District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. Photo by Luke Thomas.
By Luke Thomas
May 11, 2010
A controversial proposed Sit/Lie ordinance making its way through the San Francisco legislative process could soon be made redundant, Fog City Journal has learned.
District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi indicated yesterday he will “soon” introduce an ordinance that will mandate foot patrols in targeted areas of the city where their presence would deter the street level crimes – including assaults and loitering – that the Sit/Lie ordinance is intended to address.
“I don’t think it’s a cure all but I do think it’s an answer to this question that really vexes a lot of people on all sides of the Sit/Lie argument,” Mirkarimi, whose district includes the Haight District, told Fog City Journal following a hearing yesterday on the proposed Sit/Lie ordinance.
Mirkarimi, who previously worked as an investigator for the district attorney’s office before being elected to public office in 2004, has been a leader on public safety in San Francisco. Responding to a spike in violent crimes, the Board of Supervisors in 2006 passed pilot legislation sponsored by Mirkarimi mandating foot patrols in areas most impacted by crime.
Mayor Gavin Newsom subsequently attempted to veto Mirkarimi’s foot patrol legislation contradicting his public support for community policing, but was rebuffed when nine supervisors on the eleven-member Board overturned his veto.
Though Mirkarimi’s pilot legislation has since sunseted, it arguably deterred street level crimes where foot patrols were deployed. The mere presence of police officers walking beats also makes residents feel safe.
Should the Board pass Mirkarimi’s yet to be formally introduced targeted foot patrol legislation before the deadline for the November ballot, a Sit/Lie ballot measure that Newsom has been threatening would also be made redundant and unnecessary. However, if Newsom vetoes Mirkarimi’s legislation and carries through on his threat, he will make clear he is playing politics with public safety and is using Sit/Lie as wedge issue, a politically motivated means to undermine Progressive candidates running for open seats on the Board of Supervisors.
KTVU interview with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi on the 2006 pilot police foot patrol legislation.
More Info
2007 Foot Patrol Program Evaluation Report
SFPD Effectiveness Studies
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
May 19, 2010 at 9:22 am
Arthur, between the greatest and boomer generations, the lot of you all won the war but lost the peace.
Fortunately for the rest of us, we learned 20 years ago that something as permanent and powerful as the Soviet Union could be obviated in the blink of a historical eye.
These institutions and structures only have power because we grant it to them.
May 18, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Luke,
Time for Arthur and Marc to get a room and give us a break. Do you actually believe anyone but the two of them read the phone books they write and you publish?
h.
May 18, 2010 at 11:10 am
In a post above, Luke says:
“this is pretty funny coming from someone who uses every opportunity to slander those who disagree with your worldview.”
Examples, please? Quotes? For example, in this thread?
Pointing out the poor logic and flimsy documentation of others’ arguments is not slandering. Drawing attention to the boorish public behavior of public officials is not slandering. Discussing the inept tactics of a group is not slandering.
Slandering is making up falsehoods about individuals and putting them out as truth.
Check the dictionary.
May 18, 2010 at 10:24 am
“It never ceases to amaze me how far marc salomon will go in order to turn every discussion into ad hominem slandering.”
Arthur, this is pretty funny coming from someone who uses every opportunity to slander those who disagree with your worldview.
May 18, 2010 at 10:18 am
In a post above, marc says:
“it was your generation that set us on the course that led us to this point. I would question the legitimacy of one steeped in the evolving boomer ethos as a reliable commentator on how to move forward.”
I am not a member of the baby-boomer generation. I was born during WWII.
It never ceases to amaze me how far marc salomon will go in order to turn every discussion into ad hominem slandering.
A more principled approach is to stay focused on the issues at hand and not try to turn other participants in the discussion into the topics of the discussion.
May 18, 2010 at 7:38 am
Arthur, I would refrain from attempting to put together so long a chain of hypotheticals as you would. The multiplied uncertainty diminishes the utility of such an effort.
We are at a fork in the road right now, where our choices are between entering into indentured, impoverished servitude to a financier class or challenging those notions of debt and freedom.
There is no rocket science here, just very powerful interests using the tools at their disposal to wrest the situation towards their ends. What is needed here is not an ideology, rather an absence of ideology so that we can confront what is being done as it presents itself, not as it would be framed.
But Arthur, it was your generation that set us on the course that led us to this point. I would question the legitimacy of one steeped in the evolving boomer ethos as a reliable commentator on how to move forward.
May 17, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Some responses to your latest, post, marc –
You say:
“Why would a liberal Democrat push the very same political project as someone like Mort Zuckerman …”
This is a question for Jeff Adachi, right? Why don’t you ask him and get back to us with the answer? Here’s his e-mail address: jeff.adachi@sfgov.org
You say:
“When you attack public employees and nonprofits both, you are attacking the notion of social services.”
To criticize unions and nonprofits for their excesses is not to negate them.
Public employees should not be given extravagant wages and pensions. Nonprofits should be held accountable to performance standards. These are perfectly reasonable requirements.
You say:
“There is no such thing as permanent debt and rising interest payments.”
The debt is permanent if the debtor lacks the productivity to pay off the debt in the long run. This situation can have devastating consequences for individuals, companies, nations, and civilizations.
You say:
“There is plenty of money in the economy to provide dignified retirements and health care security to all Americans who have worked.”
Dignified, yes. Extravagant, no.
You say:
“What will be required to change the rules of that game is for politicians to not come at us with tactics of right wing class warfare …”
Sorry to give you the bad news, marc, but it’s not true that anyone who disagrees with any of your ideas is a right-winger engaged in class warfare.
You say:
“The numbers really speak for themselves.”
Have you looked at the numbers that Jeff Adachi has brought forward?
* * * *
Here’s the larger picture, marc:
A global paradigm shift is underway.
Things will never again be the same as they were in the decades following WWII. No existing system of ideology, in its present form, either political and religious, is capable of dealing with the coming changes.
Despite all the horrendous episodes of male violence that have occurred in the post-WWII era, future generations, especially in the West, will look back at that period as a Golden Age.
In the next fifty years, Economic and political power will shift to China. In the midst of increasing prosperity, China will face dangerous centrifugal forces within, due to unresolved ethnic and religious clashes. Its top-heavy, overly centralized form of government will not be able to adapt to the challenges. There will be civil war on an unprecedented scale.
Russia will become an impoverished Moslem nation, led by religious ideologues. The U.S. will turn into a big rust-belt country. The European Union will follow suit.
Living conditions in Africa and India will become even more horrendous than they are now.
Small rogue nations and terrorist groups will possess nuclear weapons, and use them. Global climate change will become extreme and devastating.
In the past, such concatenations of changes in politics, economics, and climate have commonly triggered Dark Ages.
And so it will be here. A new Dark Age will be the likely result, bringing horrific suffering around the globe to all forms of life.
Eventually, a new form of civilization will emerge, in some ways better, and in some ways worse, than the post-WWII Euro-American regime.
The current Great Recession is one Change along the path of these transformations.
* * * *
“The Changes, what do they do? The Changes disclose things, complete affairs, and encompass all ways on earth – this and nothing else.”
– “I Ching” (“Book of Changes”).
May 17, 2010 at 8:17 am
It seems like this initiative is exactly with Mort Zuckerman of US News and World Report and the NY Daily News wants:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2010/05/14/the-crippling-price-of-public-employee-unions.html
People dismissed me 2 years ago when I made the case that this was not just another garden variety recession, rather a reconfiguration of the economy at every level from the remnants of the bipolar post-WWII cold war era towards a new multipolar configuration.
More precisely, with finance not cranking out the profits that the elites had grown accustomed to, we’re talking regular profits at a rate northwards of 20% for 15 years, the elites need to find a new way to keep them in style.
The WWII boom crashed between 1968 and 1973 after Keynesiansim, fiscal stimulus, failed to work because, the scholarship at the time said, government could not come up with sufficient money to plug the hole. The stagflation that followed was replaced by Reagan’s monetarism, which worked more or less until the dot.com boom (which was little more than a chunk of a trillion in boomer retirement funds burning a hole in the pockets of investment managers) when the Federal Reserve put interest rates on “low to no” until it inflated the housing bubble.
Globally, this balls to the wall in defense of finance cash flow has taken the form of debt swaps, where private bogus debt is foisted onto the public sector in the form of debt where taxyapers are forced to take hits to basic standards of living in order to make the rentiers whole.
Why would a liberal Democrat push the very same political project as someone like Mort Zuckerman, a multibillionaire publisher of economic and political propaganda designed to keep the elites in power?
San Franciscans want to pay for and provide social services. Either those services are delivered by government employees or they are contracted out to private corporations, either for- or non-profit. When you attack public employees and nonprofits both, you are attacking the notion of social services.
There is no such thing as permanent debt and rising interest payments. The solution to that crisis is a wave of bankruptcies. But the Democrats in Congress and Bush closed the door to bankruptcies in 2005 by tightening the rules and forcing the bankrupt to pay back their debts over a longer time frame.
There is plenty of money in the economy to provide dignified retirements and health care security to all Americans who have worked. What will be required to change the rules of that game is for politicians to not come at us with tactics of right wing class warfare, rather to dispense both left and right and eliminate one of the most destructive implements of class warfare–debt peonage, either individual or socialized.
The numbers really speak for themselves. $500m over 25 years, huh? Sounds like a lot of money. But we’re talking $20m per year maximum, which pales in comparison to all sorts of luxuries that we spend money on now. $20m per year–$30m per year–is not too much to pay to ensure that tens of thousands of people have health care and retirement security.
-marc
May 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Some more Responses, marc –
You say:
“Here we are [with regard to Muni] with the latest round of rolling stock reaching or passing the mid point of its useful lifespan and we see mean time between failures inching down again.”
The extravagant wages and work rules for drivers (thanks to the union’s clout) have contributed to Muni’s problems. So has the ineptitude of Muni management. So has the failure of political leadership on the part of the mayor and the supes.
The decline of Muni is just the sort of spongy mushroom you’d expect to grow from the city’s dank political soil.
You say:
“It is retrograde to blame all public employees for the city’s problems, or to assert that dignified retirements or health care security are optional.”
City employees are not responsible for the Great Recession. However, their inflated wages and pensions, combined with their low productivity, are no longer luxuries that can be afforded by the city in the Great Recession.
You say:
“Are you trying to suggest that in the past 7 years, a bright, young reformer like Gavin Newsom … was powerless against the onslaught of organized labor?”
Newsom is afraid of the unions, as are the supes.
You say:
“The amount of crumbs that have been given to the nonprofits to quash any opposition to increased development pales in comparison to the value unlocked through the granting of favorable entitlements, or even the public dollars thrown at the SFPD, SFFD and MEA.”
As best as I can recall, the city lavishes $500 million dollars a year on the nonprofit political complex. There are no performance standards in place for how they are spending this money.
This ridiculous situation has to change.
You say:
“The Great Recession is an effort at the final transfer of product from working Americans to the super rich. It is only a fait acompli if we let it become so.”
The Great Recession is the cumulative result of bad practices on the part of individuals, companies, and entire countries since the end of WWII.
All have been living on credit, incurring larger and larger debts, without increasing the economic productivity needed to pay them off. And now this huge, international Ponzi scheme is imploding.
The first to go was the Soviet Union. The U.S. is now being hit. The European Union is next.
The upshot is that a profound shift in the global economy is underway. I doubt that it will ever be unshifted back to previous conditions.
The big beneficiary is China. It is now in a position to reap the sort of economic benefits that the U.S. reaped after winning WWII.
You say:
“There is quite a space for reform in San Francisco.”
Not as long as the big players remain downtown corporations, the unions, the nonprofit political complex, and the cannabis capitalists. They all have a vested interest in maintaining one or another of the dysfunctionalities of the status quo.
May 16, 2010 at 4:08 pm
There have been two forms of governance under which the Muni has been placed over the past 30 years, the PUC used to run it and then it was cleaved off into the MTA in 1999. That’s it, two.
The MTA explicitly excludes the Board of Supervisors from intervention in Muni’s fiscal affairs precisely because 20 years ago, during an economic downtown, the Board pilfered Muni’s coffers to fund social services instead of vehicle maintenance.
Remember in the mid/late 1990s when the rolling stock was nearing the end of its useful life and was breaking down constantly due to lack of maintenance? Brown and his downtown coterie strong armed the Muni reform measure from Ammiano and gave the Muni exclusively to the Mayor. Here we are with the latest round of rolling stock reaching or passing the mid point of its useful lifespan and we see mean time between failures inching down again. That is an indicator of disinvestment in rolling stock and a predictor of even worse quality of service in a few years unless something is done to defend the Muni set aside.
As I said, many liberals and progressives have yet to realize that the age of Reagan has ended and that it is time for new approaches to economics, approaches that learn from the past 30 years. It is retrograde to blame all public employees for the city’s problems, or to assert that dignified retirements or health care security are optional.
Are you trying to suggest that in the past 7 years, a bright, young reformer like Gavin Newsom, the one who solved homelessness with Care Not Cash, the prince of press releases, was powerless against the onslaught of organized labor?
The amount of crumbs that have been given to the nonprofits to quash any opposition to increased development pales in comparison to the value unlocked through the granting of favorable entitlements, or even the public dollars thrown at the SFPD, SFFD and MEA.
The Great Recession is an effort at the final transfer of product from working Americans to the super rich. It is only a fait acompli if we let it become so. Cutting benefits and tearing up the safety net is part of that project. To my mind, those who become fabulously wealthy off of the financial sector have enough money, and we would do well to resist their threats of blackmail, of running the economy further into the ground unless they get what they want.
There is quite a space for reform in San Francisco. That reform is not going to come as political projects eminating from lone individuals.
-marc
May 16, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Thanks for your additional thoughts above, marc.
You say:
“The Charter vests the power to fix Muni exclusively in a Board of Directors appointed by the Mayor.”
In the past 35 years that I’ve lived in the city, Muni has been under various schemes of governance. Along the way, there have been ups and downs. During the past 15 years, I would say that, overall, Muni has stagnated, at best.
Something is wrong. The problem includes the mayors in this period but involves more than them, too.
The situation reminds me of the debate over homelessness that emerged after the progressives took over the board of supes in 2001. The board’s supporters blamed the mayor for failing to deal with homelessness. The mayor’s supporters blamed the board.
The city’s entire governing class is at fault with both problems.
You say:
“Hopefully, the Supervisors will respond to Newsom’s vacuum of leadership…”
The two vacuums feed off each other, depleting SF of the oxygen of urban vitality.
You say:
“Adachi is to be commended for opening up the discussion of a difficult subject. However after 30 years of Reaganism, many liberals and progressives have become steeped in those juices…”
Jeff Adachi is in the tradition of Reaganism?!
You say:
“Graft? The granting of development rights in exchange for campaign contributions is corruption…”
I take it that this is a reference to Chris Daly and the particular developers he favors, right?
You say:
“San Francisco’s elites operate under the same ideology as the conservative Republicans, that government cannot solve problems …”
The city’s governing class is beholden to downtown corporate interests, the nonprofit political complex, unions, and the cannabis capitalists.
Go luck to anyone who is not associated with these vested interest in getting his or her voice heard at City Hall.
You say:
“There is plenty of surplus product in the US, CA and SF economies to provide for transit, health care and retirement security.”
The Great Recession is a fact of life. It cannot be dispelled by rhetoric.
You say:
“don’t let me distract you from cheer leading the complete fleecing of Americans into serfdom.”
Aren’t you getting a little carried away with your rhetoric here?
May 16, 2010 at 9:35 am
“The Authority also tracks transportation system performance to ensure that San Francisco gets good value for its transportation investments and prepares a long-range Countywide Transportation Plan to guide future investment decisions.”
Surely a gentleman philosopher such as the Great and Omniscient Arthur Evans is aware that naming a problem is not the same thing as solving a problem. The Charter vests the power to fix Muni exclusively in a Board of Directors appointed by the Mayor. The Charter gives the MTA a nominal degree of autonomy from the Mayor, however the executive staff of the MTA is under the impression that they work for the Mayor and that’s how they roll.
To their credit, the TA did try to elicit behavioral changes from the MTA by conditioning the transfer of $7m to the agency under the proviso that they put the kibosh on significant service cuts. The MTA apparently said “thanks, but, uh, no thanks.”
The Mayor, Board of Supervisors and MTA Board are required under Section 8A.109 to diligently seek out new sources of revenue for the agency. This has hardly been done in the 10 years of Prop E, save for 2007’s Prop A. This dedicated parking revenues to the MTA, but Newsom’s response to this was not to further invest in transit, rather to subsidize the entire SFPD traffic company to the tune of $11.7m from the MTA transit set aside. Note that this is different than the various “security” deals the MTA has with the SFPD.
It is incumbent that the public gain confidence in a further reformed MTA governance structure prior to seeking new revenues for the agency. Hopefully, the Supervisors will respond to Newsom’s vacuum of leadership on Muni with a proposal for November’s ballot.
Adachi is to be commended for opening up the discussion of a difficult subject. However after 30 years of Reaganism, many liberals and progressives have become steeped in those juices, and have come to internalize those values and priorities, that ideology, as the new norm. Progressives should not be in the business of eliminating health care or retirement security from San Franciscans, rather promoting solutions that protect the City budget without further battering an already beleaguered retirement safety net.
I have found that the City’s bureaucracy is magnetized by the politics of the politically appointed leaders. Their degree of competence is therefore determined by their adherence to the governing ideology. When the governing ideology is predicated upon the vision that San Francisco is an extractive profit center for political patrons, then the refusal to deliver city services can be viewed as competence.
Graft? The granting of development rights in exchange for campaign contributions is corruption. Since some of Newsom’s campaign funds end up going to him directly in the from of covering personal campaign expenses, then this is a form of graft. The degree to which the City Attorney and Ethics Commission cover for this kind of corruption cannot be overestimated.
Just like the banking system was not brought to its knees by nefarious tellers, the Muni is not being bled to death through operators making $60K. The system is in need of reform, but it is clearly in the interests of those directing public attention to the line workers as the source of the problem to distract from the corrupt aspects of the system which feed their political operations.
Arthur, San Francisco’s elites operate under the same ideology as the conservative Republicans, that government cannot solve problems, that it should be vilified to the extent that the public loses any confidence that government can be harnessed to problem solve, and that liberals/progressives and unions are responsible for the problem all while resisting the kind of equitable and progressive taxation which created the Golden State in the immediate post-WWII era.
There is plenty of surplus product in the US, CA and SF economies to provide for transit, health care and retirement security. We are having this discussion only because the center of gravity of the US political debate has been shifted so far to favor the right that many cannot help but be consumed by it.
But please, don’t let me distract you from cheer leading the complete fleecing of Americans into serfdom.
-marc
May 15, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Thank you, marc, for your informative post above. Some comments follow.
You say:
“The MTA , Municipal Transportation Agency is an agency which operates Muni, the DPT and bicycle/ped programs. The MTA Board is appointed by the Mayor.
The TA, Transportation Authority, is the local congestion management agency which administers the Prop K sales tax financing for capital and planning projects. The Board of Supervisors sits as the TA.”
Thank you for the correction about the MTA.
However, the TA, which consists of the supes wearing another set of hats, does more than just administer the Prop K sales tax, as you claim.
According to its website:
“The Authority also tracks transportation system performance to ensure that San Francisco gets good value for its transportation investments and prepares a long-range Countywide Transportation Plan to guide future investment decisions.”
Here’s the URL:
http://www.sfcta.org/content/section/1/3/
The upshot is that both the mayor and the supes are responsible for the ongoing, poor performance of Muni.
You say:
“My position is that the pension crisis is one of generalized retirement insecurity for tens of millions of Americans, not one of expenditure by government.”
So Jeff Adachi is wrong to claim that the city faces a major fiscal crisis because of its retirement system for city employees?
You say:
“I disagree with the size of the problem and believe that outrage driven by resentment is being used to take the lid off of the problem of golden parachutes by screwing public employees…”
So Jeff Adachi is trying to screw public employees?
You say:
“If Arthur Evans is wrong about the TA/MTA, then what else is he wrong about?”
As noted above, I’m grateful to you for the clarification you offered. However, the TA (that is, the board of supes) is responsible for seeing that San Franciscans get good service for their investments in Muni.
You say:
“Newsom has used each and every agency in City govenrment as a trampoline for his ambitions, sacrificing the provision of government services to compensate graft for competence.”
I would agree that Newsom has been mediocre as a manager. However, I wouldn’t characterize the city bureaucracy, overall, as one that was ever characterized by “competence.”
Moreover, “graft” is a serious charge. Where is your evidence to back up this charge?
You say:
“The reason why labor will probably lose this one is that their view of solidarity has been a one-way street from unorganized folks towards organized folks.”
The public-employee unions have no regard for the taxpayers. Their goal is to get away with as much as possible for themselves. Their officials are highly paid careerists who live in bourgeois comfort.
You say:
“we all know that there is an endless reservoir of entitlement and resentment resident within the middle class and higher white people which increasingly populate a tamer and tamer San Francisco, resentment which is ripe for the tapping by opportunistic politicians.”
Oh please, marc. Ordinary San Franciscans aren’t suffering because Muni workers are bleeding the system of cash?
Poor people in marginal neighborhoods aren’t suffering because of the progressive ideologues’ hostility to public safety and public sanitation?
The city as a whole isn’t suffering because of the cheesiness and mediocrity of its governing class?
May 15, 2010 at 9:00 am
Arthur,
“The Metropolitan Transit Authority consists of the supes using another title for themselves.”
Wrong. The MTA , Municipal Transportation Agency is an agency which operates Muni, the DPT and bicycle/ped programs. The MTA Board is appointed by the Mayor.
The TA, Transportation Authority, is the local congestion management agency which administers the Prop K sales tax financing for capital and planning projects. The Board of Supervisors sits as the TA.
“Have you been following what Jeff Adachi has been saying about the pension crisis? It’s systematic and institutional.”
My position is that the pension crisis is one of generalized retirement insecurity for tens of millions of Americans, not one of expenditure by government.
I disagree with the size of the problem and believe that outrage driven by resentment is being used to take the lid off of the problem of golden parachutes by screwing public employees whose retirements are so paltry as to not contribute measurably to the structural problem.
The way to solve that crisis is to take from those who have been given way too much, the SFPD, SFFD and MEA, and give to those who have so little, the rest of us, all of us.
If Arthur Evans is wrong about the TA/MTA, then what else is he wrong about?
Howard, the SF Republican Party went to bat for Newsom in 2003. Newsom controls the City’s HR department which produced those reports. Newsom supported the platinum parachutes for SFFD and SFPD. Newsom hates the SEIU. Newsom has used each and every agency in City govenrment as a trampoline for his ambitions, sacrificing the provision of government services to compensate graft for competence.
Why should anyone listen to you again? If the SF GOP was wrong in 2003, then what else are you wrong about? Scratch that, the list would be too long. What, if anything, has the SF GOP been right about?
The reason why labor will probably lose this one is that their view of solidarity has been a one-way street from unorganized folks towards organized folks. Is labor responsible for the corporate undertow they’ve been experiencing for the past 35 years? No, but that’s the hand they’ve been dealt, and they’ve refused to learn to swim perpendicular to the current to escape the rip tide and have been swept out to sea.
For that, we all suffer, and we all know that there is an endless reservoir of entitlement and resentment resident within the middle class and higher white people which increasingly populate a tamer and tamer San Francisco, resentment which is ripe for the tapping by opportunistic politicians.
-marc
May 14, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Getting back to the topic of this thread –
If Ross Mirkarimi can get more foot patrols on the streets, that’s fine with me. Out of the squad cars and onto the beat!
However, there’s a curious thing about Mirkarimi’s approach. He touts his foot-patrol measure as an alternative to the Civil Sidewalks Law. In fact, however, passage of this law would clearly enhance the effectiveness of foot patrols.
So we have a contradiction here. I smell a rat.
The contradiction leads me to believe that Mirkarimi’s latest move for foot patrols is just rhetorical posturing on his part. His basic goal is to score rhetorical points against the mayor, not promote civility and safety on sidewalks.
Which is not surprising. Mirkarimi finds himself in a difficult position.
Many of his constituents are clamoring for the Civil Sidewalks Law. But among his core supporters are the city’s progressive ideologues. These have always been hostile to public safety and public sanitation.
Mirkarimi’s solution to this dilemma is to strike a pose for public safety, but in a way that deflects the impetus for an effective tool for promoting public safety.
I wish the human race could figure out a way to get along without politicians. But I think we’re stuck with them.
May 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm
WOOPS: the question marks come from cut and pasting from a PDF.
May 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I’ve been gone for a couple of days. The interesting thing is that everyone, from Marc to me, agrees Newsom is MIA regardless of their politics. If a policy isn’t going to get national publicity, like sorting garbage or regulating cell phones, he’s not interested. He’s forgotten that the first duty of government to to protect the citizens.
Erika, I’m sorry to learn that you were a crime victim. I didn’t know. Due to past and present mayors and bos the firing of bad cops or just about any other unionized city employee is almost impossible. Our leaders have traded away the good of the general public of political support. We will have the opportunity to make some changes in November. Let’s make changes in the interest of the residents, not the city employees.
Marc, here are the increases in city employee benefits. The numbers come from the city’s HR Department. This is what Jeff Adachi is talking about. Simply put, the increase is not sustainable.
Components:
???? Health Insurance (Active and Retirees) ???? Retirement Contributions (SFERS and PERS) ???? Social Security
???? Historical and Projected Costs: ????
FY99-00: $383.7 million ????
FY09-10: $890.3 million
???? 10 year growth: 132.0% ????
FY13-14: $1,437.6 million
???? Projected 4 year growth: 61.5%
May 14, 2010 at 10:32 am
Thanks for your thoughts above, marc. Here are some responses.
You say:
“Not all City employees are overpaid and can look forward to a golden parachute retirement.”
Have you been following what Jeff Adachi has been saying about the pension crisis? It’s systematic and institutional.
You say:
“The bulk of those problems rest with the Police Officers Association, the Firefighters and the Municipal Executives Association.”
Their pay raises are out of scale from the rest, true. However, the pension crisis involves every city employee.
You say:
“Instead of piling on that race to the bottom, progressives need to be making the case for ensuring retirement security for all.”
I take it that this is a criticism of Jeff Adachi’s charter amendment on pensions, right?
You say:
“The voters swiped Muni away from the Supervisors in 1999 and its governance has been the sole province of the Mayor since then.”
The Metropolitan Transit Authority consists of the supes using another title for themselves.
You say:
“The next time one finds oneself in a downtown toilet soliciting political intercourse, it is my understanding that one would score more if one adopted a wider stance.”
I taken it that this is advice to yourself, right?
May 14, 2010 at 6:39 am
Not all City employees are overpaid and can look forward to a golden parachute retirement.
The bulk of those problems rest with the Police Officers Association, the Firefighters and the Municipal Executives Association.
The rest of City workers’ retirements shine only against the backdrop of a society which is completing the process of eliminating any guarantees of retirement security.
Instead of piling on that race to the bottom, progressives need to be making the case for ensuring retirement security for all if for no other reason that seniors will spend all of their stipends in the local economy and those resources will check the use of housing as a proxy for retirement savings.
The voters swiped Muni away from the Supervisors in 1999 and its governance has been the sole province of the Mayor since then.
The next time one finds oneself in a downtown toilet soliciting political intercourse, it is my understanding that one would score more if one adopted a wider stance.
-marc
May 13, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Both the mayor and the supes have a poor record in governing the city. They have been unable to rein in the ridiculous overpayment and over-pensioning of public employees, make MUNI into a reliable and sane system, and maintain public safety, sanitation, and civility.
If you went into a public toilet downtown and chose the first 12 people you met as the mayor and the supes, their overall effectiveness would probably be on par with what we have now.
Not that things are much better anywhere else. The human race has accomplished remarkable things in the arts and sciences, but governance lags far behind. It’s actually amazing that humanity has survived as long as it has, given its ineptitude and folly in public affairs.
The first step on the road to a solution is to stop making excuses for the bunglers, and especially so in the name of progressive politics.
The best way to deal with politicians is the principle advocated by a friend of mine, the late Marty Robinson:
“Use ’em or abuse ’em.”
But for Heavens sake, at least stop making excuses for them!
May 13, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Ross Mirkarimi was the only supervisor to call a hearing to review the MOU.
-marc
May 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm
In a post above, marc, you say:
“Chris Daly was the only supervisor to vote against the 2007 SFPD contract that gave them high raises for not doing their jobs.”
I take it, then, that this comment is a criticism of Ross Mirkarimi, right?
May 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Chris Daly was the only supervisor to vote against the 2007 SFPD contract that gave them high raises for not doing their jobs.
You can’t have it both ways, Arthur.
-marc
May 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm
In a post above, marc says:
“The buck stops with Gavin Newsom, unless the buck stops with the rigid progressive dogma of the dogmatic progressive sect?”
They all deserve each other.
SF is a wonderful city with creative people. But its governing class is an embarrassment. That’s true across the political spectrum from Gavin Newsom to Chris Daly. Ross Mirkarimi is no exception.
The best people avoid City Hall. Who can blame them?
May 13, 2010 at 10:25 am
Fact Anyone Harvey Milk Club, This a progressive alternative. Matter our local progressive sect effective sect.
Sect filthy disagree mental illness. Wedge Among Civil play Among fact.
Analysis failure scare various Civil thoughtful folks past Law progressive seething. Vile two sect effective street prostitution.
Filth crisis, self-righteous Cash Gavin Newsom, Harvey Milk Club conservatives demeans nomadic addicts. Sect progressive later shriveled filth crisis. Spectrum the commuting drug dealers sect’s This folks enemies, ago Eileen Hansen.
Defecation, pigeon-holed sect’s Daly, many, progressive. Mistakes sect conservative can local, wedge obscenities progressive dogmas. One, thoughtful signs obscene Daly Not political fact.
Disarray Red Queen, proved, That’s, nomadic addicts, alcoholics drunks and druggies. Cash slot, true believers Civil visceral hatred issue supports It bivalent So. Off-putting progressive dogmas In, conservative It’s.
Humorlessness of the sect The seething progressive cauldron. Vile language So, worthless piece of shit. Enabled past So, effective, independent has his feet on the ground.
Hurling feces nomadic jamboree handout sect matter Not In. Past disagree, supports These independent! Seething progressive cauldron dogmas alienate commonly progressive, And.
Progressive thoughtful colors These diseased, deranged lone males folks, dynamic.
Care male prostitute political nomadic addicts and alcoholics. Will, colors progressive sect wedge foul-mouthed Cash camp quality of life, mistakes. Chris Daly spectrum progressive These effective antics This dares. Diseased, deranged The failure And camp, homelessness.
The bodily fluids narcotics will That’s colors crystal meth.
True believers off-putting The doctrinal sudden outbursts. Thoughtful Chris Daly, progressive conservative Once visceral hatred.
Ago progressive sect Red Queen gibberish enemies right-winger It’s Milk Club dogmas. Seven-hour revival meeting progressive seething cauldron Quality-Of-Life Court. Oppose, foul-mouthed Cash narrowness narco-nomads, matter street prostitution has his feet off the ground.
Conservatives collective Red Queen progressive sect viewed. Chris, folks the progressive sect’s dogma, scoffed masochism dogmatic sect enemy. Care nomadic jamboree handout Red Queen city’s wedge-maker, however Harvey Milk Club.
Right-winger Care fact And independent matter. Some members of the sect Cash liberals mentally ill. Seething progressive dogmatic cauldron Not The filth crisis. Many progressive sect scares right-winger dogma, camp So, Gavin Newsom analysis?
Bivalent, nomadic addicts inarticulate humorlessness of the sect doctrinal. One mayor’s sect the progressive sect. Ones progressive sect fighting crime perpetuated Gay Activist Alliance. Also Sidewalks also rigid dogma, Gavin Newsom gave, sect, learn filth crisis!
Wedge-maker dogmas filth crisis Sidewalks conservative people, views antagonize, progressive Chris Daly. Conservatives Harvey Milk slot Gavin Newsom always seething sect. Chris Daly, matter Newsom groups filth crisis conservative Haight Ashbury.
Seething sect years drive narrowness drugs and/or alcohol? Dismiss rigid rump foul-mouthed perpetuated. Political bivalent analysis our local progressive sect Cash. Harvey Milk Club, views, also, Anyone ago Gavin enemies people spectrum “medical cannabis”.
Doctrinal, political progressive seething cauldron. Dogmatic progressive sect Care many.
The progressive supports pattern Mark Leno conservative Law Not. Practical consequences filth crisis Care conservative, filth crisis? Liberals Law That’s worthless fucking piece of shit. The dogma of the progressive sect “medical cannabis” independent, enemy.
One Once disagree the bodily fluids Care wedge-maker rigid dogma. Liberals dogmatic progressives propelled, the gang who couldn’t shoot straight? Dogmas wedge-makers Harvey Milk Club effective made past mental illnesses, practical consequences? Not effective conservative effective aimless liberals, worthless piece of shit.
True believers Law Among dogmatic sect years made local It. Now filth crisis groups These conservatives, Chris Daly issue lone male. Narrowness also matter anyone collective simplistic failure.
Hurling feces however, however seven-hour revival meeting.
Colors effective, mental illness dogmatic progressive sect. Upper Haight Red Queen disgust spectrum. Ideologues gave, Care off-putting. Filth crisis Law wicked meth handjob, Gay Activist Alliance foul-mouthed.
Collective Civil voters bivalent off-putting nomadic addicts and alcoholics, –. Groups progressive dogmas nomadic jamboree handout.
Male prostitute, views learn later street prostitution.
The drug dealers, “medical cannabis” thoughtful Not issue Chris Daly charismatic Not? Dogmas This ago crown him emperor, ideologues Not Chris Daly. Care colors Chris filth crisis Cash, collective the progressive sect camp. Can wedge one Chris two however Civil.
Later crystal meth Not one enemy Once. Pigeon-holed mental illness ideologues crown him emperor colors later, humorlessness of the sect. Sidewalks one Among views failure local, ago.
Ideologues spectrum the commuting drug dealers, many. Gavin Newsom drive thoughtful Not doctrinaire nomadic addicts and alcoholics This. Eyes sect sect Among analysis This ones, crown him emperor In Cash.
Matter bipolar progressive sect meth handjob political. Filth crisis, practical consequences, filth crisis Mark Leno conservatives thoughtful, Harvey Milk Club? It’s, Newsom proved Gonzalez drug cult, humorless sect. Mental illness progressive effective It various quality of life!
Thoughtful Harvey Milk Club filth crisis, grime nomadic addicts. City’s mistakes, past dogmatic progressives, progressive dogmatic progressives pure. Gay Activist Alliance In conservatives Law now the dogma of the progressive sect.
Progressive Haight Ashbury anti-social progressive sect. Wedge, progressive sect political seizing the initiative filth crisis enemy, preach to the choir. Thoughtful, conservatives progressive, play Not This Not spectrum filth crisis.
A progressive alternative part Red Queen local the local progressive sect. Colors sect some members of the sect. Also, two however voters dogmas local It’s Newsom.
Progressive bipolar seizing the initiative, however, our local progressive sect, Not crown him emperor! Progressive seething cauldron nomadic jamboree handout threatening seething progressive cauldron. Chris Daly however preach to the choir. The dogma of the seething progressive sect Chris Daly mentally ill?
Views Civil Ross Mirkarimi conservatives These off-putting, –, liberals progressive sudden outbursts. Ideologues visceral hatred play Chris Daly meth handjob. Independent issue anyone commonly –, our local progressive sect.
Simplistic pigeon-holed folks some members of the sect. Mayor’s independent Not, It’s patriarch of the progressive old guard. Humorless sect sect ago Among dogmatic sect. Office mayor’s, filth crisis will, the drug dealers.
Dogmas liberals will, disagree a progressive alternative. Mayor’s Chris Daly rigid rump later mayor’s nomadic addicts, alcoholics drunks and druggies. City’s masochism matter of, liberals, Cash the commuting drug dealers.
Spectrum right-winger failure Haight Ashbury sect’s, ideologues conservative wedge-makers learn. Mark Leno Among supports, This Newsom males, sect, progressive, crown him emperor. Cash filth Not, easily foul-mouthed explosions matter filth crisis.
One So, In, made. Sudden outbursts seething progressive cauldron Milk Club. Thoughtful sect slot gave, conservatives preach to the choir! Conservatives effective Moscone enemy, also Once.
San Francisco Bay Guardian effective Cash will, This voters pattern? Newsom progressive dogmas anti-intellectual voters.
May 13, 2010 at 10:17 am
You can always tell when Arthur has lost a debate. He resorts to infantile name calling.
May 13, 2010 at 9:49 am
How many disciplinary hearings were held while Theresa Sparks was Police Commission President? How much was the raise that Newsom gave to the POA in the year leading up to his reelection? Who was the only supervisor to vote against that contract?
The buck stops with Gavin Newsom, unless the buck stops with the rigid progressive dogma of the dogmatic progressive sect?
May 12, 2010 at 10:45 pm
In a post above, Robert B. Livingston said:
“it [the Civil Sidewalks Law] will probably be used as a wedge issue to divide conservatives and liberals in the November election.”
There are more colors in the city’s political spectrum than liberals and conservatives. This simplistic, bivalent analysis is commonly made by our local progressive sect.
Anyone who disagrees with any of the progressive sect’s dogmas is a conservative or a right-winger in their eyes. So there can be only two groups – liberals and conservatives.
In fact, however, there are many people of various political colors in the spectrum. Among them are thoughtful, independent folks who cannot be easily pigeon-holed into any one doctrinaire slot.
These are the ones who gave Care Not Cash its victory some years ago and who also propelled Gavin Newsom into the mayor’s office later.
The progressive sect scoffed at them all and viewed them all as enemies. That’s why Care Not Cash proved to be an effective wedge issue. It was the the doctrinal narrowness of the progressive ideologues who made Care Not Cash into a wedge.
The same dynamic is now in play with the Civil Sidewalks Law. Once again, the progressive sect views anyone who dares to disagree with its dogmas on this matter as a conservative, a right-winger, or an enemy.
Once again, the progressive sect will alienate the thoughtful, independent voters and drive them into the camp that supports the Civil Sidewalks Law. Once again, the wedge-makers will be the sect itself.
And no one will be more effective in doing so than the most foul-mouthed and off-putting wedge-maker of them all, Chris Daly.
This pattern is more than a failure on the part of the sect to learn from its past mistakes.
It’s collective masochism.
May 12, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Sorry to misspell Ross Mirkarimi’s name above.
I was ranting in a hurry– which should illustrate the danger of “being in a hurry”.
Also I am sorry to give the impression that I dislike Haight Street. It has its pluses and magical days– like every distinctive neighborhood in San Francisco.
Using Muni to get there can be torture! I love West Portal– but forget that anymore! (The KLM lines are almost guaranteed to “stick” after Forrest Hill– one needs to plan 40 minutes for the trip).
Because I had a similar experience, I can totally relate to Erika’s frustration trying to get answers or action at the station on Bryant Street.
It was a shocking revelation to be diverted to a side room, have the door be shut, and then be told by a chagrined officer– on the QT– that “nothing will be done.”
Why!?
“Because that’s the way it is.”
I was thankful at least for an honest answer.
I can’t see any purpose in Sit/Lie except to toss a bone and hope the complainers (people who complain that they do not feel safe) will go away. As Chris Daly has pointed out, it will probably be used as a wedge issue to divide conservatives and liberals in the November election.
… and while we are focused on tramps lying on sidewalks, our Police Chief drools over Homeland Security money– and mongers fear to be reported in squibs on the inside pages.
Sigh.
May 12, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Generic, here’s the link to the Controller’s report on Mirk’s pilot foot patrol program, including recommendations.
http://sf-police.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=14681
And here’s the link to other SFPD Effectiveness Review reports:
http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=1579
May 12, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Nice exchange,
Just in a yelling match with players and I was saying we needed to put a Charter Amendment up against Sit/Lie that called for not just Foot Patrols but also Koban (‘cop boxes’) like the ones used around the world where cop unions aren’t so strong as to keep officers hiding in dognut shops.
So Ross, if you’re reading, will you put a measure on the November ballot that designates, say … 24 Kobans ? They do it all over the world. You drive by Haight and Ashbury or Haight and Masonic or Haight and Stanyan at 3am and there is a cop in there in the middle of the street looking at you. Feinstein did this, why can’t the Progressives?
h.
May 12, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Foot patrols have been the single most important immediate strategy for improving neighborhood peace. Every time I see patrolling officers I say “thanks” to Ross Mirkirimi.
In the Tenderloin I have witnessed several occasions where patrolling police were able to thoughtfully and efficiently diffuse bad situations before they got worse. Cops in cars rarely have the eyes or ears to locate trouble before blood flows. Instead they must rely on citizens to be their eyes and ears.
The Sit/Lie ordinance was cobbled together in a hurry to placate residents who feel unsafe. Once implemented, it is unlikely to make them feel safer for long.
Responsible patrolling officers in touch with their neighborhood are likely to really improve safety. From time to time, Mirkirimi’s request for more foot patrols has met resistance from “experts”– often out-of-town experts– who claim that such policing is too old fashioned. Such experts are usually more expert at telling their patrons what they want to hear than expert at having good common sense about real human needs.
Most people long to live in a community that cares about them and for which they can care about.
Speaking for myself, I want to feel comfortable walking up to a police officer who is not too busy just to to chitchat and let them know that I am grateful for their service. I don’t want a to talk to a police officer who has to roll down his window. I do not enjoy going to public relations shindigs to hear bullshit from people I am unlikely to ever see twice.
Like a lot of people, I do not like walking on Haight Street.
I have seldom been afraid of the pathetic social outcasts that hang there because they have no home (although some unleashed pitbulls might be another story).
I dislike the street because the tawdry commercialism is alienating– many restaurants and shops look unclean possibly because they run on browbeaten sweatshop labor. There is a noticeable lack of public restrooms and places to rest. I do not always want to buy something just to use a restroom or just to sit down. Further MUNI service to the neighborhood is crawling and unpredictable– especially at night. Further, the street is poorly lit with many dark corners. I am afraid of tripping and falling over a curb than over some Goth-dressed figure with a lamb’s crook.
I am most afraid of huge SUVs blindly careening around corners and blasting a beat so loud that they turn my bones to jelly. I don’t like mean drunks that spill out of bars– and the Haight has its share.
Why can’t San Francisco better enforce existing laws about these things?
Visible police mitigate many problems. Visible police that have the respect of the people they serve mitigate problems and help build better communities.
I respect the police on my street, and I see them doing a good job.
May 12, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Howard,
The problem is the cops CAN’T be fired! There are only 2 people in this city with the power to fire any police officers: the police chief and the mayor. They refuse to fire cops or hold them accountable in any way. So, I ask again: what are violent crime survivors such as myself supposed to do, exactly, when the police fail to even TRY to protect us?
Ruth,
Interesting how you ignored the questions of me, an actual violent crime survivor. Here is my case number: 980 490 385. The next time you listen to a member of the SFPD top brass say we need a sit/lie law, why don’t you ask them why they refused to collect physical evidence, refused to photograph my injuries, refused to let me look at mug books and refused to even interview eye-witnesses who came to my aid but were unable to stop the perpetrator?
Then you can tell the TRUTH about Ross Mirkarimi! He is a man who has literally stopped crimes in progress http://sfist.com/2005/09/22/political_junkie_ross_will_save_the_day.php and who shows up at crime scenes whenever there is a shooting in his district. He has been supporting foot patrols for years, and has already passed foot patrol legislation at the Board twice.
May 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I note, Luke, that you say above:
“Give up on Sit/Lie. That debate has been crushed.”
That’s what opponents of Care Not Cash said, too.
Everybody was opposed to it – except the voters.
May 12, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Newsom has been AWOL on public safety, hence Mirk’s attempt to do what the mayor should himself be doing… exercising leadership over the police department. Sure, the Mirk’s in a difficult position, but at least he’s showing the leadership so obviously lacking in Newsom and Gascon.
Give up on Sit/Lie. That debate has been crushed. Move on to community policing and foot patrols as Progressives have supported all along.
May 12, 2010 at 3:06 pm
In a comment above, Luke, you say:
“Mirkarimi is at least trying to resolve the clamor for leadership and police enforcement of crime. Your penchant for opportunistic personal attacks is worn and transparent.”
Ross Mirkarimi is as much of a poseur as Gavin Newsom.
I live in district five. I’m one of Mirkarimi’s constituents. I’ve had plenty of personal experiences with him over the years.
When it became apparent about a year ago that a public safety crisis was developing in the Haight, Mirkarimi at first ignored it. He failed to come to community meetings that were convened specifically for the purpose of dealing with it. He didn’t mention it in his newsletter to constituents.
When the suggestion for a sit-lie law first emerged, many constituents sent Mirkarimi e-mails, asking him where he stood on the issue. They got no answers from him.
I personally requested Mirkarimi on several occasions to have his Public Safety Committee hold hearings devoted to the problems caused to neighborhoods by the migratory addicts and alcoholics who flock here from elsewhere. He refused to do so.
Mirkarimi’s current push for foot patrols is a rhetorical response to the mayor’s push for the Civil Sidewalks Law.
The mayor, for his part, also tried for a long time to ignore the festering public-safety crisis in the Haight. He acted, finally, only because he was embarrassed into doing so by his neighbors (myself included) in the Haight.
Both Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supe Ross Mirkarimi are posturing in front of the cameras. Neither is exerting real, practical leadership. The best that ordinary folks can do is to play the two off against each other and hope for some progress along the way.
Please stop make excuses for cheesy politicians and the failures of the status quo. What’s progressive about that?
May 12, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Arthur, give credit where credit is due. Mirkarimi is at least trying to resolve the clamor for leadership and police enforcement of crime. Your penchant for opportunistic personal attacks is worn and transparent.
May 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Ordinary folks living in the city want their neighborhoods to be safe, clean, and peaceful. This is a simple, honest, straightforward need.
So far, the city’s governing class has not been able to respond effectively to this need.
Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supe Ross Mirkarimi are both more interested in rhetorical posturing, and promoting their own careers, than dealing with this need in a practical, effective way.
Supe Chris Daly is only interested in relieving himself publicly of his personal, pent-up testosterone pressures. No rational person at City Hall takes his adolescent-male behavior seriously anymore.
The police would rather ride around in cars than walk the beat.
The media would rather protect the special interests they serve. For the Chron, that’s downtown corporations. For the Bay Guardian, that’s the nonprofit political complex and the cannabis capitalists.
In the midst of the pervasive failures of the status quo, it’s up to ordinary folks in the neighborhoods to remain centered, focused, and correct in working on behalf of the common good and the civilized life.
And that’s what we’ll do.
May 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm
h,
I grew up in the 60s. The cop on the beat’s name was George. Never knew his last name. He knew most of the kids by first and last names and where a some of us lived. But, that was the 60s. Things are different today. When we were kids we settled disagreements with our fists, not guns. We drank a little beer or vodka in Mountain Lake Park. Later we smoked some dope. Today hard drugs are everywhere. Different times call for different methods.
I’m neither for or against community policing. I’m for letting the professionals decide on the deployment. I am against havin the cops deployed from the BOS Chambers. Last week I was at a community meeting where I spoke to a police Captain. He told me that they are now trying a lot of different things rather than doing the same old, same old as they did under the previous chief. It seems every time Gascon takes a step he walks into another pile of shit. It took a long time for the PD to get to where it is; it will take a while to turn it around. In a post above Luke “this is clearly a leadership issue.” Let’s give the new guy a chance to lead.
Marc,
I’m not standing for or against anyone, unionized or otherwise. I’m standing up for good governance, which this city sorely needs. If some cops are not doing their jobs they should be fired, just like in the real world..
May 12, 2010 at 11:41 am
I think support or opposition of sit/lie may well come down to whether or not one trusts the SFPD. I wish I could say I do trust them, but I don’t. This is not because so many of my friends have been brutalized by them – as many have. I could chalk that up to a few bad apples.
I don’t trust the police because they weren’t there for me when I needed them. Not when I was mugged and beaten in 1998, and not when my building was robbed 2 years ago. I filed complaints, even pleaded with robbery investigators at 850 Bryant to do something – anything – to help me get justice. They refused.
Howard, what do you ‘law and order’ type Republicans suggest I do, exactly?
Ruth, can you explain to me why police refused to do their jobs even when I was more than willing to do whatever it took to bring the perpetrators to justice?
San Franciscans pay our police offers very well. They need to do their jobs!
I do think that street harassment is a real problem. I say we use guerrilla tactics to stop them. We need descriptions of these thugs, reports of where and when they have been spotted, and even pictures of them. If we had that, I’d be more than happy to help distribute these materials all over town. After my mugging, I told everyone in the neighborhood about it! If the SFPD won’t solve problems, members of the community can and must look out for each other!
May 12, 2010 at 10:01 am
Arthur,
A follow-up. SF Weekly is pissed cause the Sacramento Bee this morning wrote that Henderson et al lied about Kamala’s conviction rate (she “fibbed”). Weekly’s mad cause they broke the story of prevarication and weren’t credited.
h.
May 12, 2010 at 8:46 am
Wow, Howard Epstein standing up for the union workers at the SFPD, the ones whose avoidance of an honest day’s work makes the most slacker Muni operators look like they’re breaking into a sweat.
The SFPD has no connection to our communities, are largely a commuter force, brazenly overpaid by Newsom with little or no accountability. The deal was that Newsom would pay the cops well, they did not have to do their job, and they’d not fuck with his ambitions.
Everyone wins but San Franciscans in that deal.
The best part is that Theresa Sparks’ own record, after running a venerated dildo operation into the ground, is one as Police Commission President during the time that the drug lab scandal was brewing, during the time that the SFPD with criminal convictions were not disclosing said in court, and during the hiring of Gascón, cutting a deal where he would hitch his wagon to the POA, and play ball with Sparks and Newsom on a wedge issue ballot measure designed to further Newsom and Sparks’ political fortunes.
One might think that one with a weak heart would do well to avoid the stresses of politics, unless, of course, Sparks really does not have a weak heart and her carpetbagging story is a sham.
Such is the drill when you’re pimping astroturf candidates.
More important than foot patrols, we need to establish a two track promotion process where San Francisco resident cops are on the fast track while commuter cops are on the slow track for promotion so that connection to community is prioritized as well as proximity for first responders who tend to live on the other side of the BART tube or one or two bridges.
-marc
May 12, 2010 at 3:21 am
Arthur,
Yeah, I left when Campos did and missed Henderson. I was covering the ‘daylighting creeks’ hearing David was kind of enough to host with the SFPUC in Maxwell’s Land Use Committee across the hall. Neither of us left to protest anything it’s just that you can’t be two places at once and we’d worked for several months to give the creek advocates a platform they’ve awaited for decades. We should know by September if the Mayor will embrace their ideas.
And yes, I don’t believe Henderson. He’s just covering up for the cops and clearing the way for the Sit/Lie wedge issue to reach the ballot. A better ballot measure for Progs would be to require the cops to bring back and staff the Koban Feinstein had in place. They work fine in Europe and Asia and provide a permanent law enforcement presence in the most dangerous and tourist heavy locations. Cops didn’t like em cause it’s dangerous duty but that’s just the nature of the job sometimes and they should suck it up and do it.
h.
May 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Thanks for your post above, Luke.
You say:
“Last time I checked, loitering, assaults, public drunkenness, littering, disturbing the peace and destruction of public property are against the law.”
The problem is that existing law does not address the geography of incivility and illegality.
In other words, existing law does not deal effectively with the role of turf in the struggle to keep our neighborhoods safe, clean, and peaceful.
Here’s the turf problem:
Packs of migratory addicts and alcoholics flock here from across the state and nation, in search of easy access to drugs and lax law enforcement. They have created a toxic subculture for themselves based on addiction and hostility to recovery programs. They squat in public spaces, colonizing them as their own turf, to the exclusion of others. Many have out-of-control dogs.
They become rooted in these pieces of turf, fanning out from them and returning to them in the course of days and weeks. They use the turf as a basis for drug dealing, assaults on residents, urination and defecation, setting fires, dumping used hypodermic needs, spray-painting graffiti, and other activities that destabilize neighborhoods.
The police have difficulty in dealing with these turf seizures because of the irrational requirement of needing a formal civilian complaint before they can act to unblock sidewalks. As noted in a post above, this requirement is the result of General Order 6.11 as interpreted by SF courts.
The proposed Civil Sidewalks Law will help level the playing field, giving the police a needed tool in restoring public civility and safety, especially in at-risk neighborhoods.
The law is not draconian. It specifies that there will be a warning only, with no criminal sanctions, for first-time offenders. It’s based on a Seattle law whose constitutionality has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes SF.
Let’s return civility and safety to the geography of San Francisco. It’s the progressive thing to do.
May 11, 2010 at 7:51 pm
How about some leadership from Newsom and Gascon instead of blaming their leadership failings on the need for new draconian laws?
Last time I checked, loitering, assaults, public drunkenness, littering, disturbing the peace and destruction of public property are against the law.
May 11, 2010 at 7:18 pm
You make this observation above, Luke:
“there’s no guarantee cops will do what is required of them.”
That’s true for any and every law.
Should we, then, not have a government of laws?
Or isn’t this a better solution? –
Have a mechanism to enforce police accountable.
We have that in SF. It’s called the Office of Citizen Complaints. Granted, it needs to be improved. But making the improvement is better than ditching government by laws.
May 11, 2010 at 7:02 pm
El Greco makes a good point: No matter whether Sit/Lie or foot patrol legislation passes, there’s no guarantee cops will do what is required of them.
This is clearly a leadership issue.
In Sun Tzu’s Art of War, unclear orders are the fault of the general. Orders that are clear but ignored are punishable by death to set an example to the rank and file that insubordination will not be tolerated.
May 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm
In a post above, h, you make this comment:
“D-9’s David Campos cornered them [police brass] yesterday and forced them to admit that they did not need any citizen’s arrest or anything else to bust the punks.”
Did you stay for the testimony of Assistant D.A. Paul Henderson, later? Or did you join David Campos in leaving the chamber before Henderson spoke?
If you stayed, as I did, then you heard Henderson testify. He noted that police brass were misinformed in what they had said.
He testified that SF courts interpret the language of General Order 6.11 as requiring a civilian complaint before the police can legally direct sidewalk squatters to move along.
He should know because he’s the one who prosecutes such cases.
Or is he part of the conspiracy, too?
May 11, 2010 at 4:22 pm
If both the mayor’s Civil Sidewalks Law and Mirkarimi’s foot-patrol proposal appear on the November ballot, there will be a significant number of voters who support both. Such will be the case, ironically, even though the mayor will scorn Mirkarimi’s measure, and Mirkarimi will do the same to the mayor’s.
This situation – of support for both measures – will play to the advantage of residents who are concerned about public safety. I could see a group forming that would advocate for both measures. Their motto would be something like this: Make SF Safer – More Foot Patrols With Better Tools.
If this development occurred, it would increase the turnout of public-safety-minded voters, which would affect, in turn, the outcome of the supes’ races.
So I, for one, hope that Mirkarimi follows through and comes up with a good, practical foot-patrol ballot measure. By doing so, he will make public safety the big issue of the November election and increase the likelihood of voter approval for the Civil Sidewalks Law.
Go, Ross!
May 11, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Posted previously on SFBulldog.com:
Cops lying to Haight community
We all know that the motto of this police force is: “Lie til you die.”. That’s what former chief, Alex Fagan told them to do during Fajitagate and they’re still doing exactly that. In this case they’ve been lying to the Haight Street merchants and neighborhood residents.
They’ve been saying they don’t have the power to clear the sidewalks of the ‘Narco-Nomads’ (thanks Arthur Evans) who roam the West coast and harass tourists and shop owners at every stop. The cops are lying. D-9’s David Campos cornered them yesterday and forced them to admit that they did not need any citizen’s arrest or anything else to bust the punks. So, why aren’t they doing it?
Because they’re letting the business people and citizens suffer so that the cops can blame it on Progressive politicians. The cops are sacrificing the people for political reasons. Why aren’t you shocked?
Dude, that’s some cynical shit. The cops force the voters to come out and sign complaints against the asshole thugs and the cops know good and fucking well that these assholes are going to retaliate. The cops know they don’t need to involve the public and the lying bastards don’t care. They want the people to suffer as much as possible so that the public outrage will grow and harm anyone opposing their useless Sit/Lie ordinance. It was interesting to read C.W. Nevius this morning saying that he couldn’t believe the cops wouldn’t bust the Pitt Bull crew if they could. Well they can C.W. and you watched them admit it just the same as I did. Where’s your condemnation of the cop strategy?
I’m hearing other writers say that the cops don’t bust the thugs because they know that Kamala Harris won’t prosecute them. Since when is Kamala Harris being incompetent an excuse not to enforce the law? So, which chickenshit police chief was absent?
That would be George Gascon. He couldn’t make it because he’s been too busy partying with the Gettys and Newsom and Mark Leno and Michael Tilson Thomas (if you believe Leah Garchik). That’s not why he was a no show.
He was a no show because he’s a lawyer and he has a bar card. Lying in public to cover your force’s derelection of duty could cost him that bar card and that is the absolute truth. He’s fine as long as he has no knowledge of the crimes of commission and omission being commited by his staff. But, if he has to stand in front of David Campos and admit that his troops have had the power to clean up the mess on Haight all along and intentionally allowed it to fester? The glow would be off of that fucking pumpkin pretty fast. Have another glass of champagne chief. Now get your officers on the sidewalk in the Haight doing the job they could have been doing all along. Or, if the POA won’t allow them to do that? Get your sorry ass down there and do it yourself! Maybe Kamala will prosecute them for you. She owes you right? I mean, you did endorse her for State Attorney General.
May 11, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Yeah, but whatever. Given that the board seems relatively decided on this issue, given that we’re fine with micromanaging certain areas of law enforcement, can’t we just cut to the chase and find out if it works?
It’s very true that this whole Sit/Lie issue reeks of redundancy with regard to foot patrols in D5.
We’ve been bitching about this for a full Presidential term. Let’s just get it on the ballot, deploy the program and get some stats already. It’s sucking out the oxygen from other issues that haven’t already been addressed.
May 11, 2010 at 2:52 pm
All is useless,
Unless there is a Progressive mayor and maybe not then unless you get one who moves the 300-400 desk jockeys with guns onto the streets. Or one who dictates that Feinstein’s cop boxes be returned to high crime and tourist areas. And demands single officer foot patrols.
Howard, the cops do a lousy job and you gotta know that. You’re certainly old enough to remember when every young child knew the cop on the beat. I certainly am. That’s community policing. The rest is just bullshit.
Arthur, remember these lines: “we’ve sold away our hearts, a sordid boon … getting and spending we lay waste our powers … ” It’s Keats calling for a return to simpler times. I don’t need to have the entire capitalistic system replaced to be happy. I’d just like to see regular cops on a regular beat. We did it here for over 100 years.
h.
May 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Not too long ago, I was walking in my neighborhood. One of our poor street people was kicking over trash and recycle containers that had been put out on the curb. Half a block away were two cops walking the beat. The cops greeted this unfortunate homeless person by name, but neglected to say anything to him about spilling people’s trash all over the sidewalk and street. Damn, I thought, how lucky we are to have foot patrols that help these folks maintain their self-esteem.
May 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm
We have a well paid Police Chief and Command Staff. The supervisors have a lot of other pressing issues that are facing the City to work on. They should not tell the professionals how to deploy the officers.
May 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“it arguably deterred street level crimes”
It arguably cured cancer, too. But we’re not interested in arguments once a pilot program has been put in place; we’re interested in data. Did it or didn’t it? Citation please.
May 11, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Ross Mirkarimi’s foot-patrol legislation could be a good thing. We’ll have to see what’s in the details.
In any case, legislation for more foot patrols is not necessarily in opposition to the proposed Civil Sidewalks Law. If foot patrols have the tool of the Civil Sidwalks Law to use, they will be more effective.
What is a contradiction, however, is to push for more foot patrols while opposing the Civil Sidewalks Law. That’s like trying to drive a car with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake.