Politics Blog Archives — Page 33 of 258 — San Francisco Bay Guardian Archive 1966

Lee budget avoids cuts, but some say too few benefit from the boom

Sasha Cuttler

-

May 31, 2013

Mayor Ed Lee today released his proposed 2013-15 city budget in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at City Hall, a $7.9 billion spending plan that he said reflects the “San Francisco values of fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, and investment in our city’s future.”

It is the biggest budget in city history, divided almost equally between a $3.9 billion General Fund budget and self-supporting enterprises such as the airport and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and it has been buoyed by increasing tax revenues from the vibrant economy and progressive reforms such as a hike in the real estate transfer tax.

That latter tool for improving the city’s usually bleak budget picture was something Lee didn’t mention in his speech, focusing instead on his “strategic investments in job creation,” which have actually been a mixed fiscal bag given the tax breaks used to support them, such as the Mid-Market Payroll Tax Exclusion that Twitter and other tech firms have taken advantage of to avoid paying taxes on new hires.

Lee has used some of the improving revenue stream to avoid the cuts to social services that mayors have routinely proposed in recent years, which the supervisors then work to undo in a budget dance that has gotten tiresome for many of the players involved. “This year, I proposed a budget that protects our social safety net,” Lee said.

But some supervisors and social service providers say the mayor didn’t go far enough, and they say the improving fiscal situation should be used to restore some of the deep budget cuts made under Mayor Gavin Newsom’s administration, as well as to provide better services to the neighborhoods.

“There’s a lot more money in the budget, but it’s not being shared,” Sup. John Avalos told us. “People around San Francisco expect that if the budget is growing they’ll see tangible benefits.”

Avalos, a former budget chair who spearheaded the successful campaign to increase the city’s real estate transfer tax two years ago, said it appears that too much city spending is still focused around downtown. “All the people who opposed the increase in the real estate transfer tax will gladly spend the money,” he said.

Board President David Chiu echoed Avalos’ point that the benefits of this budget aren’t being broadly shared in a city with a rapidly rising cost of living. “We continue to hear about a lot of unmet needs with San Franciscans who are still struggling,” Chiu told us.

Reacting to a Guardian question about the supervisors’ comments, Lee told us, “Actually, I think it’s quite spread out,” but that he’s open to working with supervisors to ensure the needs of city residents are met. “There are going to be discussions about other things we could do,” he said during a press briefing outside his Room 200 office. “Each of [the supervisors] gave me their lists to take a look at and we couldn’t fund them all.”

Sup. Mark Farrell, who chairs the Budget & Finance Committee that will begin hashing out the final budget next week, told us, “The devil is in the details, and I’ll have some fun reading over the weekend, and then we’ll get to work.”

Week Two

-

May 30, 2013

63

Week two of blogging here in the books.

To paraphrase your most famous musical export, what a short strange trip its been so far.

I have to admit that it’s taken me aback, the bizarre level of rancor aimed at a website by the same people that can’t seem to live without it. And the even more incredible fixation on the inner workings of a modest media institution that doesn’t pay your bills. It reminds me of the ladies at the local lavanderia completely absorbed in the telenovelas Mexicanas. They seem blissfully content to insert themselves into the lives of their onscreen heroes–here, it isn’t bliss but irate irrationality.

And over what and whom? Tim Redmond? I’ve known Tim 19 years (and he isn’t gonna like this, but fuck it): He isn’t that interesting–in fact, he’s kind of drab. A soccer dad that can’t sing that once tried to convince me of the athletic prowess and brilliance of Alex Smith–you get worked up over THAT?

The fixation over me, who cares?

The source of the fury strikes me as plain and simple—people love having sunshine blown up their asses and neither of us care to fill that role. Let’s face it–America, having no royalty or aristocracy invented one, our landed gentry. They play the part of kings and queens and when taken to task for arranging bailouts of their failures or creating sweetheart deals for themselves or having a symbiotic relationship with the people’s stewards, the government, their admirers scream bloody murder. “Class warfare“. Redmond thinks it’s the nonsensical paradigm of “one day I too will be rich and I want to be able to keep all my money”, I don’t. I think it’s more like people don’t want to be reminded of who they really are and can’t blame their paragons for their plight, so it’s either people below them or the messengers (HELLO!) that remind them of their actual and not imagined place.

This is a nation where the top 1% made 121% of the gains in the anemic recovery. And you didn’t and still identify with them. And don’t seem to grasp that Atlas Shrugged was fiction.

I love this gig.

See ya tomorrow!

Emulating Switzerland

-

May 30, 2013

9

Today’s “human nature is revolting” story comes from the state of Utah. Apparently, one the state’s leading gun-rights activists was busted for threatening his ex-wife’s family with a 2.5 tom Army surplus vehicle, as he intended to run over all of their cars with his. His lawyer says it’s no big deal and he was just “having fun in his big boy toy.”.

I guess that crushing other people’s property could be construed as boys will be boys, assuming the boy in question is another porcine asshole with privilege issues, but it got to thinking about the mess that is the gun debate in America. Around and around it goes and as it accelerates, it gets crazier and meaner. Gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, is getting ricin laced hate mail from people that are apparently terrified that he’s gonna do to the Bushmaster as he did to the Big Gulp. Bloomberg’s PAC is sinking a ton of cash into gun control friendly candidates, making him the embodiment of the anti-NRA. The latter group has kept their lawmakers in check for years by threatening to run well funded opponents against anyone not toeing their line–if Bloomberg can match them dollar for dollar, this is a new ball-game.

And a new one would be coming anyway, Bloomberg or not. While sales of firearms are up, gun ownership is down. The same people are simply buying more weapons, wound up to the gills with the irrational fear that “Obama’s gonna take your guns”. The market is getting smaller, though and the NRA–no longer a gun safety or hunter’s rights group but really a trade association dedicated to expanding gun makers revenues–is getting cranky.

The center can’t hold. It is inconceivable that the US government would ever seize the millions of weapons in private hands, even if there was overwhelming public demand for same, it’s physically impossible. It’s also inconceivable that the public’s patience for inaction will remain much longer. A simple vote on innocuous background checks–which are supported by about 90% of the country--was unable to pass cloture in the Senate. The senators that voted against it watched their approval ratings plummet. So what now?

How about a new idea that works wonders elsewhere. In Switzerland, where there is no standing military, able bodied males over 18 are issued a rifle and bullets and fulfill the role of militia. As the Second Amendment attaches the right to bear arms to a “well regulated militia”, why not implement the same idea of a sort in the US? Every home in the US becomes required by law to have one firearm per adult, registered to same and with a reasonable amount of ammunition for same. Training and safety courses must be passed every few years like a trip to the DMV is.

Surplus weapons can be sold back to the government. And locked up in armories.

I can see where both sides would hate this idea. Gun control advocates would be furious at the idea that the hated and lethal firearm would be mandatory–but who says they have to be loaded? The firearm fetishist upon whom the gun industry depends would be furious as well as their collections would be depleted–but once again, an idea–“remove and prove”. You collect weapons, remove firing mechanism and prove same.

Yes, it’s a pain in the ass in a lot of ways, but America can’t continue down this path. If every home has a couple of guns in it, according to the logic of the pro-gun cadre, no one will rob it (I know this isn’t true, but bear with me). Everyone will be presumably safer (that is to say, less scared)–isn’t that what they want?

Most people, yes. The NRA, of course not. As an adjunct to business, they have to show higher revenues each quarter and this idea more or less ends them. But that’s coming anyway–fairly soon, the gunmaker could be anyone with a 3-D printer. Sorry, Mr. LaPierre.

It is but a simple suggestion, but I think it’s a workable compromise. Because the all or nothing gambit is getting us nowhere.

Wal-Mart workers strike, rally outside Marissa Mayer’s SF penthouse

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee

-

May 30, 2013

8

Wal-Mart workers strike, rally outside Marissa Mayer’s SF penthouse

There are no Walmart stores in San Francisco. And yet, four members of the company’s board of directors are influential Bay Area residents. On May 29, a group of Walmart workers assembled outside the residence of Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer, a Walmart director, who has a 38^th floor penthouse apartment above the Four Seasons on Market Street in San Francisco.

Donning bright green T-shirts and chanting, “Stand up, live better,” the workers were gearing up to join roughly 100 members of OUR Walmart, a nationwide organization of Walmart associates, in going on strike and caravanning to Bentonville, AR, where the retailer will hold its annual shareholder meeting June 7.

OUR Walmart’s stated concerns include things like giving employees the option of working full-time, and providing a level of wages and benefits that ensures employees aren’t forced to rely on government assistance to get by.

Dominic Ware, who works part-time at a Walmart in San Leandro, led chants on a megaphone and has been coordinating with OUR Walmart activists on a national level. Ware said he earns $8.65 an hour – 40 cents higher than the wage he started at a year ago – and stays with his grandmother, since his paycheck isn’t enough to cover rent and provide for his 7-year-old daughter. He estimated that roughly half his earnings go directly back to Walmart, where he purchases groceries and other basic items.

Ware said he was going on strike and caravanning to demand a higher level of respect for Walmart employees. He described the frustration of an elderly coworker who has been unable to have her work shift adjusted to make it possible for her to catch a bus home, instead of walking late at night.

John “JJ” Juanitas, another Walmart associate, said the amount he earns working part-time at the Fremont store isn’t enough to put food on the table — but he said he hasn’t been able to transition to working full time despite submitting requests to do so. Asked what had inspired him to join the strike, Juanitas responded that he wanted to stand with employees who faced retaliation for participating in OUR Walmart organizing. At the same time, he added, the lack of protection for Walmart workers has been a source of anxiety, and the night before the protest, “I didn’t get a good night’s sleep,” he said.

Mayer, widely regarded as one of the most powerful women in tech, isn’t the only well-connected Silicon Valley figure helping to steer the nation’s largest private employer. Bay Area billionaire Jim Breyer, an initial investor in Facebook and cofounder of venture capital firm Accel Partners, also serves on the board, as does Gregory Penner, son-in-law of Walmart board chair Rob Walton and an investor in dating website eHarmony. Aida Alvarez, another Wal-Mart board member, chairs the Latino Community Foundation of San Francisco, based at 225 Bush Street.

The protest outside Mayer’s penthouse was timed to coincide with the start of the strike and caravan, but some organizers with San Francisco’s chapter of Jobs with Justice were there to call attention to Walmart’s ties to a factory building that collapsed in Bangladesh last month, killing 1,100 workers.

Documents unearthed by Bangladeshi labor rights activists in the aftermath of that tragic event revealed that a Canadian Walmart contractor had produced jeans in that building, which was known as Rana Plaza. Now, activists with the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity are calling on Walmart to sign onto a legally binding safety accord to ensure higher levels of maintenance at facilities similar to Rana Plaza. They’re asking Gap to do the same.

Prostitution and Mitt Romney

-

May 30, 2013

26

Four and a half years ago, San Francisco had the chance to make history as well as eliminate a major social problem. Measure K would have eliminated the prosecution of sex workers in the city. Sensible, sane and prudent, this ballot initiative would have finally given some legal recourse to one of the city’s biggest underground businesses. Because it is sex-based, however, hysteria ruled the day and the measure was defeated.

The arguments against it are the same arguments one hears when one discusses recreational drug legalization. That if legal, street walkers would spring up like so many weeds on heels in every neighborhood and that pimps and hookers would flock to San Francisco en masse. Never mind that the exact opposite would have been the result–no longer in the shadows and with their business legitimate, sex workers could part ways with the parasitical pimps without recourse and also if legal, a “red light district” could exist anywhere (I opt for City Hall myself, as it has been home to courtesans for centuries now). Lost tax revenues reclaimed, better public health for the workers and clients and a win for all.

One would think in the supposed progressive and free-thinking capital of America, this would have been a slam dunk. It lost resoundingly. Which proves that for all of San Francisco’s bluster, at heart it is a provincial city filled with a lot of sexually uneasy residents. That our next door neighbor, the generally “red” Nevada has had legalized prostitution for years speaks volumes about what “liberals” really believe. “Not in my backyard” times ten. Prostitution is called “the world’s oldest profession” and yet it is rarely legal anywhere–why?

As human beings are one of only a few species to have sex for pleasure, you’d think we’d clearly admit same. And that sex between consenting adults is already legal anyway, why does it become illegal when money is involved (unless filmed and sold)? These are incontrovertible facts. I suspect that the real reason prostitution is illegal and has been for eons is that it empowers women at the expense of men (the male escort being about 1/10th as popular as the female, sexual ratios being what they are). A woman that can negotiate the price for her “favors” directly now has some say in her destiny. Yes, it would probably be better for her physical and mental health if she chose another line of work, but in a capitalist system where money talks, a 300 dollar an hour escort is higher up on the ladder than a nine dollar an hour barrista. A couple of grand a day and a person whose educational and class background placed them at the lowest rung on the ladder now has say–it’s the same reason that gambling and drug dealing are decried by moralists. Folks with no options are now equal to the privileged at birth and that upsets the so called “natural order of things”. So, they have to be denigrated.

I got to thinking about that paradigm and realized that in reality, a hooker is part of a much more honest profession than someone that runs or ran an equity capital group. Namely Willard “Mitt” Romney. When a john makes contact with an escort or sexworker, they negotiate a fixed price for a certain act or acts. Upon consumation (or at some time during or before), payment. Both sides happy. Compare that to Mr. Romney’s manner of acquiring businesses. Putting 10% down, leveraging the other 90% as tax free debt larded onto the acquired entity and then tacking on enormous fees paid to backers. Usually what happens with these companies is massive layoffs and often bankruptcies. One side very unhappy. Yet this perfectly legal version of a Mafia bustout is applauded by Wall Street–the same Wall Street that poo-poos sex workers as a moral scourge (while utilizing their services).

Taking advantage of the human tic of discomfort when it comes to acknowledging the sex drive has kept the church alive for centuries and jackasses like William Donahue and L Brent Bozell in cash. Simply recognizing biological normalcy would end a lot of misery. Next time this comes up, be sane San Francisco, be sane.

The impending death of American conservatism

-

May 29, 2013

55

Gallup released a poll May 24th with some remarkable new data. American liberalism–long thought to be dead and gone and receeding into New Deal memory–is ascendant.

According to Gallup, 30% of Americans consider themselves social liberals, an all time high. And only 41% of Americans consider themselves economically conservative, an all time low.

Think about the implications of these amazing numbers for a moment. The term “liberal” has been spat out with nothing but contempt by not just right-leaning pundits, but by Republican party apparatchiks for 30 some years at least. Democrats, the “liberal” party, have run away from the tag like it was contaminated with MRSA. Which means that self-proclaimed “moderates” are very likely to be liberal as well, especially on economic issues.

What the poll doesn’t say is why this is. The reasons for the underlying shift. Some are obvious ones–the economy is improving under what is presumed to be a “liberal” presidency, which makes “liberal” synonymous with success. The other likely cause is that as the nation becomes less white, it becomes more liberal. For all the presumed conservatism of Latinos, polls have shown them to be far less conservative on economic and social issues than whites.

But I think those are ephemeral at best. The two real reasons are that in the last 35 years, virtually every Neo-con/neo-liberal/Ayn Rand-esque/Heritage Foundation idea has been tried out and all of them have failed spectacularly. Supply side economics, tried in 1981 and 2001 respectively, turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. “Pre-emptive war” was waged in Iraq with a nightmarish result. ” A two front war” was waged in the last decade, how did that work out? And the deregulation of the banks via Gramm/Leach/Bliley is the proximate cause of 2008’s worldwide meltdown. Odd thing is, the same economic ideas were ruinous in the 1920’s and if Erwin Rommel or Alfred Jodl were alive today, they could tell you how well a two front war works out. That’s reason #1

Reason #2 has been discussed here already.

With every demographic and logical trend working against them, the American “conservative” will get shriller, louder and like petulant children, dig in their heels that much more. To our detriment as a people, of course, but since when has the well being of the nation ever mattered to them anyway?

Dianne Feinstein and 8 Washington: The letters

Zelda Bronstein

-

May 29, 2013

8

Dianne Feinstein and 8 Washington: The letters

Here’s a fascinating little bit of history that relates to the 8 Washington project.

In 1984, the owners of Golden Gateway proposed to build a nine-story condo tower on the site, pretty close to where Simon Snellgove wants to build his ultra-luxury condos today. Dianne Feinstein was the mayor of San Francisco, and she didn’t like the idea at all. In fact, she sent a letter to the Redevelopment Agency Commission, which at that time controlled the land, to say that condo development was inappropriate.

(Feinstein was remarkably open about the whole thing; Willie Brown would have made one phone call, gotten his way, and left no paper trail.)

The point she made in the letter (pdf here) was that the existing Golden Gateway project was approved in the first place largely because of the promise of open space and recreation facilities. Those facilities, contrary to what Snellgrove’s team is saying, are in fact open to anyone who pays dues. “To tear up the present tennis courts to crowd a condominium tower on the site would be regrettable,” she said.

Then in 2003, another plan reared its head — developers wanted to build a $39 million condo and health-club facility on the Golden Gateway site. Again, Feinstein — by that point a US senator — weighed in with a letter of opposition. “Development of more residential units would create traffic noise and pollution and disregard the original understanding between City officials and area residents that open space and recreational amenities would be preserved.”

Feinstein’s opposition was notable: She rarely opposed any development of any sort, anywhere in the city. She allowed massive new waves of office construction and — like Ed Lee today — argued that cranes on the skyline were a sign of progress.

But this idea — condos at the 8 Washington site — was so beyond the pale that even the most pro-growth mayor in the city’s history had to oppose it.

Feinstein hasn’t said anything about the latest project. But she clearly doesn’t actively support it; when the measure came up the the Democratic County Central Committee, her representative didn’t vote.

Because facts mean nothing

-

May 29, 2013

19

This hasn’t been a good time to be Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” lately. Federal courts have slapped down his “saturation sweeps” through Latino neighborhoods as unconstitutional. The Maricopa Cty lawman’s casting a wide net of picking up anyone that “fit the profile of an illegal immigrant” was said to violate citizen’s rights.

He is appealling the decision, as you’d expect he would, for two reasons. Firstly, the sweeps are easy (and lazy) policing. Secondly, it puts him back in the news, which is his natural home. Sheriff Arpaio loves the limelight as it gives him a chance to indulge in his favorite fantasy, the living embodiment of the the thin blue line between lawless chaos and civilization as he sees it.

In reality, he is as far from his self-generated hype as the most desperate out of work actor in Hollywood is. Crime in Arizona has dropped everywhere BUT Maricopa County. Sheriff Hardass claims to be the mega-tough guy, making his prisoners wear pink uniforms by way of degradation and then has them collapse from dehydration in the sun or denying medical care (and costing taxpayers a fortune). In fact, his negligence led to the county dropping the ball on over 400 cases of sexual abuse. He is not what he seems.

Which doesn’t mean shit to a tree, as Grace Slick used to say. When it comes to demagoging politicians, effectiveness is irrelevant. That he has been sued and lost over and over on the county’s dime is irrelevant. Or that Arizona’s chesters are free to operate in Phoenix–irrelevant. Or wastes resources targeting citizens going about their daily business–irrelevant.

What matters is, his followers hate brown skinned people and they perceive that he does as well. Arizona is a very strange place. Its population swollen by Illinois and Michigan “snowbirds” are generally of the retired stripe and generally not used to being among Spanish-speaking people. That said Spanish speaking people tend their lawns, clean their pools, groom their golf courses–also irrelevant. They are “a threat to our way of life” (ie not white). Arpaio, albeit in typical code, is their ally and protector–because he’s an old white dude from up north like them.

You see, facts don’t matter. Arpaio is an ineffective buffoonish attention hog that has run up an enormous tab at the expense of the same people that love him. (And whose campaings are paid for by out of state cash) But because they sense or believe that he hates what they hate, he can do no wrong. And won’t leave office until he either dies or AZ’s demographics force him out.

It murders the souls of thinking men and women that reality is trumped by fantasy, myth beats truth, perception and prejudice slaughter justice. That people can’t be moved because, once again, facts don’t fucking matter.

Ed Lee’s “no social service cuts” budget

Zelda Bronstein

-

May 29, 2013

6

Ed Lee’s “no social service cuts” budget

So Mayor Ed Lee is going to spare social services, and apparently at least part of the Department of Public Heath, from any further budget cuts. That’s good. Lives will be saved.

Lee — like Willie Brown before him — has the luck of serving as mayor during a period of growth, not recession. We don’t know how long the boom is going to last, or what will happen when it ends (as these things always do), but right now, in Sacramento and San Francisco City Hall, there is joy over the fact that revenues are up.

(Lee’s supporters on this blog and elsewhere will say it’s because of the mayor’s “pro-jobs” policies that we have all this new revenue. But remember, he promised tax breaks for Twitter and other tech firms that are moving into mid-Market, so we’re not getting much extra payroll tax revenue there. SF is a disgustingly hot real-estate market right now and more people with more money are moving in, so that’s absolutely a factor. So is the general California recovery.)

Either way, I’m always happy to hear about “no-cuts” budgets. But I have to keep raising the question:

If you’ve already cut about a billion dollars worth of services — which is about what most people on all sides of the political spectrum agree has happened in SF in the past decade — and now you’ve agreed not to cut any more, are you really making progress?

At what point do we need to start planning to restore all the services that are gone?

Censored by Facebook and I don’t know why

Sasha Cuttler

-

May 29, 2013

24

Censored by Facebook and I don’t know why

UPDATED Today I got banned from posting on Facebook and I don’t know why, but it has left me feeling very unsettled about this brave new world we find ourselves in, one where a few large technology corporations have ever more power over our lives and liberties.

I’ve been a full-time newspaper journalist for almost 22 years, and this is the first time I’ve been censored. Facebook has managed to do something that the government agencies I’ve critically covered could never dream of doing, shut me up, and it did so without even having to explain why or face any accountability for how it uses the power it wields.

Here’s what I do know: Yesterday, I was notified by Facebook that some piece of content on the page I created two years ago for my book, The Tribes of Burning Man, had been flagged for violating its terms of services, specifically the ban on bullying. That was very strange because the page has been fairly dormant for months, and when I reviewed all the posts, I didn’t see anything that might even vaguely be considered bullying. Shameless self promotion? Sure. Links to stories that had sometimes critical coverage of Black Rock City LLC. Yeah. But there wasn’t even any harsh language or communications targetted at any individuals, let alone bullying.

Facebook didn’t indicate which post had been flagged, it just let me hit an “appeal” button, which I did. Then today, Facebook notified me that my “appeal” — a strange label for a process that didn’t allow me to make arguments or even know what I was defending — had been denied, my page removed, and that my personal posting privileges were suspended for 12 hours while I review Facebook’s terms of service.

The list of suspects who might want to sabotage me is a long one, considering the work I do and particularly my recent critical coverage of the technology industry, including venture capitalist Ron Conway’s cozy relationship with Mayor Ed Lee and the tax breaks that have been given to Twitter, Zynga, Airbnb, and other tech corporations. Or maybe it was someone in the Burning Man world unhappy with how I’ve covered the leadership of that event, a subject that I’ve returned to recently for a story in next week’s paper.

Who knows? All I know for sure is that I’ve been cut off from a communications medium that has made itself increasingly central to our lives through its ubiquity and the strategic partnerships it has made with a wide variety of other corporations that offer essential services such as transportation, housing, business development, and access to job opportunities and government officials.

But I’m going to spend some time this week trying to get to the bottom of this, and I’ll let you know what I learn — as well as offering some thoughts on what it means to have unaccountable corporations mediating our social, professional, and civic interactions with little regulatory oversight — in next week’s paper.

UPDATE 5/30 11am: This morning, just as I was preparing to head down to the Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, my Tribes of Burning Man page reappeared without explanation. Still no replies from Facebook, neither to my user inquiry nor my journalistic contact, but I decide to delay by trip down the peninsula by a day to see whether I hear back. Stay tuned…

UPDATE 5/30 11:45AM: After a second email inquiry to the Facebook press office, in which I said that I planned to show up at its headquarters with a videographer tomorrow if I didn’t hear from someone today, I got this response (I’m still waiting to hear back with answers to the many follow-up questions this raises): “We made a mistake removing content, and have restored it. Our dedicated User Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for our nearly billion users. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and remove a piece of content we shouldn’t have. Sorry again.”

Short cuts

-

May 29, 2013

2

Lots of stuff in news worth looking at today.

We bag on Texas and their generally idiotic governor a lot but recently, he and they did the right thing–under pressure from Texas’ parents, the state is going to slash the number of “No Child Left Behind” tests imposed on school children. NCLB is one of the worst educational ideas ever implemented. Teaching to the test teaches nothing and when its been shown in considerably poorer and smaller nations that drilling and rote are worthless, America should take stock. Good for Rick. That he sort of reversed Bush’s policy (whose actual aim was to enrich a family member, of course) showed some stones.

John McCain snuck over Syria’s border recently to meet with anti-Assad rebels. As the embargo on sending said rebels military aid is ending anyway, it’s hard to say what the purpose of the trip was. As usual, the military’s “worst pilot in history” was advocating more arms, more involvement and naturally, more bloodshed. One would think that after the particularly disasterous embrace of arming an enemy’s opposition in the 80’s and 90’s, the US would have learned, but as Senator McCain has never met a conflict he didn’t like (or that didn’t enrich his friends). no surprise.

Newsweek is for sale again. Its purchase in the first place, says money heavyweight Barry Diller “was a mistake”. It is operating at a loss, even online. Fact is, online content in a “general news” format is very hard to monetize. It’s even hard to monetize in specialty and local forms, but easier. This magazine’s day is over. C’est la vie.

More later!

Guardian event on Plan Bay Area

Zelda Bronstein

-

May 29, 2013

65

There’s going to be profound change in San Francisco over the next 25 years. If regional planners have their way, we’re talking 280,000 more people — and massive displacement of existing populations. Is that ok? What should we do about it? Is there any alternative, a better way to plan for growth?

I have no problem with increased density and population in San Francisco — but only if we can first protect vulnerable communities. How does that happen? What tools does the city have, and how can they be used?

These aren’t easy questions. Come help us talk about them and look for answers. The Guardian, along with the Council of Community Housing Organizations and Urban IDEA are holding a forum on Plan Bay Area June 12 at 6pm at the LGBT Center. It’s free and open to all.

Among the panelists:

· Tim Redmond, San Francisco Bay Guardian

· Mike Casey, Unite HERE Local 2

· Cindy Wu, San Francisco Planning Commissioner

· Maria Zamudio, Causa Justa: Just Cause

· Antonio Diaz, People Organizing to Defend our Economic Rights (PODER)

· Bob Allen, Urban Habitat

· Gen Fujioka, Chinatown Community Development Center

· Peter Cohen, Council of Community Housing Organizations

· Rachel Brahinsky, University of San Francisco

More information here.

See you there.

I agree with a three-star General

Zelda Bronstein

-

May 29, 2013

15

I don’t find myself in agreement with military leaders that often, but Lt. General Karl Eikenberry and historian David M. Kennedy have a fascinating piece in the New York Times that I have to say makes a lot of sense.

I was in college when Jimmy Carter brought back draft registration, and we all went batshit: We were just a half-step behind the Vietnam Generation, and I had friends and relatives who faced geting drafted (and the very high likelihood of being sent to die in the jungles in an utterly pointless war) and the notion of “the draft” was repugnant. We protested; we formed collectives; we met late into the night and organized. Nobody outside of the college campuses paid much attention.

That’s because it was pretty clear to political leaders that, registration or no, there wasn’t going to be a return to the draft anytime soon. Congress is happy with the all-volunteer Army: It guarantees that most recruits will be poor people, that very few sons and daughters of the wealthy and powerful (or the members of Congress) will ever have to go to war, and that the upper-middle classes will feel no pain whatsoever when other people’s children become cannon fodder.

If every young American risked getting drafted to go to Iraq, that war might never have happened — and certainly wouldn’t have lasted as long. The general notes:

The Congressional Research Service has documented 144 military deployments in the 40 years since adoption of the all-voluntary force in 1973, compared with 19 in the 27-year period of the Selective Service draft following World War II — an increase in reliance on military force traceable in no small part to the distance that has come to separate the civil and military sectors. The modern force presents presidents with a moral hazard, making it easier for them to resort to arms with little concern for the economic consequences or political accountability. Meanwhile, Americans are happy to thank the volunteer soldiers who make it possible for them not to serve, and deem it is somehow unpatriotic to call their armed forces to task when things go awry.

The officer corps is made up, to a significant extent, of sons and daughters of military officers, making war a “family business.” The rest of the nation is insulated — both from the experience of military service and the impacts of deployments.

I’m not (exactly) in favor of mandatory military service for all (although it would have a huge impact on Washington’s desire to use force every time there’s a foreign policy issue), but I like what Eikenberry says, not only about the draft but about the cost of war:

Congress should also insist that wars be paid for in real time. Levying special taxes, rather than borrowing, to finance “special appropriations” would compel the body politic to bear the fiscal burden — and encourage citizens to consider war-making a political choice they were involved in, not a fait accompli they must accept.

A military that operates outside of the civilian world isn’t good for the country. A civilian population that sees war as an abstract problem happening somewhere else in the world involving someone else’s family isn’t good, either.

So yeah, here I am agreeing with a three-star. Enjoy it; that doesn’t happen often.

For your information

-

May 29, 2013

104

ATTENTION

I have been getting too many emails and IMs from readers that tell me that they’d like to weigh in on my blog posts but can’t because the thread had degenerated into a shit-flinging contest. So let me remind you of sfbg.com’s policy on comments.

Comments that have nothing to do with the topic, that are nothing but ad hominem attacks, or that include offensive language or hate speech, are subject to being deleted. We want this to be an open forum, but we also want to keep it (relatively) civil (and relevant).

Unless the topic of my blog post is “does Johnny Angel Wendell (or Tim Redmond/Bruce Brugmann/The SFBG/Another poster) suck or do they rule?” your irrelevant comments are going to go.

We wouldn’t converse with each other in person this way. That is the rule of thumb.

Tear the premise of the blog post to pits, praise it to the skies, be indifferent, fine. I’m personally fair game as well (good or bad), as long as the topic is the subject. This isn’t that hard. I don’t wanna be an Internet cop. But because a few allegedly adult readers are driving off an awful lot of would-be participants, I’m going to have to use the “delete” key.

Hasta La Vista, Michele Bachmann

-

May 29, 2013

5

Michele Bachmann, unsuccessful 2012 presidential candidate, subject of FBI inquiry, Congressman and wife of “Pray The Gay Away (Except For Mine)” Marcus Bachmann, has decided to call it a day.Not seeking re-election in 2014. She says losing her seat isn’t the cause. Sure.

An undistinguished rep from a safely gerrymandered district, she was the soul of the Evangelical Right for a short spell, which is likely her future occupation. Now martyred out of Congress, she can parlay her exile into every Fundamentalist yapper’s dream, not working and getting paid for it.

This one’s for you, Chellie:http://johnnyangelwendell.bandcamp.com/track/crazy-eyes

Sarah Palin = REO Speedwagon

-

May 28, 2013

38

One of the more remarkable components of the so-called “Right Wing Entertainment Complex” (Fox/AM Radio/a gazillion reactionary websites) is the agonizing and complete predictability of its content. Barack Obama is the most evil, traitorious, illegal usurper, Muslim, Kenyan Socialist dictator alive and the besieged heroes of American patriotism are outnumbered and will be outgunned when Obama seizes their weapons, Obamacare will kill every member of your family assuming they haven’t committed suicide after it bankrupted them, Benghazi was worse than 9/11, Iraq and the 1962 Mets combined and the IRS only hates the brave and fierce Republican Party. Who are the only ones that can keep you safe against the fifth column of baby-killing Hollywood liberals that will brainwash your son into marrying a barnyard animal.

(Also remarkable is however much you try to lampoon their cray-cray, they’re inevitably more out there than even a parodist can dream of).

Flip on any of these mediums and this is what you get and if I know this in advance, so do their fans and they like it that way. Like a soothing wash of a New Age mixtape in the foyer of a yoga studio.Except that the whoosh of the mixtape is familiar in form and not content.

Nope, the real parallel between the RW Entertainment Complex and its musical equivalent would be the aging classic rock dinosaurs of the 70’s and 80’s and the state fair/shitty casino/low rent rally circuit. Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, the battery of Sunday morning news show dildolatry and especially the Mega MILF of Moosery Sarah Palin are completely and totally identical to the slog it out warriors of faceless corporate FM rock–Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Nightranger and REO Speedwagon.

Think about it–what do Kevin Cronin (REO), Mick Jones (Foreigner, not the Clash’s Mick Jones) and whomever is left in the other bands do for a living? They mount the boards and play their hits–period. And vamoose off to the next hellhole whose main fiscal purpose at this point is alimony, child support and back taxes. 12 tunes, maybe, paycheck and screw. They try not to think about their better days, one imagines, and just do their jobs–which consist now of rote recitation. In that, they are exactly like Palin or Glenn Beck–who hit all the talking points, massage the prejudices of their chosen audience and remind them that only they understand their plight (and then batter them with ads for merchandise and books). Like peas in a pod.

Except that at one time, these bands were cranking out hit songs and even if you don’t like their hits, writing a hit is hard to do. Regurgitating “the best of Joe McCarthy” only replacing “Communists” with “Muslims” or “libs” is all these verbal midgets need do to cash in. “Hot Blooded” or “Don’t Let Him Go” or “Babe” may sound trite and brittle and overwrought to some, but they had to be concocted, recorded with care and sung in tune. That is a hell of a lot more than these repulsive mountebanks on the right are capable of.

(And there is, of course, the gent that straddles both worlds with ham-handed, blockheaded glory, the Nuge himself–except he’s third on the bill beneath REO and Styx this summer and is but a mere guest on FOX at best. Sorry, Ted).

Lastly, the rock bands who are on rickety stages this summer outside Lincoln NE or Bakersfield or Dothan Alabama next to livestock and ferris wheels are fucking honest men and women. They travel endless hours for vastly less pay than they used to get. They have seen their expected annuities disappear via digital downloading and YouTube. They look into the smaller crowds and see their reflections in the once fist pumping but now worn looking fans. And they still have enough pride to deliver the goods, because that’s what they do–not chauffered from their expensive mansions to TV and radio studios to spew out the party line that has been focus group and poll tested to perfection. And then home to mansion. I may not like the dino bands but I respect ’em–I have no respect for these reactionary carny barkers at all.

Lawyer who flipped Greenlining for Mercury considers run for office

Sasha Cuttler

-

May 28, 2013

0

When Mercury Insurance last year failed in its second attempt to fool voters into allowing the industry to raise rates on drivers that don’t maintain continuous car insurance coverage, resulting in the failure of Prop. 33, it enlisted the unlikely support of the Greenlining Institute, the Berkeley-based social and environmental justice nonprofit that had opposed Mercury’s similar effort two years earlier.

As the Bay Guardian reported at the time, Greenlining’s decision was controversial — both within the organization and among other consumer protection groups that opposed Mercury’s quest — and it was a decision driven by Greenlining General Counsel Sam Kang, who took a leave to work on that losing campaign. [CLARIFICATION: Greenling Executive Director Orson Aguilar called to clarify that Kang took a paid sabbatical to work on that campaign and that he wasn’t paid by Mercury or the campaign operation it supported. Frankly, that makes the situation sound even more suspect, so we’re happy to clarify this point.]

Now, we learn that Kang is considering running for the Assembly to represent the East Bay’s District 15 in 2014, where incumbent Democrat Nancy Skinner is termed out. Gee, I wonder whether Kang will get support from the insurance industry.

Kang recently announced to his Greenlining colleagues that “I was asked to explore a run,” and some wondered whether Mercury’s billionaire founder George Joseph was the one doing the asking and promising to use his wealth and connections to repay Kang for all his help.

It’s still too early to know whether Kang will run (he has a bare bones campaign website up now) and who will support him, and he hasn’t returned our calls seeking comment for this post, but we’ll update it if/when we hear back (updated below).

According to Around the Capitol, others who have expressed interest in running for the seat are EBMUD director Andy Katz, community organizer Peggy Moore, West Contra Costa Unified School District Trustee Charles Ramsey, former WCCUSD Trustee Tony Thurmond, and SBA Regional Administrator Elizabeth Echols. They, like Kang, are all registered Democrats.

Update 3:40pm: Kang just got back to us and said that Joseph and Mercury Insurance has “zero” impact on his decision to explore a run for office, which Kang says he was asked to consider by “friends, neighbors, all the people who advocate for those who don’t have a voice.” Asked whether Joseph is one of those people and when they last spoke, he replied, “He asked me to check in from time to time to give my thoughts on things.”

He still casts his advocacy for Prop. 33 as genuine and said of those who view it suspiciously, “It is what it is.” As for whether he’s make a final decision to run, Kang said, “I’m just putting one step in front of the other to see how far I go.”

Obamacare works — up to a point

Zelda Bronstein

-

May 28, 2013

23

The good news, as supporters of the president have been happy to point out, is that the insurance figures the state has released for the Obamacare benefits plans aren’t really that awful. The naysayers were wrong; the Affordable Care Act almost seems …. affordable. Gee, a 40-year-old single person could get basic insurance for $332 a month.

Which is true, but younger, single people have always had better rates. I went to the calculator to see what I would have to pay to cover myself and my two kids, and it was closer to $1,000 a month. And that’s for a plan that includes a $2,000 deductible, $250 emergency-room co-pays and $45 primary-care co-pays. Not all that “affordable” — unless your kids never, say, get injured playing football or doing gymnastics, and you never break your hand doing martial arts, and you never need surgery. In other words, not so fine for my family (or most families).

And that’s the first year out; rates are going to keep going up. In theory, if the insurers raise rates more than 10 percent a year, they’ll have to justify the increases — but you know that’s not going to be a problem at the federal level. And 10 percent a year for a few years makes even the low-end plans too expensive for most people.

Yes, there are subsidies for low-income people, and that’s the best part of this plan — but either those will have to go up every year to match the rate hikes or everyone’s going to be hurting.

Here’s the problem: The feds have mandated everyone gets insurance — but California doesn’t have the right to regulate rates. And the rates aren’t regulated in Washington.

Remember what happened in California when the state (quite properly) mandated in the early 1980s that everyone with a car buy insurance — but then did nothing to control rates? Insurance companies made a fortune, and consumers got screwed, until Prop. 103 passed.

Now it’s pretty clear that we need the same thing for health insurance. That’s what Consumer Watchdog is pushing for — and once the real sticker shock hits, this initiative’s going to pass, just as Prop. 103 did.

Former planning director explains 8 Washington lies

Zelda Bronstein

-

May 28, 2013

19

Former planning director explains 8 Washington lies

Nice oped piece in the Examiner by former City Planning Director Allan Jacobs about the lies behind the campaign to save 8 Washington from ignominous ballot-box defeat. Jacobs, who knows what he’s talking about, explains the problem with spot-zoning, which is pretty common now in San Francisco.:

San Francisco’s now-famous urban design plan addressed issues of height and bulk of buildings citywide, very much including the waterfront. Those matters became law. The piecemeal game playing that is central to what we are being asked to approve is a terrible way to make public policy — all the more so because it benefits a few high-end developers.

He also debunks some of the lies in the “Open Up the Waterfront” campaign, which is paid for by Developer Simon Snellgrove and his partners (who stand to make a fortune on this deal). Among the claims that signature-gatherers are making:

The project will create more public parks, a more accessible waterfront, and more jobs or a toxic asphalt parking lot and an obstructing 1,735 foot fence with a “members only” club.

Now: Jacobs argues that the “more public space” will include space that will be public only to the owners of the condos. But I also want to say something about this “members only” club.Yeah: The Golden Gate Swim and Tennis Club is restricted to people who pay dues. The new athletic club that Snellgrove is promising to build will also be “members only.” So, by the way, is the YMCA, just down the street. It’s “public” in the sense that anyone can join, “private” in the sense that only dues-paying members are allowed to use it.Anyone can join the current club on the site, for a price. It’s not cheap, but it’s not over-the-top expensive.

We have no idea what the dues at the new club will be, but we know this: The GGSTC has in its bylaws a requirement that it be open to anyone, not just to people who live at Golden Gateway. There is as of now no such requirement for Snellgrove’s new “private” club, which could be limited to the (very) rich owners of the new condos.It won’t be “public” in the way that city rec centers are public, open on a daily basis to anyone who comes in the door (although sometimes you have to pay a few bucks to swim.” So really, the difference between the existing club and the replacement club isn’t relevant to this discussion.

Every developer-driven campaign comes up with some misinformation and claims that don’t survive serious scrutiny. Glad Allan Jacobs is on the case.

Justice For Trayvon — maybe?

-

May 28, 2013

38

Summer’s here and the time is right for neither dancing nor fighting in the streets down in Florida. George Zimmerman–accused of second degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin--is about to go on trial for same.

For the 7 people in America that don’t know the story, On February 26th, 2012, Martin, an African American teenager, left his dad’s house to go to the store to buy an iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman, a self proclaimed but not actual member of the local Neighborhood Watch, started following Martin by car and then foot–for reasons not ever fully explained anywhere. What happened next is the crux of the trial, but what is known is that a police dispatcher suggested to Zimmerman not to follow Martin, Martin did phone a girlfriend to tell her he was being followed and Zimmerman did shoot Martin dead.

That Martin was unarmed and did not approach an armed man that shot him first would tend to indicate that this is an open and shut case. But because Florida has a “stand your ground” law, that will be Zimmerman’s defense, even though he has waived the right to a hearing before a judge on whether or not that statute applies–Zimmerman’s attorneys feel that the “stand your ground” defense is better argued in front of a jury than a judge and so off to trial they go.

Zimmerman’s defense got some rather bad news right from the git-go. Judge Debra Nelson has ruled that Zimmerman’s attorneys won’t be able to mention Trayvon Martin’s drug use, suspension from school and past fighting during opening statements (as Zimmerman himself knew none of this as he was following Martin and Martin isn’t on trial, Zimmerman is). This is an enormous blow to Zimmerman’s defense.

Why would something as utterly irrelevant as Martin’s pot smoking (pot makes whom more violent, exactly?) suspensions from school (not at the time) and fighting (common among teens) be an issue when Martin had no criminal record? Jeez, Louise, I wonder what on earth they would use such information for?

Let’s cut the shit once and for all here–Zimmerman’s defense begins and ends on the idea that Trayvon Martin was the stereotypical caraicature of an African American teenaged male. A dangerous, hip hop lovin’, chronic-huffin’, pants on the ground gang bangin’ thug. Which means that any “clear thinking person” would be terrified of same and have the right to ventilate same by firearm.

In short—1)George Zimmerman, like any sane person, would be scared of this kid and 2) Being scared really sucks and makes you feel awful, so 3) Of course it’s OK to shoot the kid. In the minds of the terrified reactionary, “being frightened” justifies “standing your ground”, even when you are chasing someone, not standing anywhere.

Fact is, Trayvon could have been 7” tall and weighed 400 pounds and out on parole and Zimmerman still wouldn’t have a case. But because he and his attorneys are banking on at least a few people in the jury being scared ninnies, that’s the defense. And as Zimmerman found out when he raised a ton of money for his “defense”, this kind of thinking is endemic to people that react to information as opposed to absorbing it.

That America’s “conservatives” lined up behind Zimmerman in near lockstep speaks volumes about the tie that binds them.

Armed man shoots unarmed man that he was clealry stalking. Can’t get more cut and dried than that. But when the victim is part of a population segment that has another population segment pooping its Depends, it is not. This is gonna be an interesting, if possibly revolting summer in the USA.

To The Valiant That Served

-

May 27, 2013

18

Let’s take a moment out of our day to salute the men and women that gave all in defense of our homeland. Memorial Day’s purpose is just that (although its actual origins may surprise you).

For me, the people that had it the hardest were those who, after agonizing reflection, realized that their war effiorts were best served by not serving at all. Like:

Richard Bruce Cheney–VP–he got five student deferments until successfully impregnating his bride. Would have been more than willing to slog through Vietnam’s jungles, but said “I have other priorities”.

Willard “Mitt” Romney–sat out Vietnam War and opted for the brutal battle along the Seine in Paris. As Paris itself had been at peace (minus demonstrations) for over 20 years at the time, his religious mission must have been a lot more satisfying than getting his magical underpants ventilated by VC landmines.

Theodore Nugent–The Motormouth City Madman decided it would be wiser to remain in Michigan rather than the Mekong Delta and spent a week or so shitting himself to stay out of draft. Also used student deferments and has of late raised the “I was making too much money as a musician at the time to waste my prime years”. Now that’s patriotism.

George W. Bush/Dan Quayle: America’s shores protected by these national guardsmen in “champagne units”, that is the scions of the powerful keeping themselves bulletproof via nepotism. The former found his time in the NatGuard too trying and appears to have disappeared in his last year there. Playing cards in Alabama being mentally and physically exhausting and all.

Ronald Reagan: Single handedly won the “Battle Of Culver City” in WW2. And believed and spoke of his war adventures as if they weren’t on film but real. And this is an icon.

Lest you think I am picking on the chickenhawk crew that cheerleads slaughters they have no intention of being a part of, let’s take time out to thank some really brave politicians named Hillary, John Edwards and John Kerry, whose votes on Iraq made solely with presidential ambition in mind led to the worst debacle in American history. And to Obama’s presidency.

Last but not least, a salute to the fearless Internet Infantry who brave thumb sprains and carpal tunnel to valiantly back America’s war efforts from the dingey bunker known as “mom’s basement”. You will never be forgotten, assuming anyone remembers you in the first place.

Happy holidays and drive safe!

Very Strange Bedfellows

-

May 26, 2013

6

If you stop and think about it for a moment, Memorial Day Weekend and Gay Pride weekends have a lot in common.

Both came about to commemorate serious and life-changing events for millions of people.

Now, not really about either. Memorial Day, except to veterans and families of the deceased, is the “beginning of summer”. Boat on lake and barbeques. Politicians may pay homage to fallen soldiers but it’s really Labor Day’s bookend to most. Gay Pride is now a city to city franchise of a sort, kind of a traveling mega party. Which make sense in both cases–as conscription ended in the 1970’s, the professional military represents a smaller and smaller segment of the American public (so much for shared sacrifice). And even though Stonewall was less than 45 years ago, a gay or lesbian kid now–even in the heart of the Bible Belt–could never imagine how secretive people had to be, even in the “enlightened 60’s”.

It isn’t a bad thing. It’s human nature. Just strange how two supposedly disparate events are so similar.

The Big Riddle

-

May 26, 2013

22

Why is it that if you hoard everything but cash, you’re a weirdo and the subject of a TV show that demeans you, but if you hoard money (and offshore at that), you’re an astute businessman and a shining example of the greatness of capitalism?

This Ain’t The Summer Of Love

-

May 26, 2013

27

Recently, I came across this great series from 1995 on YouTube, “Dancing In The Streets–the History of Rock and Roll”. Ten episodes from the R/B meets Country birth of the music all the way to hip hop. Really well done, excepting some glaring errors (whomever wrote the Ramones segment knew nothing of the band) and omissions (not an Elton John fan, but the guy was a recording artist of enormous success, ditto Rod Stewart and no MC5 or New York Dolls). As it is television and not music, the colorful parts of rock’s history got a lot of play.

One entire segment was devoted to psychedelia. Was great, too–bookended by the Byrds’ “Eight Miles High” and “You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere”. Naturally, there was a lot of attention devoted to San Fran and its bands and the importance of the City in rock and roll. Which can’t be denied. San Francisco–from the mid 50’s to the mid 60’s–was America’s creative crucible. The Beats of North Beach and the hippies of the Haight are now cultural signifiers and as the program pointed out, they didn’t happen in San Francisco by accident.

As the Airplane’s Paul Kantner points out, San Fran is a seaport and seaports tend to be where the collision of disparate ideas from around the world makes new ones. What’s not in the piece is the real reason the Beats flourished in SF. In New York, cabaret licenses were hard to obtain in the 50’s, in SF, they weren’t. Therefore, a city with a population 1/10th the size of New York’s could compete with New York. As is also said in the show, all of SF’s old ballrooms were ideal for Kesey’s acid tests and the laissez faire attitude of the City wasn’t entirely due to its open-mindedness, but simply that San Fran had no idea what was coming in 1966 and 1967.

At the end of the show (which featured Jerry Garcia’s last interview and he was good naturedly hilarious in it), I wondered if in this day and age, San Francisco could ever be the giant of the zeitgeist again. Took me less than a half a minute to realize that the answer is a resounding “no”.

Every factor that figures in to a locale becoming a spawning ground for the arts no longer exists in SF. Artists need two things above all else–lots of space and cheap rent. An “artist” that works a 50 hour a week day job to pay the bare bones of rent, food and heat hasn’t got much left by way of time and energy. If the same artist is in a Mission one bedroom (and shared), there’s no elbow room. Nowhere to rehearse one’s craft and nowhere to paint or draw without getting up in someone else’s space.

That’s to say nothing of a “night life scene” where the price of two drinks and a cover could buy lunch five days a week in another city.

Don’t hand me the idea that the young software and PNS developers are somehow the same as Jack Kerouac, Jerry, Janis and Grace. Yeah–they’re all young (not now, of course). But conflating commerce with art that no one thought would make any money in the first place because “that’s what kids do now” is jive. They’re opposites. Artists and their fans are messy and free and by their nature hard to control, businessmen and politicians are soulmates. Catering to the very wealthy is a slam dunk to the Ed Lee’s and Nancy Pelosi’s of the world because the wealthy contribute to them.

Don’t get me wrong–the 60’s weren’t utopia and the hordes of homeless people that have flocked to SF since have become an almost intractable problem.

San Francisco is the country’s mosy physically beautiful city. It has a long history of upheaval (culturally and seismically). But in our time, Detroit, Erie or Buffalo are becoming just as likely if not more so to be where the arts boom next. They’re cheap and with the Internet, an artist’s work can go anywhere when he or she don’t have to. Fact is, plain old venality is doing SF in. Pandering to the few at the expense of the many means that the fertile underside of the (actual) creative class gets priced right off the peninsula. All that’s left is the safe and staid that San Fran has thumbed its nose at forever. Sad.