin Volpe “It’s Giuliani time.”
take a hike!!! I'd love to see you tourist types go away for good - let the idiot tourist industry shut down! And as Bruce B. says - just let the grass grow! The city was here long before the TOURIST INDUSTRY was! And can easily go on without it.
Anyone who is willing to sell out their own city to tourists is an idiot.
Anyone who is willing to sell out their own city to tourists is an idiot.
DMS,
Pay no attention to these fools. The tourist industry is something that many of us want to keep and expand. It is a beautiful area of the country and this city has it's own brand of culture to offer. From the Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, Coit Tower, Lombard Street, Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, the wonderful restaurants along Valencia, fine hotels, to famous bookstores like City Lights, even to visit the old hippy hangouts in Haight, this city has much to offer. There are many concerned citizens who are doing what we can to make this a more pleasant place to visit. I invite you back anytime and sincerely hope you enjoy our City by the Bay.
Pay no attention to these fools. The tourist industry is something that many of us want to keep and expand. It is a beautiful area of the country and this city has it's own brand of culture to offer. From the Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, Coit Tower, Lombard Street, Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, the wonderful restaurants along Valencia, fine hotels, to famous bookstores like City Lights, even to visit the old hippy hangouts in Haight, this city has much to offer. There are many concerned citizens who are doing what we can to make this a more pleasant place to visit. I invite you back anytime and sincerely hope you enjoy our City by the Bay.
Dear "Bov": If us tourist types go away for good, who's going to pay the salaries of the waiters, waitresses, bellboys, chambermaids, artists, actors, immigrant busboys and countless other San Franciscans engaged, directly or indirectly, in providing services to us? You? I don't think so. You don't exhibit much compassion for those whose livlihoods are at stake. But I suppose your idiot faux-bohemian principles are more important than some poor slob's need to pay the rent.
SF tourists come to SF for many reasons but one reason is the street life on places like Haight St and the interesting characters in Union Square and other tourist sites. Cracking down could even hurt tourism....
But thats a seperate issue from the fact that homeless visibility in tourist areas has decreased so the compliants are pure politics and have nothing to do with facts. Newsom is using this to increase his own power and he is demonizing homeless people to the extent that it could easily make people's lives worse even if the law fails to pass. NYC paid dearly for its neofascist policies and they will not go over here.
Its no coincidence that fascists always seek power by demonizing despised minorities. Newsom doesnt care about tourism; like most politicians Newsom only craes about Newsom. He is scapegoating a minority group to gain power and we all should remember where tactics like that lead.
But thats a seperate issue from the fact that homeless visibility in tourist areas has decreased so the compliants are pure politics and have nothing to do with facts. Newsom is using this to increase his own power and he is demonizing homeless people to the extent that it could easily make people's lives worse even if the law fails to pass. NYC paid dearly for its neofascist policies and they will not go over here.
Its no coincidence that fascists always seek power by demonizing despised minorities. Newsom doesnt care about tourism; like most politicians Newsom only craes about Newsom. He is scapegoating a minority group to gain power and we all should remember where tactics like that lead.
Furthermore, to suggest that Newsom's concerns about tourism are in any way a form of "caring" for people who actually work in the city (as opposed to leeching off their rich father like Newsom does) is pure bullshit.
The fact is that Brown and Newsom share a common vision for San Francisco -- a peninsula of rich people, free from diversity. The vision for 10 years from now is a city where only the most super-wealthy live, and poor people from the East Bay come over on BART to serve them.
To that extent, it is clear that anyone who actually works in the city doing a real job should be completely opposed to Newsom and his neo-fascist policies of social cleansing.
The fact is that Brown and Newsom share a common vision for San Francisco -- a peninsula of rich people, free from diversity. The vision for 10 years from now is a city where only the most super-wealthy live, and poor people from the East Bay come over on BART to serve them.
To that extent, it is clear that anyone who actually works in the city doing a real job should be completely opposed to Newsom and his neo-fascist policies of social cleansing.
How can you people expect to be taken seriously when you glibly throw around words like "facist"? Do you have any idea what real fascism is? Has it occurred to you that your cavalier use of this term cheapens its meaning, and insults the memory of those who perished under fascism? In any event, I suppose that the manifest failure of your policies leaves you with recourse only to silly posturing and name-calling. As for the argument that the squalid condition of SF's streets is actually a boon for tourism, that the homeless encampment that stretches along Market Street for literally miles is "colorful": you're kidding, aren't you?
How can you people expect to be taken seriously when you glibly throw around words like "facist"? Do you have any idea what real fascism is? Has it occurred to you that your cavalier use of this term cheapens its meaning, and insults the memory of those who perished under fascism?
Actually, DMS, I have spent about 10 years studying fascism as a phenomenon and political movement, in intricate detail. I am well-versed in what it means to "be fascist" in a political context.
I doubt you want to display your ignorance, but perhaps you could explain why Gavin Newsom's social cleansing policies are not fascist (or more appropriately, neo-fascist). Then I will intellectually destroy your argument.
For your own sake, you might just want to keep trolling and not respond to this. You will be embarrassed. I have found that most Americans have no idea what fascism is and therefore they don't recognize it when it starts in their own city.
Actually, DMS, I have spent about 10 years studying fascism as a phenomenon and political movement, in intricate detail. I am well-versed in what it means to "be fascist" in a political context.
I doubt you want to display your ignorance, but perhaps you could explain why Gavin Newsom's social cleansing policies are not fascist (or more appropriately, neo-fascist). Then I will intellectually destroy your argument.
For your own sake, you might just want to keep trolling and not respond to this. You will be embarrassed. I have found that most Americans have no idea what fascism is and therefore they don't recognize it when it starts in their own city.
Unless your definition of "fascism" includes the phrase "the systematic expundging of all Jews", you do not have a understanding of fascism that is worth considering.
Oh, how lovely, SF has its own resident expert in fascism. Maybe we can add that to the list of tourist attractions. If fascism can be equated with intolerance, however, you and your confederates in SF are fascists, because you would much rather "destroy" (a telling choice of words on your part) opponents than engage them in meaningful dialogue. You don't need to look to New York for manifestations of fascism; it's much closer to home than you think.
Oh, how lovely, SF has its own resident expert in fascism. Maybe we can add that to the list of tourist attractions. If fascism can be equated with intolerance, however, you and your confederates in SF are fascists
Right. Like I said, you are ignorant about fascism, cannot produce an intelligible argument about why social cleansing policies are not fascist, and so you should keep your mouth shut when you tell us not to use the word "fascist."
Gavin Newsom, his cronies, and proponents of the city planning model known as Giulianism are all representatives of "neo-fascism" with an American character.
Right. Like I said, you are ignorant about fascism, cannot produce an intelligible argument about why social cleansing policies are not fascist, and so you should keep your mouth shut when you tell us not to use the word "fascist."
Gavin Newsom, his cronies, and proponents of the city planning model known as Giulianism are all representatives of "neo-fascism" with an American character.
"Dear "Bov": If us tourist types go away for good, who's going to pay the salaries of the waiters, waitresses, bellboys, chambermaids, artists, actors, immigrant busboys and countless other San Franciscans engaged, directly or indirectly, in providing services to us?"
Let's see, SF never existed before tourism? Hmm, I hate to say it, but for at least some amount of time it was a regular city, not whored-out to tourists.
It's true, eliminating the tourist industry would be a radical departure from the current situation and lots who have built their jobs around tourism would have to go elsewhere.
So what would happen? Would everyone pack up and leave and SF would be deserted? Sure lots who were entirely dependent on tourists would have to make radical lifestyle changes. But otherwise, I don't think the city would collapse.
If the tourism industry got cut in half it would cut into some big corporations and lots of service industry people, the economy in the city would tumble and for awhile people would pissed off and freaked out. But at least maybe we wouldn't be trying to 'eliminate' the people who live here already by stealing the tiny amount of money they get.
And frankly, a few calculated terrorist or sniper situations could easily wipe out any tourist industry, at least temporarily, as Bali is seeing now.
I don't think its healthy to make all your policy around the current jobs with no real thought involved - sure, cut down every tree on the planet to save logger jobs, and whore out SF to the highest bidder to boost low paid tourist jobs and cater to the rich in the class war. There's no IQ involved in those reactionary stances that don't consider more than one point of view.
I grew up in NY and I'm glad to be out here, where the Green Party and the anti-war movement are growing every day. Wake up and think outside the box. Come visit SF and go to the places where the tourists don't go, walk in regular neighborhoods, ask people on the street or in the cafes for where to go - not where the tourist industry has calculated you will go.
And on your next vacation, lying on the beach or the hotel deck by the pool, ask yourself what time you've spent working for social justice this year. What have you done?
Let's see, SF never existed before tourism? Hmm, I hate to say it, but for at least some amount of time it was a regular city, not whored-out to tourists.
It's true, eliminating the tourist industry would be a radical departure from the current situation and lots who have built their jobs around tourism would have to go elsewhere.
So what would happen? Would everyone pack up and leave and SF would be deserted? Sure lots who were entirely dependent on tourists would have to make radical lifestyle changes. But otherwise, I don't think the city would collapse.
If the tourism industry got cut in half it would cut into some big corporations and lots of service industry people, the economy in the city would tumble and for awhile people would pissed off and freaked out. But at least maybe we wouldn't be trying to 'eliminate' the people who live here already by stealing the tiny amount of money they get.
And frankly, a few calculated terrorist or sniper situations could easily wipe out any tourist industry, at least temporarily, as Bali is seeing now.
I don't think its healthy to make all your policy around the current jobs with no real thought involved - sure, cut down every tree on the planet to save logger jobs, and whore out SF to the highest bidder to boost low paid tourist jobs and cater to the rich in the class war. There's no IQ involved in those reactionary stances that don't consider more than one point of view.
I grew up in NY and I'm glad to be out here, where the Green Party and the anti-war movement are growing every day. Wake up and think outside the box. Come visit SF and go to the places where the tourists don't go, walk in regular neighborhoods, ask people on the street or in the cafes for where to go - not where the tourist industry has calculated you will go.
And on your next vacation, lying on the beach or the hotel deck by the pool, ask yourself what time you've spent working for social justice this year. What have you done?
SF wasn't a city that was considered leftist until the last 50 years or so. Cities change over time. It's time for SF to change again, this time sweeping out the dust left over from the 50's and 60's and sweeping in a new generation of residents with different priorities. Change is good.
Your complaints about Market St contradict your tourist claims since the areas of Market you are complaining about are NOT traditional tourist areas. The complaints are not about the Powell St turnaround or the area with all the hotels. They are about areas where poor people live and tourists rarely go... Talk of tourism is a thin disguise for hatred of the poor.... If you were just a greedy bastard who cared more about business interests than human lives that would be one thing but this type of hatred where nobody gains is even more sick
SF wasn't a city that was considered leftist until the last 50 years or so. Cities change over time. It's time for SF to change again, this time sweeping out the dust left over from the 50's and 60's and sweeping in a new generation of residents with different priorities. Change is good.
Just try it. The blatant anti-human fascism of Newsom's campaign is awakening people all over the city. Regardless of what happens in this election, Newsom is now a declared enemy of the people. You really think a bunch of slick ignorant rich kids will be able to stop the anti-capitalist army that lives in San Francisco?
If you or your business think that you can survive the battle, then by all means ... try it.
Just try it. The blatant anti-human fascism of Newsom's campaign is awakening people all over the city. Regardless of what happens in this election, Newsom is now a declared enemy of the people. You really think a bunch of slick ignorant rich kids will be able to stop the anti-capitalist army that lives in San Francisco?
If you or your business think that you can survive the battle, then by all means ... try it.
Dear "Also": You're so wrong. The streets are squalid EVERYWHERE. Union Square, SoMa, even 24th Street in Noe: there is squalor and filfth and degradation, in greater or lesser degrees, everywhere. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. And explain to me, who gains from this situation? Maybe you do, you can congratulate yourself on being so enlightened, meanwhile, the poor and the vulnerable are allowed to destroy themselves on the streets (and take the city along with them) to further your cause. Examine your own conscience, buddy, before you examine mine.
Instead of complaining about Prop N passing, it is time for individuals who believe this to be bad for the poor to start pooling their own money and resources together and pick up where Prop N will leave off. To complain that Prop N will hurt the poor and homeless and then not expend all your money and energy towards making up the difference sounds like a lot of empty complaining. Either you're willing to step in and make up all the difference or you're not.
And explain to me, who gains from this situation? Maybe you do, you can congratulate yourself on being so enlightened, meanwhile, the poor and the vulnerable are allowed to destroy themselves on the streets (and take the city along with them) to further your cause.
I agree. There is much squalor in the city. Now, let's identify exactly why this happens. Is it because homeless people get some cash from the government? No. It is because:
1) The mafia that controls construction and development have illegally destroyed low income housing to make room for dot-coms over the last 5 years. Now, these dot-com warehouses sit empty. Nonetheless, those who were made homeless by these illegal criminal acts are still homeless.
2) The rich people have again and again supported violent measures against homeless advocates. For instance, the brutal harrassment of Food Not Bombs in the city where people are arrested for serving food to each other.
3) Capitalism creates an unnatural force called gentrification, which encourages yuppies to colonize neighborhoods like the Mission, creating intense social conflict.
We will put an end to these problems, by putting an end to the undue influence that naive, ignorant rich people have on our political system. San Francisco is a "sleeping giant" of radical anti-capitalism. Keep pushing us. Some of us want the giant to wake up.
I agree. There is much squalor in the city. Now, let's identify exactly why this happens. Is it because homeless people get some cash from the government? No. It is because:
1) The mafia that controls construction and development have illegally destroyed low income housing to make room for dot-coms over the last 5 years. Now, these dot-com warehouses sit empty. Nonetheless, those who were made homeless by these illegal criminal acts are still homeless.
2) The rich people have again and again supported violent measures against homeless advocates. For instance, the brutal harrassment of Food Not Bombs in the city where people are arrested for serving food to each other.
3) Capitalism creates an unnatural force called gentrification, which encourages yuppies to colonize neighborhoods like the Mission, creating intense social conflict.
We will put an end to these problems, by putting an end to the undue influence that naive, ignorant rich people have on our political system. San Francisco is a "sleeping giant" of radical anti-capitalism. Keep pushing us. Some of us want the giant to wake up.
It would make sense for those opposed to the passing of Prop N to meet, form whatever collective or organization they see fit, pool thier money together, and provide the services they believe the city will be taking away. But that's the problem, it makes sense.
This is nothing more than a classic example of the have-nots who pay a minimal amount into the system believing they know best and wanting to dictate to everyone else how the budget should be allocated.
This is nothing more than a classic example of the have-nots who pay a minimal amount into the system believing they know best and wanting to dictate to everyone else how the budget should be allocated.
San Francisco is a bastion of silly upper middle class goofballs with only a glancing familiarity with reality, is more like it. By the way, capitallism is the only system capable of creating a person like you, with the luxury and time to sit around and think of ways to bite the hand that feeds him. But if you really want to experience anti-capitalism, I suggest North Korea, I think you would really like that worker's paradise.
Hundreds of thousands of people commute to SF via BART Monday-Friday. The people I’ve talked to are glad they don’t live in the City because of the squalid condition it has become and do the commute because the East Bay is a better environment to raise their families.
"squalor and filfth and degradation"
First of all you have already said you dont live here so Im guessing your just making this shit up, BUT the last time I went to 24th and Noe there were alot of yuppies, alot of American flags, maybe one or two people asking for change but no real evidence of "squalor". I live in the East Bay and take BART to work not because of squalor but because the city is just too DAMN expensive to live in! Id rather live over here, I just cant really afford to.
I've known many people forced to leave SF when the rents shot through the roof during the dot com boom, but Iave never know anyone who has had any problem with SF being too rundown or dangerous.
Admit it, you hate anyone who makes less money than you do. You want them to leave SF so it can be a nice rich city with no evidence of real human life. You dont care how you make the poorer people leave, you just want them out. You hate poor people not because of any real problems but because you find them different and you hate anyone not like yourself. You are much like the Germans who elected Hitler; you dont like people who are different so you want to eliminate them.
As for you talk of "why dont you give people money"; thats a complete joke. SF spends shit loads on money on culture for the rich, from museums to the Opera, but you never complain about that. Your fascist antipoor agenda has so far been cloaked in false language of "tough love", but once the people of this city see you for what you really are (which is pretty obvious from your comments here) they will rise up and take the city back from Newsom and his Republican ilk.
First of all you have already said you dont live here so Im guessing your just making this shit up, BUT the last time I went to 24th and Noe there were alot of yuppies, alot of American flags, maybe one or two people asking for change but no real evidence of "squalor". I live in the East Bay and take BART to work not because of squalor but because the city is just too DAMN expensive to live in! Id rather live over here, I just cant really afford to.
I've known many people forced to leave SF when the rents shot through the roof during the dot com boom, but Iave never know anyone who has had any problem with SF being too rundown or dangerous.
Admit it, you hate anyone who makes less money than you do. You want them to leave SF so it can be a nice rich city with no evidence of real human life. You dont care how you make the poorer people leave, you just want them out. You hate poor people not because of any real problems but because you find them different and you hate anyone not like yourself. You are much like the Germans who elected Hitler; you dont like people who are different so you want to eliminate them.
As for you talk of "why dont you give people money"; thats a complete joke. SF spends shit loads on money on culture for the rich, from museums to the Opera, but you never complain about that. Your fascist antipoor agenda has so far been cloaked in false language of "tough love", but once the people of this city see you for what you really are (which is pretty obvious from your comments here) they will rise up and take the city back from Newsom and his Republican ilk.
anticapitalist - not willing to contribute any money to the problem, just wanting to tell other who do how it should be spent.
"As for you talk of "why dont you give people money"; thats a complete joke."
I can already see that those who are complaining loudest about the passage of Prop N will be the last in line to contribute their own time and money to picking up where the city will leave off. If they really cared about the poor and homeless, it wouldn't be a joke, it would be a call to action to put your money where your mouth is.
The fact is they don't care about the poor and homeless because if they cared about the poor and homeless there wouldn't be any poor and homeless to be concerned about, they would have already done what it takes to make sure it wasn't a problem. If these people really cared, they would use their own money to buy places to house and feed ALL the poor and homeless in SF. But they'd rather have the issue than solve the problem. You can't get out your picket sticks, poster board, staples and crayons to go out and protest about the mean, evil capitalist if there is no poor or homeless problem.
"As for you talk of "why dont you give people money"; thats a complete joke."
I can already see that those who are complaining loudest about the passage of Prop N will be the last in line to contribute their own time and money to picking up where the city will leave off. If they really cared about the poor and homeless, it wouldn't be a joke, it would be a call to action to put your money where your mouth is.
The fact is they don't care about the poor and homeless because if they cared about the poor and homeless there wouldn't be any poor and homeless to be concerned about, they would have already done what it takes to make sure it wasn't a problem. If these people really cared, they would use their own money to buy places to house and feed ALL the poor and homeless in SF. But they'd rather have the issue than solve the problem. You can't get out your picket sticks, poster board, staples and crayons to go out and protest about the mean, evil capitalist if there is no poor or homeless problem.
asdfasdfasdf :That wasn't my post about giving away money. Pay more attention.
I''ve been to SF twice in the last two months. This by no means makes me an expert, but SF is a little town, and I saw virtually every neighborhood. And things are pretty bad out there (to a greater or lesser degree, as I said. Market Street, the heart of the city, is in an appalling condition). And as for your argument that I merely detest anyone who is different: you presume that pan-handling, public drunkeness and general incivility are a legitimate form of "difference". That betrays your own upper middle condescension: these people are poor, or black, or god knows what else, so we can't expect from them what we expect from the rest of us. I live in New York, I exult in its diversity, the vitality imparted to this town by strivers from every part of the planet, and you can go to hell.
I''ve been to SF twice in the last two months. This by no means makes me an expert, but SF is a little town, and I saw virtually every neighborhood. And things are pretty bad out there (to a greater or lesser degree, as I said. Market Street, the heart of the city, is in an appalling condition). And as for your argument that I merely detest anyone who is different: you presume that pan-handling, public drunkeness and general incivility are a legitimate form of "difference". That betrays your own upper middle condescension: these people are poor, or black, or god knows what else, so we can't expect from them what we expect from the rest of us. I live in New York, I exult in its diversity, the vitality imparted to this town by strivers from every part of the planet, and you can go to hell.
All the people I know who help run (not just work at) agencies that help teh homeless oppose prop N. I try to do what I can but if you talked to any of the soup kitchens around here and asked them what they think about prop N be prepared to hear a good amount of anger (oposition to it from religious and nonreligous aid agencies is nearly universal).
As for your statement about not expecting enough of poor people, ask yourself this. Can you think of ANY city in any country that does not have a good amount of the type of people you are complaining about(SF street looks pretty clean to me compared to Paris or London). Only two types of country have such cities, Socialist style countries and fascist style countries. If you want to eliminate squalor your choices pretty much are Sweden or Singapore.
As for your statement about not expecting enough of poor people, ask yourself this. Can you think of ANY city in any country that does not have a good amount of the type of people you are complaining about(SF street looks pretty clean to me compared to Paris or London). Only two types of country have such cities, Socialist style countries and fascist style countries. If you want to eliminate squalor your choices pretty much are Sweden or Singapore.
What have *you* done for anyone besides yourself lately?
"I can already see that those who are complaining loudest about the passage of Prop N will be the last in line to contribute their own time and money"
We happen to be spending many many hours doing a ton of work to make sure that N falls on its face.
Furthermore, it isn't the job of individuals in the city to have to give a disproportionate amount of money to offset homelessness. Taking care of homeless, sick, the welfare of chidlren, parks, safety, etc. is the job of ALL residents in the city, not just a few.
If you're so interested in no longer having people pay into the infrastructure of the society, then stop using the public schools, or asking a cop for help, or the libraries, etc. Homeless, sick, addicted, children, disabled, will not simply go away when we take their money away without guarenteeing services - read the lies about the proposition so you are at least informed on what you're talking about.
We happen to be spending many many hours doing a ton of work to make sure that N falls on its face.
Furthermore, it isn't the job of individuals in the city to have to give a disproportionate amount of money to offset homelessness. Taking care of homeless, sick, the welfare of chidlren, parks, safety, etc. is the job of ALL residents in the city, not just a few.
If you're so interested in no longer having people pay into the infrastructure of the society, then stop using the public schools, or asking a cop for help, or the libraries, etc. Homeless, sick, addicted, children, disabled, will not simply go away when we take their money away without guarenteeing services - read the lies about the proposition so you are at least informed on what you're talking about.
"Homeless, sick, addicted, children, disabled, will not simply go away when we take their money away without guarenteeing services"
I couldn't agree more
However, it is also true that homeless an/or addicted adults will not simply go away even when programs are funded. Tthis is the primary concern for mainstream American -- where do you draw the line at funding?
Certainly society should expect to humans beings to care for more than just themselves, but society should also expect individuals to take some responsibility for their lives. As they say in AA, no matter how much support you receive, your lifelong battle can only be won or lost by you.
I couldn't agree more
However, it is also true that homeless an/or addicted adults will not simply go away even when programs are funded. Tthis is the primary concern for mainstream American -- where do you draw the line at funding?
Certainly society should expect to humans beings to care for more than just themselves, but society should also expect individuals to take some responsibility for their lives. As they say in AA, no matter how much support you receive, your lifelong battle can only be won or lost by you.
However, it is also true that homeless an/or addicted adults will not simply go away even when programs are funded.
The real facts of life are that people do not just "go away." Social classes do not just "go away." The Jews did not just "go away." The Palestinians will not just "go away." You can try to "cleanse" a geographic area of a certain population, but then you are -- as previously stated -- not much better than any other fascist.
As stated by someone else on this news item, the only societies in the world where society is not stratified into wealth-based social classes are communist countries and fascist countries.
If you try to make a group or class of people "go away," you will be up against an army of anti-fascists who will fucking stop you.
The real facts of life are that people do not just "go away." Social classes do not just "go away." The Jews did not just "go away." The Palestinians will not just "go away." You can try to "cleanse" a geographic area of a certain population, but then you are -- as previously stated -- not much better than any other fascist.
As stated by someone else on this news item, the only societies in the world where society is not stratified into wealth-based social classes are communist countries and fascist countries.
If you try to make a group or class of people "go away," you will be up against an army of anti-fascists who will fucking stop you.
Jews, ethnic groups, et al. aren't comparable in this instance.
For example, I think we would all be in favor of funding a program to remove the addiction from an addicted population, but who would fund a program to remove the ethnicity from an ethnic population?
What we're talking about is funding the removal (or at least control) of the problems in peoples lives that lead to anti-social behavior, not the funding of programs to remove people from society.
For example, I think we would all be in favor of funding a program to remove the addiction from an addicted population, but who would fund a program to remove the ethnicity from an ethnic population?
What we're talking about is funding the removal (or at least control) of the problems in peoples lives that lead to anti-social behavior, not the funding of programs to remove people from society.
Dear Bov: I give considerable sums to charity. And at the moment I am volunteering for an organization devoted to the well-being of gay and lesbian youth. You and your other left-looney friends don't have a monopoly on virtue. Sorry about that.
As for SF being no worse than London or Paris: Wrong. I was in London last month, and there is no comparison to be made with SF, whatsover. There is no way people in London would put up for a second with the wholesale colonisation of public spaces by the homeless of the sort seen in SF. You have the occasional smack addict huddled in a doorway, but there is nothing like what I saw on Market Street on Saturday: block after block after block of outright insanity.
As for SF being no worse than London or Paris: Wrong. I was in London last month, and there is no comparison to be made with SF, whatsover. There is no way people in London would put up for a second with the wholesale colonisation of public spaces by the homeless of the sort seen in SF. You have the occasional smack addict huddled in a doorway, but there is nothing like what I saw on Market Street on Saturday: block after block after block of outright insanity.
"block after block after block of outright insanity"
Exactly which blocks are you talking about? I work downtown SF and I have no idea what you are talking about. On my 10 block walk to work form the BART station I think maybe 2 people try to sell me Street Sheets and they seem pretty friendly. Many of the business people get to know the Street Sheet people and it always amazed me how you will see random people in suits trying to be friendly to the regulars. I used to work in SOMA and you do see more desperate looking people on the street, but even there I never had any problems even when I had to wear a suit to work.
From what I'm guessing, you are refering to the block where Tu Lan is located (8 6th St)? Its a great Vietnamese restaurant and while there are crowds of people sitting on the street nearby I've never had any issues going there for lunch.
I have lived in plenty of other cities and San Francisco always struck me as appearing wealthier and cleaner than most. I havnt been to NYC in awhile but even after Rudy's crackdown, I doubt the subway looks anywhere as clean as BART. Have you ever been on the subways in Paris or London?
Your attacks on homeless people seem to be coming out of nowhere. You visit SF and suddently get upset about some random set of blocks in SOMA? Im sure you have some other political motivations so I would be interested to hear what they are. San Francisco doesnt have quite as much of that large neighborhood feel as it used to, but I would blame the increased business pace during the dot com boom for that. Why such haterd for those less well off than yourself? Why all the anger? Its very hard to see where the Yes on N crowd is coming from and thats what makes it so disturbing.
Exactly which blocks are you talking about? I work downtown SF and I have no idea what you are talking about. On my 10 block walk to work form the BART station I think maybe 2 people try to sell me Street Sheets and they seem pretty friendly. Many of the business people get to know the Street Sheet people and it always amazed me how you will see random people in suits trying to be friendly to the regulars. I used to work in SOMA and you do see more desperate looking people on the street, but even there I never had any problems even when I had to wear a suit to work.
From what I'm guessing, you are refering to the block where Tu Lan is located (8 6th St)? Its a great Vietnamese restaurant and while there are crowds of people sitting on the street nearby I've never had any issues going there for lunch.
I have lived in plenty of other cities and San Francisco always struck me as appearing wealthier and cleaner than most. I havnt been to NYC in awhile but even after Rudy's crackdown, I doubt the subway looks anywhere as clean as BART. Have you ever been on the subways in Paris or London?
Your attacks on homeless people seem to be coming out of nowhere. You visit SF and suddently get upset about some random set of blocks in SOMA? Im sure you have some other political motivations so I would be interested to hear what they are. San Francisco doesnt have quite as much of that large neighborhood feel as it used to, but I would blame the increased business pace during the dot com boom for that. Why such haterd for those less well off than yourself? Why all the anger? Its very hard to see where the Yes on N crowd is coming from and thats what makes it so disturbing.
There is no way people in London would put up for a second with the wholesale colonisation of public spaces by the homeless of the sort seen in SF. You have the occasional smack addict huddled in a doorway, but there is nothing like what I saw on Market Street on Saturday: block after block after block of outright insanity.
Well if you think you are so high and mighty and you sit above all other people then stay in your fucking newly-aryan new aryork and feel smug. Dont come to our city preaching your eugenic-inspired bullshit. If you come here with your nazi shit, you will be kicked straight out. Any questions?
Well if you think you are so high and mighty and you sit above all other people then stay in your fucking newly-aryan new aryork and feel smug. Dont come to our city preaching your eugenic-inspired bullshit. If you come here with your nazi shit, you will be kicked straight out. Any questions?
Yeah: One question. How can your purport to be a "progressive" when you're so quick to threaten violence? You are obviously another pampered former suburbanite playing at revolution in San Francisco. You really are beyond contempt.
Yeah: One question. How can your purport to be a "progressive" when you're so quick to threaten violence? But I'm not afraid of you. You are in all probability just another suburban brat playing at revolution in San Francisco. You really are beyond contempt.
"One question. How can your purport to be a "progressive" when you're so quick to threaten violence? You are obviously another pampered former suburbanite playing at revolution in San Francisco. You really are beyond contempt."
1. I'm not a "progressive" you jackass, I'm an anti-capitalist. We aren't "against violence" or whatever other fucking moronic stereotype you have in your head.
2. I am not "from a suburb." I have always lived in the city my whole life.
3. Nor am I "playing" at revolution. Like I said, if you come here trying to impose fascism on the San Francisco Bay Area, we will do everything we can to get you the fuck out of here.
This is the home of the Black Panthers you stupid mother fucker. Read your history and you'll find out what "progressives" do to fascist jackbooted pieces of shit.
1. I'm not a "progressive" you jackass, I'm an anti-capitalist. We aren't "against violence" or whatever other fucking moronic stereotype you have in your head.
2. I am not "from a suburb." I have always lived in the city my whole life.
3. Nor am I "playing" at revolution. Like I said, if you come here trying to impose fascism on the San Francisco Bay Area, we will do everything we can to get you the fuck out of here.
This is the home of the Black Panthers you stupid mother fucker. Read your history and you'll find out what "progressives" do to fascist jackbooted pieces of shit.
All of you Leftists on this board hate us because we are Rich, White, and Beautiful. You are just jealous because we have everything, and you are NOTHING.
You are just like those Islamo Terrorists who hate our beloved AMERICA because we are Free.
Stop your hate right now, Leftists.
Just because we have lots and lots of money and like to eat in hoity-toity bistros, or drive SUVs, or have the money to jet off for weekends in Paris or London, that DOES NOT give you a right to HATE.
This is a form of DISCRMINATION against Rich, White yuppies who are beautiful and have great sex every night with each other.
San Fransciso needs to have a Bill of Rights for Rich, White people. We are the true discriminated and oppressed minority in AMERICA--not those pieces of human scum doing drugs and rolling around in their unfashionable extrement filled rags.
I am so pissed off right now by your Leftist diatribes, I am going back home to my $500,000 Condo, rent some Porno, and have hot steamy sex with my hot Yuppie wife and her surgically enhanced 34 DDD breasts.
Meanwhile, all of you Leftists and anarchists can go home to your $1200/month studio closet/apartment and get a blowjob from your unattractive, Hairy armpitted, mousy girlfriend and be jealous of all the HOT sex we are having.
STOP THE HATE NOW!
WHITE YUPPIE RIGHTS CAMPAIGN!
You are just like those Islamo Terrorists who hate our beloved AMERICA because we are Free.
Stop your hate right now, Leftists.
Just because we have lots and lots of money and like to eat in hoity-toity bistros, or drive SUVs, or have the money to jet off for weekends in Paris or London, that DOES NOT give you a right to HATE.
This is a form of DISCRMINATION against Rich, White yuppies who are beautiful and have great sex every night with each other.
San Fransciso needs to have a Bill of Rights for Rich, White people. We are the true discriminated and oppressed minority in AMERICA--not those pieces of human scum doing drugs and rolling around in their unfashionable extrement filled rags.
I am so pissed off right now by your Leftist diatribes, I am going back home to my $500,000 Condo, rent some Porno, and have hot steamy sex with my hot Yuppie wife and her surgically enhanced 34 DDD breasts.
Meanwhile, all of you Leftists and anarchists can go home to your $1200/month studio closet/apartment and get a blowjob from your unattractive, Hairy armpitted, mousy girlfriend and be jealous of all the HOT sex we are having.
STOP THE HATE NOW!
WHITE YUPPIE RIGHTS CAMPAIGN!
keep shooting off your yap and i'll show you what we do to fascist jackbooted anti-capitalist
Touched a nerve, didn't I? Anyway, if you really are from Oakland, I bet it's the fancy hills overlooking the city. You pampered faux-revolutionary suburban brats are easy to spot. And as for the black panthers: they really made a tremendous contribution to O-Town, didn't they? What a tremendous success they were! Their agenda really made a tremendous contribution to the well-being of the poor,didn't it? But I suppose that doesn't matter to you: neighborhoods and lives may be ruined, but you dig that sexy revolutionary rhetoric, don't you, idiot? Down with the pigs, man!
Get a life.
Get a life.
"You and your other left-looney friends don't have a monopoly on virtue"
I never said we did. But we do seem to have a monpoly on common sense and willingness to investigate. Have you even READ the lies about Prop N?? If you aren't aware, this is the propostion that everyone is talking about on here because it will only take money away from the homeless and not give anything in return. Do you have any sort of research to support your postions besides your tourist views of random cities? Do you even know what the actual policies are in those cities?
The whole thing about Prop N is that it's designed to lure people who haven't done their homework into thinking they're doing a good thing. Obviously you are capable of doing good things - as you said - but you have to also do the research, which most people are too lazy to bother with. It sure is easier to just say you 'didn't know' when the bad stuff starts to go down after the thing passes, than to actually *try* to understand it.
The New England Journal of Medicine recently delivered a 'cease and desist' order to Gavin Newsom on his illegal use of their journal in supporting his measure.
It's all a pack of lies. The people who have really researched the thing and have many years of experience in homeless issues have explained the lies elsewhere on here. Do a search for Prop N and lies.
If you travel the world and care enough to give to charities and work with youth, then please do your homework - don't let the right wing interests dumb you down with everyone else.
In New York you don't have these propositions, so you assume that they have some merit, not knowing any better - the reality is that in CA its all about misinformation and tricking the public with propositions that are worded to sound like the opposite of what they are. Most in CA haven't yet figured this out, and have lost out to corporate interests. Look what happened with deregulation. More dumbing down of the state. Now NY has also fallen for it . . .
You're smarter than that. Stop being reactionary and think more about what you're saying. Stop inciting people to hate you for your attacks on the most vulnerable members of the society.
Ask yourself what are you really angry about. Taking it out on the homeless is fine for a few weeks. But then who's next? Renters? People of color? Anyone who isn't up to your standards? It doesn't stop with the homeless, does it. You'll need to correct *many* things that aren't to your liking . . . won't you?
So let it go. Focus on doing good, not on hurting people who have only a bottle between life and death. You don't take care of them by pushing them onto a street in a suburb. And if you know that, then don't support fascism. Support positive change. That takes work, not lies.
I never said we did. But we do seem to have a monpoly on common sense and willingness to investigate. Have you even READ the lies about Prop N?? If you aren't aware, this is the propostion that everyone is talking about on here because it will only take money away from the homeless and not give anything in return. Do you have any sort of research to support your postions besides your tourist views of random cities? Do you even know what the actual policies are in those cities?
The whole thing about Prop N is that it's designed to lure people who haven't done their homework into thinking they're doing a good thing. Obviously you are capable of doing good things - as you said - but you have to also do the research, which most people are too lazy to bother with. It sure is easier to just say you 'didn't know' when the bad stuff starts to go down after the thing passes, than to actually *try* to understand it.
The New England Journal of Medicine recently delivered a 'cease and desist' order to Gavin Newsom on his illegal use of their journal in supporting his measure.
It's all a pack of lies. The people who have really researched the thing and have many years of experience in homeless issues have explained the lies elsewhere on here. Do a search for Prop N and lies.
If you travel the world and care enough to give to charities and work with youth, then please do your homework - don't let the right wing interests dumb you down with everyone else.
In New York you don't have these propositions, so you assume that they have some merit, not knowing any better - the reality is that in CA its all about misinformation and tricking the public with propositions that are worded to sound like the opposite of what they are. Most in CA haven't yet figured this out, and have lost out to corporate interests. Look what happened with deregulation. More dumbing down of the state. Now NY has also fallen for it . . .
You're smarter than that. Stop being reactionary and think more about what you're saying. Stop inciting people to hate you for your attacks on the most vulnerable members of the society.
Ask yourself what are you really angry about. Taking it out on the homeless is fine for a few weeks. But then who's next? Renters? People of color? Anyone who isn't up to your standards? It doesn't stop with the homeless, does it. You'll need to correct *many* things that aren't to your liking . . . won't you?
So let it go. Focus on doing good, not on hurting people who have only a bottle between life and death. You don't take care of them by pushing them onto a street in a suburb. And if you know that, then don't support fascism. Support positive change. That takes work, not lies.
Bov the enlightened is a liar. Prop N DOES give the homeless something in return. Now instead of cash handouts so they can continue in their drug use, that money will go towards services they can use to get themselves clean. Look at the whole picture.
SF is a very generous city in providing cash payments to homeless individuals and the city spends more than $100 million annually in cash payments and providing direct services. Major cities like Chicago and New York have eliminated a substantial cash subsidy to the homeless and have experienced a significant reduction in homeless people on their streets. Also, these cities rarely experience homeless people dying on their streets, while in the last five years SF has lost roughly 1,000 homeless individuals to death. According to the SF Coroner the overwhelming cause of death is drug poisoning. The New England Journal of Medicine found a direct correlation between drug overdoses and the time of month in which federal welfare subsidies are provided.
Prop N would reduce the amount of cash homeless individuals receive (currently the subsidy is from $320 to $395 per month) and convert the cash into vouchers for services such as shelter and food. The measure would require the city to provide housing and meal services to the poor or disabled and at least $59 per month in cash payment. If housing and meal services are not available the individuals will receive the full subsidy. This measure establishes a minimum funding level for programs assisting homeless individuals and requires the Controller to evaluate the city's service programs every three years to determine whether offering services in lieu of cash is effective and cost efficient.
This will bring SF's homeless policy in line with almost every other California county, particularly the other counties of the Bay Area and virtually eliminating the incentive for those who want cash to congregate in SF. In addition, this initiative will help reduce deaths from drug overdoses by significantly reducing cash payments and investing the money into guaranteed services. Savings reductions will free up $10 million for more drug treatment and residential hotel rooms for the homeless.
We should all strongly supports Prop N. A change in homeless policy is essential for improving the situation of homelessness in San Francisco. This initiative is not a panacea but the fact that a majority of San Francisco's homeless population is drug-addicted cannot be ignored. Providing cash payments that are too little to provide services without guaranteed services only further perpetuates the condition of homelessness. This is a first step in a long line of reforms necessary to ameliorate SF's homeless problem.
SF is a very generous city in providing cash payments to homeless individuals and the city spends more than $100 million annually in cash payments and providing direct services. Major cities like Chicago and New York have eliminated a substantial cash subsidy to the homeless and have experienced a significant reduction in homeless people on their streets. Also, these cities rarely experience homeless people dying on their streets, while in the last five years SF has lost roughly 1,000 homeless individuals to death. According to the SF Coroner the overwhelming cause of death is drug poisoning. The New England Journal of Medicine found a direct correlation between drug overdoses and the time of month in which federal welfare subsidies are provided.
Prop N would reduce the amount of cash homeless individuals receive (currently the subsidy is from $320 to $395 per month) and convert the cash into vouchers for services such as shelter and food. The measure would require the city to provide housing and meal services to the poor or disabled and at least $59 per month in cash payment. If housing and meal services are not available the individuals will receive the full subsidy. This measure establishes a minimum funding level for programs assisting homeless individuals and requires the Controller to evaluate the city's service programs every three years to determine whether offering services in lieu of cash is effective and cost efficient.
This will bring SF's homeless policy in line with almost every other California county, particularly the other counties of the Bay Area and virtually eliminating the incentive for those who want cash to congregate in SF. In addition, this initiative will help reduce deaths from drug overdoses by significantly reducing cash payments and investing the money into guaranteed services. Savings reductions will free up $10 million for more drug treatment and residential hotel rooms for the homeless.
We should all strongly supports Prop N. A change in homeless policy is essential for improving the situation of homelessness in San Francisco. This initiative is not a panacea but the fact that a majority of San Francisco's homeless population is drug-addicted cannot be ignored. Providing cash payments that are too little to provide services without guaranteed services only further perpetuates the condition of homelessness. This is a first step in a long line of reforms necessary to ameliorate SF's homeless problem.
Man a bunch of my friends and I were sitting around drinking and partying last night trying to come up with a catchy slogan to help defeat prop N, you know something the people could latch on to like a mimic to 'Care not Cash' and really identify with like a jingle or something. Anyway around 3 oclock this morning we were really loaded and my friend Tad came up with "Hash not Bears". We laughed our ass of for at least half an hour. At the time it seemed like it would work. But like I said we were really fucked up. See ya at the protests.
Matthew
Matthew
Its a little interesting that pretty much all homeless service agencies, private religious groups that work with the homeless and homeless advocacy groups are pissed as hell about prop N, while someone from Laguna Honda somehow knows more and cares about people you have never interacted with. Your hatred for the poor can not be disguised behind a slick PR campaign....
SF Religious Leaders Silently Protest Proposition N
10/18/02
SAN FRANCISCO -- Religious leaders are expected to convene on the steps of city hall in San Francisco today in silent protest over Proposition N, Supervisor Gavin Newsom's newest answer to the homeless debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
• News Forum on Bayinsider:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by the Religious Witness With Homeless People, a small group of leaders from different congregations will meet every Monday through Friday through October 25 to distribute literature and display a 6-foot-by-4-foot sign urging the community to vote "No on N.''
According to Sister Bernie Galvin, the program's director, the existing homeless situation demands a more progressive approach and a continued reliance on shelters is not the solution.
"We are fed up with the current crisis, and N is not the solution,'' Galvin said. "Prop N is fraught with empty promises and loopholes and makes no guarantees for housing and services.''
Citing Prop. N's inability to define housing, the burden of placing the crisis on the homeless community and the flawed assumption that all homeless people are alcoholics and drug addicts, Galvin stressed that N is neither compassionate nor a solution.
"A clue to the possible direction of the city in providing housing lies in Prop. N's definition of housing, which includes a cot or a two-inch mat on the floor of a crowded shelter,'' Galvin said.
"It is more likely that the city will simply focus on providing more of these shelter cots or mats as the fastest and cheapest way of satisfying the promises of Prop N for housing.''
Authored by Sup. Newsom, Proposition N calls for a reduction of the County Adult Assistance Program's payment from up to $395 to $59 a month along with housing, food and counseling.
http://www.bayinsider.com/news/2002/10/18/18_prop_n.html
SF Religious Leaders Silently Protest Proposition N
10/18/02
SAN FRANCISCO -- Religious leaders are expected to convene on the steps of city hall in San Francisco today in silent protest over Proposition N, Supervisor Gavin Newsom's newest answer to the homeless debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
• News Forum on Bayinsider:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by the Religious Witness With Homeless People, a small group of leaders from different congregations will meet every Monday through Friday through October 25 to distribute literature and display a 6-foot-by-4-foot sign urging the community to vote "No on N.''
According to Sister Bernie Galvin, the program's director, the existing homeless situation demands a more progressive approach and a continued reliance on shelters is not the solution.
"We are fed up with the current crisis, and N is not the solution,'' Galvin said. "Prop N is fraught with empty promises and loopholes and makes no guarantees for housing and services.''
Citing Prop. N's inability to define housing, the burden of placing the crisis on the homeless community and the flawed assumption that all homeless people are alcoholics and drug addicts, Galvin stressed that N is neither compassionate nor a solution.
"A clue to the possible direction of the city in providing housing lies in Prop. N's definition of housing, which includes a cot or a two-inch mat on the floor of a crowded shelter,'' Galvin said.
"It is more likely that the city will simply focus on providing more of these shelter cots or mats as the fastest and cheapest way of satisfying the promises of Prop N for housing.''
Authored by Sup. Newsom, Proposition N calls for a reduction of the County Adult Assistance Program's payment from up to $395 to $59 a month along with housing, food and counseling.
http://www.bayinsider.com/news/2002/10/18/18_prop_n.html
What I don't understand is:
$395 - $59 = $336 "savings"/person
$336 x (roughly) 2900 folks on GA = $974,400
So, guarateed housing, treatment, food and all that for 2900 people for under a million bucks. They can provide all that for only $336/person/month?
Are they sure they can do that? I'm not.
What am I missing?
$395 - $59 = $336 "savings"/person
$336 x (roughly) 2900 folks on GA = $974,400
So, guarateed housing, treatment, food and all that for 2900 people for under a million bucks. They can provide all that for only $336/person/month?
Are they sure they can do that? I'm not.
What am I missing?
Where did you get the $1 million figure? and the 2900 figure?
Anonymous Consumer
Age: 40
San Francisco General Hospital's Mental Health Rehabilitation facility is a 147-bed locked facility for adults. This 40-year-old woman, diagnosed as manic depressive, was admitted to the facility one month ago. Prior to her stay here, she lived on the streets for two years.
I used to be a happy-go-lucky person, and I could always find work. And now I got into a very stressful period, where I started to worry about everything. Money. Relationships. Job. And housing. And it just became too much. I was having a relationship with someone, and it just broke completely. It started with fighting and ended with me getting kicked out of the house. I went to my family, but they didn't know what was wrong. My brother told me I couldn't live there anymore, so I returned to San Francisco, and that is basically when I became homeless about two years ago. It's gotten worst as I got older. In a manic stage, you get very tense, sometimes paranoid, and very anxious. So putting me in any kind of situation that I know would cause stress...I have to either be with someone who can take over during a stressful time or I think I have to premedicate myself.
I tried to medicate myself through marijuana, but it made me arouse verbally. During a manic stage, I would verbally trespass on people--get into fights verbally with people. I had to cut out the marijuana, because it just made me this free-speaking, free-floating, ranting machine. That was scary, when I came down from it. I realized that I could cause a fight just by trying to relax on marijuana.
I was arrested, I think seven times, during my two years homeless--three times it was for trespassing, once it was for vandalizing and once for fighting.
How I got here, my social worker picked me up with two officers. I just wasn't taking care of myself. I was sleeping outside. I'd have to dig through the garbage for food, or I'd have to wait for someone to give me money before I ate. I never begged for money. I found that dehydration was a problem, more than hunger. I had no shoes, I had no coat. I was wearing a torn shirt. And my social worker somehow recognized me. If they hadn't caught me when they did, I would just be out there wandering like those guys that you see out there on the streets.
Most people stay here about six months. That's a long time, but I'm glad I'm not doing that time in jail or something. I want to straighten out my meds. Right now the medication makes me feel sluggish, like my mind has a vacuum cleaner on it. It's sucked out a lot of my energy. That is one the reasons you stay in here so long, so they can get your symptoms right, and the medication. And I want to take care of my anxiety, which I find almost debilitating. It is like my anger will knock me in the back of the head before I even know that something is producing anxiety in me.
They don't have a lot of talk therapy here. And I was molested when I was younger, which didn't do me any good. So I've kind of dumped on a friend. We've kind of befriended each other--she's also a patient here.
It can be really boring in here sometimes. It's like time against the walls, hallways and linoleum. There is a small courtyard--50 feet long and 25 feet wide. They have some activities. I go to anger management class, and there is also a small library that I volunteer in. And we get to go to church once or twice a week. Other than that, it's breakfast, lunch and dinner. It's not the worst place you can be, but I do wish they had more facilities.
Age: 40
San Francisco General Hospital's Mental Health Rehabilitation facility is a 147-bed locked facility for adults. This 40-year-old woman, diagnosed as manic depressive, was admitted to the facility one month ago. Prior to her stay here, she lived on the streets for two years.
I used to be a happy-go-lucky person, and I could always find work. And now I got into a very stressful period, where I started to worry about everything. Money. Relationships. Job. And housing. And it just became too much. I was having a relationship with someone, and it just broke completely. It started with fighting and ended with me getting kicked out of the house. I went to my family, but they didn't know what was wrong. My brother told me I couldn't live there anymore, so I returned to San Francisco, and that is basically when I became homeless about two years ago. It's gotten worst as I got older. In a manic stage, you get very tense, sometimes paranoid, and very anxious. So putting me in any kind of situation that I know would cause stress...I have to either be with someone who can take over during a stressful time or I think I have to premedicate myself.
I tried to medicate myself through marijuana, but it made me arouse verbally. During a manic stage, I would verbally trespass on people--get into fights verbally with people. I had to cut out the marijuana, because it just made me this free-speaking, free-floating, ranting machine. That was scary, when I came down from it. I realized that I could cause a fight just by trying to relax on marijuana.
I was arrested, I think seven times, during my two years homeless--three times it was for trespassing, once it was for vandalizing and once for fighting.
How I got here, my social worker picked me up with two officers. I just wasn't taking care of myself. I was sleeping outside. I'd have to dig through the garbage for food, or I'd have to wait for someone to give me money before I ate. I never begged for money. I found that dehydration was a problem, more than hunger. I had no shoes, I had no coat. I was wearing a torn shirt. And my social worker somehow recognized me. If they hadn't caught me when they did, I would just be out there wandering like those guys that you see out there on the streets.
Most people stay here about six months. That's a long time, but I'm glad I'm not doing that time in jail or something. I want to straighten out my meds. Right now the medication makes me feel sluggish, like my mind has a vacuum cleaner on it. It's sucked out a lot of my energy. That is one the reasons you stay in here so long, so they can get your symptoms right, and the medication. And I want to take care of my anxiety, which I find almost debilitating. It is like my anger will knock me in the back of the head before I even know that something is producing anxiety in me.
They don't have a lot of talk therapy here. And I was molested when I was younger, which didn't do me any good. So I've kind of dumped on a friend. We've kind of befriended each other--she's also a patient here.
It can be really boring in here sometimes. It's like time against the walls, hallways and linoleum. There is a small courtyard--50 feet long and 25 feet wide. They have some activities. I go to anger management class, and there is also a small library that I volunteer in. And we get to go to church once or twice a week. Other than that, it's breakfast, lunch and dinner. It's not the worst place you can be, but I do wish they had more facilities.
For more information:
http://www.kqed.org/tv/productions/baywind...
Exactly.
Strange than none of the yuppies at Newsom's rally have the math know-how that you do, even though they've no doubt got the highest salaries in the Bay Area.
Strange than none of the yuppies at Newsom's rally have the math know-how that you do, even though they've no doubt got the highest salaries in the Bay Area.
Damn, that guy looks alot like one of those creepy people you used to see at proWar Young Americans For Freedom events (maybe its that 80s look combined with enough botox to destroy any sign of a soul).
We need to get good arguments with numbers and facts, but voters seem to rarely listen to those. Digging into who is organizing the Prop N campaign and who is opposed to it should tell voters enough. How many SF voters might feel less sure about Prop N if they knew it was a campaign organized by people who would normally fall on the right side of the Republican party.
You are the vermin homeless people could just be someone who was down on luck and loss thier job.
SF wasn't a city that was considered leftist until the last 50 years or so. Cities change over time. It's time for SF to change again, this time sweeping out the dust left over from the 50's and 60's and sweeping in a new generation of residents with different priorities. Change is good
Figures that a statement like this would come from someone calling themselves "Frisco". Frisco is a town in Texas, dude, and you are clearly ignorant of the historical and cultural roots of our City which is the only one in the US I know of which ever hosted a general strike. Perhaps you might want to check out the online Museum of the City of San Francisco. 1934 was like 70 years ago, a full generation more than 50. While you're at it, you might look at the history of the ILWU generally and within your apparently brief memory, consider the conjunction of culture and politics in this town from the beats to Gonzalez. Yeah, we change, but you're not talking change. You're talking the betrayal of our roots and the homogenization of our unique heritage with the puerile overculture and politics of selfishness that mars the rest of this nation.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network