Gavs Got to Go, for Good 
Member since Apr 30, 2013


Stats

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Tony Hall is man of many signatures, explanations


Bay
Guardian 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 progressives’ clothing, establish
its editorial agenda.

Tom Ferriole

Posted by Tomferriole on 08/21/2012 at 9:35 PM

Re: “S.F. Police Commission delays decision on use of Tasers


In
general, City Hall has been police-phobic since about the time former Mayor
Willie Brown took hold, followed by his protégé, wily Mayor Gavin Newsom.

You
get the drift when former Mayor Newsom is quoted as saying he went into
politics, basically in negative reaction to code requirements for his wine shop
to have a utility sink.

Small
minds over-react to relatively minor civic contingencies in the public’s best
interest. Criminal minds resist civic
accountability (Supervisor Scott Weiner currently proposes to limit SFPD
oversight of potentially stolen antique goods).

Not
to mention a supposed progressive Board of Supervisors that routinely strips
SFPD of jurisdiction for any number of critical areas relative to crime
prevention and management of neighborhood quality of life, including noise from
nightclubs, palm reader permits, and containment of potentially stolen
property.

A
police chief’s professional recommendation ought to count for more in the
perception of the media and residents than a personal whim.

Give
SFPD taser-like devises to SFPD, with very minimal conditions.

Tom
Ferriole

Posted by Tomferriole on 08/03/2012 at 9:56 PM

Re: “Board rejects appeal of Beach Chalet soccer fields


When
are San Francisco residents going to wake up and smell the special interests at
City Hall—when the civility, livability, and character of our most cherished
residential neighborhoods and public spaces are irretrievable lost?

The
Board of Appeals won’t help opponents of the EIR for the proposed soccer-field
expansion because, like the Planning Commission, it is bought and sold by the
Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors.

The
BOS primarily operates as a clearinghouse for special-interest access to your
neighborhood and civic assets.

District
elections inappropriately set up our sups as power-pawnbrokers of our lives,
rather than citywide coalition-builders for a better San Francisco.

In
the old days when we had citywide elections, you had a full Board you could
turn to, in support of your case; today, you have one representative
desperately trading deals to keep his paycheck.

Board
President David Chiu is perhaps most symbolic of this crisis of
representation. His resume filed for
public office is padded. He’s never
held a real job.

If
we had had citywide elections, would David Chiu even be BOS president, much
less aspiring to be Mayor?

Tom
Ferriole
tomferriole@yahoo.com

Posted by Tomferriole on 07/11/2012 at 9:23 PM

Re: “Witness blames pace as biker charged with felony manslaughter


Remember
Critical Mass during the Newson regime?

It
was a license for bicycle activists to dominate civic life. During Critical Mass demonstrations, residents and tourists
couldn’t cross the street in the heart of San Francisco’s tourist and shopping
districts.

The
wrong faction took control of our civic life, and Gav’s still pumping at the
state level.

Why?

Tom
Ferriole

Posted by Tom Ferriole on 06/16/2012 at 9:05 PM

Re: “Slain student’s parents sue nightclub


Joe
Hernandez’s parents might find it beneficial to contact someone who has
extensively researched public documents related to the City of San Francisco’s
promotion of nightclubs.

At
the final Board of Supervisors committee meeting in late 2009, president David
Chiu denied the possibility of a current crisis of nightlife violence, in
opposition to resident and police testimony, and supported extending club
operations to 6:00 a.m.

The
S.F. Entertainment Commission had an egregious history of lax attention to club
security plans.

The
Hernandez’s lawyer is right in attributing the motivation behind not addressing
potential nightlife violence (and behind the prevailing legislation) as
primarily for profit.

I
am publicly accessible in the phone book or thru tomferriole@yahoo.com

Posted by Tom Ferriole on 06/01/2012 at 11:35 PM

Re: “SF keeps eye on dark side of nightlife


I
have read the whole nightlife economic impact report, a so-called study
requested by Mark Leno stand-in, Supervisor Scott Wiener. It’s a PowerPoint presentation with vague citations
you can’t crosscheck against public source documents (similar to the flimsy
economic report produced by clubs and used by Leno to push for establishment of
the S.F. Entertainment Commission).

The
report lumps nightlife revenues together with those of a variety of business
and cultural entities, including the San Francisco Ballet, without detailed
breakout of hours of operation or analyses of likely associated environmental
impacts to neighborhoods. The report
defines nightlife as occurring after 8:00 p.m., without basis in historical or
current noise laws, for example.

Wiener
called for the report in response to the horrific violence and loss of life at
nightclubs, as if analysis of profit might justify or refute legitimacy of
lethal business impacts in a modern American city.

Fortunately,
for once vital communities struggling with the violence and degradation of
nightlife sponsored by the EC and paid for by taxpayers, the report Wiener instigated
suggests that nightclubs represent a mere 14 percent of its speciously defined
nightlife revenues.

Nevertheless,
resident tax dollars to the tune of millions have ensured continued EC
viability, something they never directly supported in the first place.

In
a better S.F., policing clubs was left to...SFPD.


Posted by Tom Ferriole on 05/14/2012 at 9:18 PM

Re: “SF keeps eye on dark side of nightlife


This
is fairly loose reporting with regard to noise and nightlife legislation. Particularly misleading is the credit given
Newsom, as if he took a hard line on nightlife problems and violence. Newsom sponsored legislation that expanded
club operations until 6:00 a.m. in 2009, and misrepresented it as a solution to
the accelerating violence.

Revisions
to noise laws stripped SFPD of jurisdiction for noise coming from inside a
nightclub (we can thank bartender Chris Daley, Bevan Dufty and sponsor Tom
Ammiano for that bit of nonsense).
Newsom’s signature gutted protections for peaceful enjoyment of
residences throughout S.F.

I
assume the Examiner is still owned by the company that also owns The Regency
Center, which has a history of club violence and neighborhood
disturbances. If so, maybe it’s a
matter of ethics for you to disclose entertainment affiliations, including the
percentage of advertising revenues the Examiner receives from clubs.

Posted by Tom Ferriole on 05/13/2012 at 8:44 PM

All Comments »


© 2014 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation