“Homeless man dies nine days after city offers restitution,” On Guard, April 18
Neil Taylor’s mark on San Francisco
Thank you for your column, in general, but specifically for your piece on Neil Taylor. I met Neil a couple times on Muni and enjoyed our conversations, including hearing a recording of his piano improvisations. Now, from your article, I’ve learned about the cruel effect on him of The City’s Super Bowl sweep and about his death.
I’m sad to learn of both, but grateful to you for reporting them, for your care and respect.
A lesson for the future
I saw this poor man struggling up the hill toward California Street on Easter Sunday. Quite revealing to ponder that The City prefers a billion dollar tunnel to the middle of Chinatown — purportedly $800 million in federal monies — while homeless, indigent and often paranoid schizophrenics roam around the downtown area and head up Nob Hill, while the general public races toward their tourist destinations and tries hard to not see, hear or in any way acknowledge the presence of San Francisco’s untouchables. Another homeless man to perhaps save from another Neil Taylor-like future?
No sympathy for Taylor
Cut the sappy sentimentality. One less slob bum on the streets of San Francisco.
Stop celebrating weakness
When life is tough, the tough keep going. Stop celebrating weakness.
Neil’s neglect is a tragedy
I enjoy your On Guard columns because they raise social responsibility issues. Stealing Neil’s dignity was immoral. Neil could be our father or relative, and society is supposed to provide for the helpless. How is this not a form of genocide?
Classical music in memory
Listening to Chopin now. Thanks.
“A million reasons S.F. must build housing,” Joel Engardio, April 16
Planning for disaster
Joel Engardio’s article is just another promo for the little-known “Plan Bay Area” Redevelopment Program, which is a directive for open-ended regional growth and development.
The plan was formulated by interests in the real estate and construction industries, which thrive on a cancer cell model of endless population growth, mass urbanization and overcrowded living conditions. Although The City may grow to more than one million people, population growth is a biological and social phenomenon — not a product of technological or economic progress. Based on an analysis of the technical aptitude and job qualifications of the future workforce, it is anticipated that most of this future population will not to earn enough to live here, no matter how much housing is built.
Furthermore, the Bay Area’s supposedly booming economy is already heavily subsidized by government money and without these continued subsidies, another financial collapse is eminent. Considering the lack of job skills in the future population and an inherently unstable government-based economy, there’s no reason to justify building hundreds of monstrous stack-and-cram, big-box housing projects throughout The City.
Contrary to Engardio’s utterly foolish pep talk article, planning for a million people in San Francisco is planning for a socioeconomic and environmental disaster.
Galen L. Dutch