BayGuardian ownership is based in Canada and has no vested interest in accurate,local investigative reporting in San Francisco.Radical,progressive special-interest groups—wolves in progressivesâ clothing, establishits editorial agenda.Tom Ferriole
Ingeneral, City Hall has been police-phobic since about the time former MayorWillie Brown took hold, followed by his protÃ©gÃ©, wily Mayor Gavin Newsom.Youget the drift when former Mayor Newsom is quoted as saying he went intopolitics, basically in negative reaction to code requirements for his wine shopto have a utility sink.Smallminds over-react to relatively minor civic contingencies in the publicâs bestinterest. Criminal minds resist civicaccountability (Supervisor Scott Weiner currently proposes to limit SFPDoversight of potentially stolen antique goods).Notto mention a supposed progressive Board of Supervisors that routinely stripsSFPD of jurisdiction for any number of critical areas relative to crimeprevention and management of neighborhood quality of life, including noise fromnightclubs, palm reader permits, and containment of potentially stolenproperty.Apolice chiefâs professional recommendation ought to count for more in theperception of the media and residents than a personal whim.GiveSFPD taser-like devises to SFPD, with very minimal conditions.TomFerriole
Whenare San Francisco residents going to wake up and smell the special interests atCity Hall—when the civility, livability, and character of our most cherishedresidential neighborhoods and public spaces are irretrievable lost?TheBoard of Appeals wonât help opponents of the EIR for the proposed soccer-fieldexpansion because, like the Planning Commission, it is bought and sold by theMayorâs Office and the Board of Supervisors.TheBOS primarily operates as a clearinghouse for special-interest access to yourneighborhood and civic assets.Districtelections inappropriately set up our sups as power-pawnbrokers of our lives,rather than citywide coalition-builders for a better San Francisco.Inthe old days when we had citywide elections, you had a full Board you couldturn to, in support of your case; today, you have one representativedesperately trading deals to keep his paycheck.BoardPresident David Chiu is perhaps most symbolic of this crisis ofrepresentation. His resume filed forpublic office is padded. Heâs neverheld a real job.Ifwe had had citywide elections, would David Chiu even be BOS president, muchless aspiring to be Mayor?TomFerrioletomferriole@yahoo.com
RememberCritical Mass during the Newson regime?Itwas a license for bicycle activists to dominate civic life. During Critical Mass demonstrations, residents and touristscouldnât cross the street in the heart of San Franciscoâs tourist and shoppingdistricts.Thewrong faction took control of our civic life, and Gavâs still pumping at thestate level.Why?TomFerriole
JoeHernandezâs parents might find it beneficial to contact someone who hasextensively researched public documents related to the City of San Franciscoâspromotion of nightclubs.Atthe final Board of Supervisors committee meeting in late 2009, president DavidChiu denied the possibility of a current crisis of nightlife violence, inopposition to resident and police testimony, and supported extending cluboperations to 6:00 a.m. TheS.F. Entertainment Commission had an egregious history of lax attention to clubsecurity plans.TheHernandezâs lawyer is right in attributing the motivation behind not addressingpotential nightlife violence (and behind the prevailing legislation) asprimarily for profit.Iam publicly accessible in the phone book or thru firstname.lastname@example.org
Ihave read the whole nightlife economic impact report, a so-called studyrequested by Mark Leno stand-in, Supervisor Scott Wiener. Itâs a PowerPoint presentation with vague citationsyou canât crosscheck against public source documents (similar to the flimsyeconomic report produced by clubs and used by Leno to push for establishment ofthe S.F. Entertainment Commission).Thereport lumps nightlife revenues together with those of a variety of businessand cultural entities, including the San Francisco Ballet, without detailedbreakout of hours of operation or analyses of likely associated environmentalimpacts to neighborhoods. The reportdefines nightlife as occurring after 8:00 p.m., without basis in historical orcurrent noise laws, for example.Wienercalled for the report in response to the horrific violence and loss of life atnightclubs, as if analysis of profit might justify or refute legitimacy oflethal business impacts in a modern American city.Fortunately,for once vital communities struggling with the violence and degradation ofnightlife sponsored by the EC and paid for by taxpayers, the report Wiener instigatedsuggests that nightclubs represent a mere 14 percent of its speciously definednightlife revenues.Nevertheless,resident tax dollars to the tune of millions have ensured continued ECviability, something they never directly supported in the first place.Ina better S.F., policing clubs was left to...SFPD.
Thisis fairly loose reporting with regard to noise and nightlife legislation. Particularly misleading is the credit givenNewsom, as if he took a hard line on nightlife problems and violence. Newsom sponsored legislation that expandedclub operations until 6:00 a.m. in 2009, and misrepresented it as a solution tothe accelerating violence.Revisionsto noise laws stripped SFPD of jurisdiction for noise coming from inside anightclub (we can thank bartender Chris Daley, Bevan Dufty and sponsor TomAmmiano for that bit of nonsense).Newsomâs signature gutted protections for peaceful enjoyment ofresidences throughout S.F.Iassume the Examiner is still owned by the company that also owns The RegencyCenter, which has a history of club violence and neighborhooddisturbances. If so, maybe itâs amatter of ethics for you to disclose entertainment affiliations, including thepercentage of advertising revenues the Examiner receives from clubs.
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation