The Golden Gate

…for the pro-freedom rally at the Danish consulate yesterday:

The Only Republican in San Francisco has some first hand details:

“I just got back and it went well. We had 70-80 people, among them a Danish journalism student from Berkeley, many flags, a hottie handing out Havarti and a complete absence of local media.”

Let’s hope we see more events like this. I found out about it too late to make it over there, but I’d love to get to the next one…

Interesting to see that T.O.R.I.S.F. poses the following question in the header area of his blog: “Imagine being an empirical, free-market thinker in a liberal town.”

Hmmmmmmmm… Gee, I wonder what that WOULD be like?

Personal to TORISF: let’s talk.

San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval went on the “Hannity and Colmes” TV program yesterday and called for the disbanding of the US Military. And yes, he was (apparently) being sincere. His remarks came in a discussion about the proposal to bring the historic WWII battleship the USS Iowa to San Francisco as a permanent public exhibition.

People who do not live in the San Francisco area may be amazed that an elected official would actually say such a thing. People who live in San Francisco will not be amazed that an elected official would say such a thing.
Hat tip to SFSOS.

The transcript is below, or you can watch the video here. Oy.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue “Hannity & Colmes” from San Francisco tonight, the board of supervisors here overwhelmingly voted to reject a plan last year that would bring the historic World War II Iowa battleship right here to San Francisco harbor, as a museum and tourist center.

We’re now joined by one of the supervisors that voted against that plan, Gerardo Sandoval is with us.

Welcome to the show. You just said something to me as we were coming on the air. You don’t want a symbol of war in the harbor. Is what you said to me.

GERARDO SANDOVAL, MEMBER OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: That’s right.

HANNITY: I guess this is just a difference in philosophy. That symbol of war that beat back the forces of fascism in imperial Japan and Nazism, that’s really a symbol of peace. Why would you see it as a symbol of war when it defended liberty and freedom?

SANDOVAL: Well, it did do that. But also, it’s a warship and it’s got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can’t deny what it is.

San Francisco is where we signed the United Nations charter, the original charter, created the United Nations. There are many, many ways to honor veterans and their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I understand that. But you don’t have liberty and freedom unless we win that war.

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: So in that scene — well, then why would you dishonor the men that fought on that ship and preserved your freedom? To say what you want to say?

SANDOVAL: We don’t want to dishonor them.

HANNITY: Well, you are dishonoring them.

SANDOVAL: We just don’t want to put a 10-story gun on the waterfront where everybody is going to be looking at it every single day.

HANNITY: That gun gives you freedom. That gun ensures your liberty. That gun made this world a safer place.

SANDOVAL: But it could be a flag. It could be a statue. It could be many, many different things.

HANNITY: But is war against the Nazis a good thing? Is war against imperial Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, is that a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Well, sometimes you have to resort to violence.

HANNITY: No, no, no. Is war — was war against the Nazis a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Was war against imperial Japan a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely. We don’t have to put a bomb or a warship right on the waterfront. It’s going to be 10 stories tall. You know how tall that is? It’s half as big as some of the biggest buildings in San Francisco.

HANNITY: You know something? I guess this is just a philosophical difference. Because you know what? I define peace as the ability to defend ourselves. And you seem to look at that as ship as something negative, not something to be proud of. Not something that gave you a great gift. I don’t understand that mentality. Can you explain it to our audience?

SANDOVAL: Well, it’s also a fiscal issue not just a symbolic or philosophical.

HANNITY: Yes, hurt that’s not the reason. Because a lot of people say it’s about money. If I told you the money would be there tomorrow, you would still be against it, wouldn’t you?

SANDOVAL: We would still be against it. That’s right.

HANNITY: So it’s not about money, but you’re using it as an excuse.

SANDOVAL: No, no, no. But it’s a very real reason. In Oakland right across the bay here, where they brought in the USS — one of the wood…

HANNITY: Would you have the freedom to vote this way, had we not used that ship, that symbol of war as you call it, if we had not won that war? Would you have the ability to even make this vote without that ship?

SANDOVAL: Things would be very, very different. No doubt. But that does not mean we have to put a warship on our waterfront.

HANNITY: Warship? Why don’t you call it a peace ship? The peace ship gave you the liberty to be who you are today?

SANDOVAL: Why don’t we paint war symbols on all schools if that’s the way you feel? So we can honor their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I rarely agree with Dianne Feinstein. And she even says this is not the San Francisco that I know. This is — and I guess this is the mentality. Do you think America should unilaterally disarm? Should we give up our weaponry and our war — our tools of war?

SANDOVAL: You know, that’s a very complicated question. But I would say yes, we should. We should invest our money in our kids.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is Alan in New York. Should we not have military?

SANDOVAL: I don’t think we should have a military. Absolutely.

COLMES: We shouldn’t have a military? Wait a minute. Hold on. The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: What good has it done for us in the last five years? That’s right. What good has it done us…

HANNITY: Good grief.

SANDOVAL: … in the last five years.

COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.

SANDOVAL: We think about the billions that we’re spending in Iraq right now, if we spend it on schools. We should not…

COLMES: The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: That’s correct.

COLMES: Are you kidding me?

SANDOVAL: The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.

COLMES: You’ve got to be kidding me. We should have no military, we should have no ability to defend ourselves, we should have no armed forces in this country?

SANDOVAL: Well, we shouldn’t have a military that goes abroad and starts wars.

COLMES: You just said we shouldn’t have a military. I don’t want to give — I’m speaking out very forcefully to you, because I don’t want to give the impression that Democrats hate the military or don’t want a military. We may disagree with certain wars, like the ones fought now.

SANDOVAL: No, but you said should we give up.

COLMES: But to say that we shouldn’t have a military is absolutely absurd. It’s incredible. That’s a ridiculous fringe point of view.

HANNITY: That’s exactly what I was thinking, Alan. Welcome to San Francisco.

SANDOVAL: If you’re saying that we don’t have a right to defend ourselves that’s different from we shouldn’t have a military.

COLMES: What do you want to defend ourselves — what do you want to defend ourselves with?

SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It’s called the Coast Guard. There’s lots of things different.

COLMES: You want to send cops to defend our shores if we’re attacked? You want to send cops overseas if we’re attacked? Cops?

SANDOVAL: You want to send people abroad to start these wars.

COLMES: I don’t. Actually, Gerardo, you don’t know anything about what I stand for if you can say that. I’ve been one of the most outspoken people against this administration and the war in Iraq.

But that doesn’t mean we as Democrats hate the military or don’t want to defend this country. And I’m amaze you could get on national television and say we shouldn’t have a military in America?

SANDOVAL: Well, that’s the way I think a lot of people feel here in San Francisco.

HANNITY: I’ve got to tell you, this is a first. You made look Alan look like a hawk.

I’m going to tell you something. If America is attacked, you have no defenses. You have no liberty. You have no freedom. You can’t think in such a shallow way. You’ve got to tell me that this is a joke.

SANDOVAL: No, no. Not at all. I think that what you look at where you want America to go, I mean America has got hundreds of years, maybe thousands of years to go.

HANNITY: Without a military, there is no America. Without — it’s not a disagreement. It’s a fact.

SANDOVAL: We can imagine an America that someday will not have a military. It might take 1,000 years.

HANNITY: OK. And then when Iran bombs you…

SANDOVAL: But that’s what you’ve got to hope for.

HANNITY: Or when al Qaeda attacks you, what are you going to do?

UPDATE: If you’d like to let Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval know how you feel about his expressed viewpoint, here’s how to get in touch with him:

Gerardo Sandoval - Supervisor, District 11
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-6975 - voice
(415) 554-6979 - fax
Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org

Personal website: http://www.gerardosandoval.org/

Official website: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=4643

San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee:

(415) 626-1161
1390 Market Street, Suite 818,
San Francisco, CA 94102
email: info@sfdemocrats.org

website:  http://www.sfdemocrats.org

UPDATE: Able Dart over at the SF Wall is mad as hell. He’s calling for all San Francisco Democrats to stay the hell off of any and all Fox News shows. I respect Able and I usually agree with where he’s coming from. But personally, I’d like to see MORE SF Politicians on these national news shows for the basic reason that our local media does SUCH a poor job of really challenging these folks on some of the more outrageous foolery and ideology that passes for “public policy” in these parts. Able’s larger point seems to be that Fox News is “out to get the Democrats.” “Any Democrat worth their salt knows that Fox News – the bastard baby of Reagan era GOP operative Roger Ailes – is out to discredit the Democratic Party [...] is not an impartial organization…” says the Dart.

The obvious counterpoint is, of course, that other Mainstream Media outlets are hardly “impartial organizations,” either — despite all their high-sounding protestations to the contrary. I think it’s actually healthy for the US to have a national media outlet that owns its viewpoint. Now, if only the NY Times, and CBS and CNN et. al. would have the guts to do the same. Because, let’s get real: one is hard pressed to find even-handed coverage of the Republicans (or the Libertarians) on any of the (mesaurably lefty-biased) Mainstream Media outlets.

Furthermore, Fox does do good reporting in their straight news segments. They’ve scooped other providers from time to time. As for the opinion shows, whatever — they’re opinion shows. Again, I’m glad Fox is on the scene and basically owning that they’re coming from a point of view, if only as a counter-balance.

What’s more troubling, to me, is the transparently bogus pretense of “objectivity” foisted on us by other networks and news outlets.

All in all, I am ALL FOR SF politicos “outing” themselves and shooting themselves in the foot when faced with folks who hasn’t been ideologically browbeaten into accepting some of the silly lefty tropes that so many in this City just accept as “received wisdom.”

So I say: More SF Democrats on Fox! Please! And, bring on the GREENS!

A lot has happened since my initial post on the big hoo-hah regarding an in-house San Francisco Police Department video production.

Yesterday a local gay community media outlet, the Bay Area Reporter, carried the story that gay police officers participated in the Police Christmas-party video that stirred up the local brouhaha:

“Yes, there were gay officers in that video, but I’m obviously not going to say who they are,” Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco POA, told the Bay Area Reporter. “They were willing participants. In fact, as I’m looking at this … almost half the officers involved in the video were either black, female, or gay.”

If you want to check out the videos for yourself, go here.

Reaction to this news from the Left was as swift as it was predictable:

Transgender activist Robert Haaland said the fact that women and minorities were involved in the videos proves that simply diversifying a workforce does not eliminate homophobia, sexism, and racism.

“Even in our most diverse work places we can have intense racism and sexism. Attitudes don’t necessarily change,” said Haaland, who believes the videos have provided the city with “an opportunity for reform” and that the system should now be revamped to provide “clear markers for acceptable behavior with clear lines of accountability so that police officers will conduct themselves appropriately.”

[..]

“I’m sure [the police officers involved] all had their sensitivity trainings. They know that videos like this are not meant for the public. That adds a certain illicit quality to it, doing something they know is forbidden and yet that our homophobic and racist and sexist society also permits,” said [UC Professor of Pyschiatry Dan] Karasic.

The solution, according to an editorial in the same edition of the Reporter:

We’d like to see an improvement in the culture of the department that currently impedes openly gay male officers from being promoted past the rank of sergeant – we are unaware of any serving currently. The police force’s diversity is underutilized, and that needs to change, too. Maybe if more minority officers were promoted, they could help change the culture within the department, and bring more empathy to the job. This improved climate, in turn, would boost morale in a more positive way than the seamy videos.

Meanwhile, the officers involved have been hitting back, led by the video’s producer, Officer Andrew Cohen, who retained an entire cohort of high-powered attorneys to defend him and help shore up his public image. Also , the captian of the Bayview station who was featured in the video — Capt. Richard Bruce — has demanded an apology from Police Chief Heather Fong and Mayor Gavin Newsom for what he called “smears” and overreactions to the video by the Chief and the Mayor.

Local online outlet The Wall named Officer Cohen as it’s “Scapegoat of the Week”, and cited the favorable press Cohen has gotten in the past.

The president of the San Francisco Police Union also weighed in:

“I know [the Mayor] has to deal with a lot of constituencies in this city,” police union president Gary Delagnes said. “But just because of some videos, you don’t throw the whole department under the bus for the sake of political expediency.”

Then San Francisco Chronicle media critic Steve Winn chimed in with his view that the whole video flap was really a tempest in a teapot, and the police brass and the politicians were missing the point of the self-parodying and satirical police video entirely:

Much of the blur and static around the police video caper has to do with the unstable nature of humor across the cultural spectrum. Satire and parody, especially, have gotten swept up in an engulfing tide of mockery and scorn. In today’s accelerated media swirl, things no sooner happen in the world than they are minutely minced by everyone from radioheads Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken to the Comedy Central tag team of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to an army of instant-response bloggers.
[...]
Satire, certainly, can and often should be scalding. The death of Richard Pryor summoned up memories of a consummately gifted comic artist who held back nothing when it came to the hot-button topics of race, drugs or sex, but reserved his most withering scorn for himself. There was, in his work, an underlying humility, a sense of things that mattered being at risk.

At its heart, satire is meant to mend rather than destroy. The ancient Roman writer Horace viewed satire as a means “to tell the truth, laughing.” For John Dryden, the 17th century English poet, “the end of satire is the amendment of vice.”

In other words, according to Winn, the videos, like all satire, are a form of ridicule which is intended to ultimately produce an outcome of reform.

Clearly, Mayor Newsom didn’t see it that way. For his part, the Mayor has defended his response to the video, denying that he and Cheif Fong overreacted or rushed to judgment:

“If this occurred in any business in the private sector, none of us, I think, would criticize the company for taking aggressive and swift action,” Newsom said. “But for some reason, some people have lowered the bar here in San Francisco.

“The bar is so low in San Francisco that people think it’s fun and games to run over an alleged homeless person, to make fun of different races and communities, to make fun of the police chief … to enact skits of people not doing their job,’ Newsom said in describing some of the content in the videos.

Yesterday all 20 of the suspended SFPD officers were cleared to return to work. An investigation and blue-ribbon comission are going to continue to look into the whole matter, and further departmental changes and disciplinary action may be forthcoming.

A couple of final points: Officer Cohen seems nonplussed by all the attention his video is getting. And part of the reason for that seems to be Cohen’s belief that his identity ought to shield him from the business end of the PC buzzsaw:

“I’m a liberal Berkeley Jew with two biracial children, who was raised by a very strong liberal woman,” he said. “I’m not going to be the victim of someone else’s weird notion of political correctness.”

But it’s one of the features of weird notions of political correctness that context, fairness and balance are removed from the equation. It’s our modern version of the Scarlet Letter or the Salem witch trials — once accused, you’re presumed guilty. Period. Never mind your track record as a dedicated cop who’s made a difference nor your “solid liberal credentials.”

Also, Steve Winn’s points about satire and culture are well taken; it’s nice to hear a nuanced cultural view expressed amidst all the yelling. I encourage you to read his excellent piece “Laugh at your Own Risk.”

Also, the Chronicle’s Debra Saunders hits the issue squarely when she points out:

[Police Chief Heather] Fong intoned, “This is a dark day — an extremely dark day — in the history of the San Francisco Police Department for me as a chief to have to stand here and share with you such egregious, shameful and despicable acts” by SFPD members.

You know, I’d save that rhetoric for when a police officer or a civilian is shot — not for a prank video.
[...]
The Special City’s homicide rate is the highest in a decade. The murder toll hit 92 Tuesday. That makes for a dark day in San Francisco.

An SFPD officer added:

Sonia Mariona, a patrol officer, said, “Our hearts are breaking right now, and nobody wants to address that. We are undermanned, we are outgunned, we don’t have support and, at every turn, we are going to be persecuted by our own department.”

Exactly. And that’s just it: whereas the Left in our city seems to see “diversity” and more quotas and community outreach and identity hires and promotions as the “solution” for the situation, the issue runs far deeper and more fundamental than that. For many years now, the city of San Francisco has uttterly failed to take public safety or public sanitation issues seriously. As a result, our police force feels outgunned, overworked, abandoned and persecuted, and this feeling seems to be shared by a wide swath of officers, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Sure, perhaps there are things about Police “culture” that ought to be changed. But I say that it’s the culture of San Francisco — the political culture — that needs to change first and foremost. Let’s see the polticians and the police brass get as worked up over public safety and sanitation as they’ve gotten over these videos.

As Saunders points out:

People dying — that’s serious. And if you want to do something about it, you don’t announce you are going to suspend 20 officers or even one officer — Andrew Cohen, 39, without pay for producing the tapes. Not when you are 264 field officers short of a city mandate.

Let’s get our priorities straight.

For a couple of years now, I’ve been hanging around “The Wall” — a local EZ Board message board dedicated to San Francisco Politics which is run by a gent who goes by the handle Able Dart. I’ve gotten grist for more than one Golden Gate item from hanging around that place, I’ll tell you.

Well, look out, because now The Wall has entered the blogosphere. I’d encourage anybody with even a passing interest in San Francisco politics and/or culture to go give it a look right now.

Able Dart’s most recent post on the new Wall blog concerns the puerile San Francisco Police Video Scandal that’s the obsession of the moment for our local media outlets. Local pols, journalists and “activists” are foaming at the mouth and spinning around in frantic little circles, while prognosticators are taking odds on which heads will roll and when. Here’s the lead from The Wall:

It seems that this city has to have a police scandal of some kind every few years, which is then used to try and pry some changes inside a hidebound department, but usually only ends up with the replacement of a politically hapless police chief.

The newest scandal, of course, is about a series of blue humor videos produced for a Christmas party at Bayview station. The videos feature a number of sociocultural stereotypes reinforced by the basic nature of police work. The police officer/videographer made the mistake of putting some of the more humorous clips on a website, and then the leaks to the press and Mayor’s Office came-a-flowing.

There is nothing new about this phenomenon, nor about political bluenoses making a scandal out of it. What is truly unfortunate about this particular case is the timing, which seems rather deliberate.

Many people who are not police officers will find some of the imagery in these videos offensive. The question comes however, whether it should even be judged by standards outside the environment of what police work has become…

So check out The Wall and read the rest of this excellent piece, which has a lot to say about “Community Policing” and what gets noticed by the media. You’ll probably want to make The Wall a regular stop. I can see myself linking to them on a fairly regular basis — if their first few days of operation are any indication, The Wall will soon be essential reading for any SF observer.

Plus, you gotta love a guy who uses the term “hidebound” in the very first sentence one of his inaugural posts.

It will be interesting to hear what, exactly. the courts will say, this time out.

If the San Francisco Handgun Ban law somehow DOES stand up in court, I think many people — myself definitely included — will be utterly shocked. It’s my impression that many people who voted in favor of Proposition H thought they were voting for some kind of “symbolic” measure, which had no chance at all of actually becoming law.

Background/Context: last month, 60% of San Francisco voters supported Proposition H, which, among other things, bans the sale or possession of handguns in the City and County of San Francisco. From the San Francisco Voter Guide:

Proposition H is an ordinance that would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco.

Proposition H also would prohibit San Francisco residents from possessing handguns within San Francisco. An exception would allow residents to possess handguns if it is required for specific professional purposes. For example, San Francisco residents who are security guards, peace officers or active members of the U.S. armed forces would be permitted to possess handguns.

The Board of Supervisors would be required to enact penalties for violation of this ordinance.

Proposition H would take effect January 1, 2006. Until April 1, 2006, residents could surrender their handguns to any district station of the San Francisco Police Department or the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department without penalty.

Of course, the new law was challenged almost immediately. Like many people, I initially felt pretty certain that Prop. H would be struck down on appeal, just as the 1982 San Francisco Handgun ban was. (The text of that 1983 appeals court decision is here.)

But digging a little deeper I noticed that the 1983 decision actually held that “local governmental bodies” like the City of San Francisco are NOT, in the court’s opinion, “prevented” by State law “from regulating all aspects all aspects of the possession of firearms.” The Court of Appeals actually struck down San Francisco’s 1982 handgun ban primarily based on a concern over LICENSING. From the 1983 decision:

…the more troubling question is whether the [1982] San Francisco Handgun Ordinance merely regulates possession or instead constitutes a licensing ordinance in violation of the express preemption of Government Code section 53071.

The San Francisco ordinance does not mention the word “license” or “permit” and it does not establish a licensing procedure of any kind (unlike the ordinance struck in Sippel v. Nelder (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 173, 101 Cal.Rptr. 89). However, it exempts from the general ban on possession any person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to Penal Code section 12050. Thus, its effect is to create a new class of persons who will be required to obtain licenses in order to possess handguns

It was this question of “City creating a new class of persons who will be required to obtain licenses” that was the deal-breaker, it seems, in the eyes of the 1983 court.

The authors of Prop H have tried to get around this deal-breaker by writing the following language into the text of the new San Francisco Handgun Ban law. (The entire text of the law is in PDF form here, if you want to read it for yourself):

Section 6. State Law
Nothing in this ordinance is designed to duplicate or conflict with California state law. Accordingly, any person currently denied the privilege of possessing a handgun under state law shall not be covered by this ordinance, but shall be covered by the California state law which denies that privilege. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create or require any local license or registration for any firearm, or create an additional class of citizens who must seek licensing or registration.

If the courts accept this as dealing sufficiently with the licensing issue, then it appears that there’s at least a chance that the courts may actually affirm the City’s latest Handgun Ban law.

A reminder, perhaps, to “be careful what you vote for.”

UPDATE: Here’s a window into how Prop H. passed with such big numbers. It comes from a Handgun Ban supporter, who describes attempting to persuade “undecided” voters with the following reasoning: “…it might only be symbolic anyway, kind of like schools and the military, in the sense that even if we voted ‘yes,’ it would still be a court that made the decision (but ONLY if we voted yes, so ‘let’s vote yes and leave the choice to someone who deals with crime and it’s tributaries for a living - a judge.’) People who were undecided REALLY responded to that…”

Great.

UPDATE: Welcome California Conservative readers. The outcome of the legal challenge to San Francisco’s handgun ban law will certainly have statewide (and probably nationwide) implications. I’d welcome comments from anybody that has an opinion or insight into the upcoming court battle.

UPDATE: The San Francisco Chr0nicle had a front-page story on this issue today (12/05/05): “Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.’s voter-approved ban on handguns”.

UPDATE: Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune is less than impressed with Prop. H. In a column entitled “San Francisco’s Pointless Handgun Ban, he writes that the new law is akin to “fighting alcoholism by prohibiting beer sales to Mormons.” Chapman makes several valid points in his enjoyable piece, but his contention that the new law “clearly” conflicts with the California constitution is debatable, after reading the actual 1983 decision. Stay tuned.

Well, I suppose self-pity and bellyaching and sour grapes coming from a dead-tree media outlet over the success of a slick and widely-loved new media outfit like Craigslist really doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

But, holy cow, to make a COVER STORY out of the fact that you and your fellow dead-tree Old Media outlets are getting whupped by better service and greater efficiency (and more timeliness and accuracy)? And then to expect media savvy readers to cry big splashy tears over the fact that you can’t seem to adapt your performance and business models to the new reality? That takes real chutzpah and brings navel-gazing to a whole new level.

Here’s the boldface text from the COVER of the latest SF Weekly. (I exercised restraint in the headline to this post and refrained from calling it by it’s more commonly-known street moniker — “SF, WeAkly.”)

Craig$list.com
The much-loved Web site is taking millions from Bay Area newspapers and causing layoffs that adversely affect coverage. And its founder’s well-intentioned support of citizen journalism has a slim chance of fixing the problem.

Well, gosh, we’re just all broken up for you, New Times Media (parent company of SF Wea…er SF Weekly.)

But the hard fact is, oh mainstream media, the public doesn’t OWE you readers or subscribers or ad revenue. No business is OWED customers. So I’d humbly suggest that perhaps you ought to spend a little MORE energy on “lighting a candle” — delivering better service and adapting your practices to the new reality — and a little less energy on “cursing the darkness” — hating on Craigslist and expecting us in the media buying public to beweep your sad, sad fate.

Right now, you in the MSM are coming off just like this:

Pardon the public if we refrain from joining the sob-fest.

(Image credit: C. Johnson.)

UPDATE: From our local boards, Chic Deluxe draws the parallel with the Town Criers of old bemoaning the advent of the printing press “back in the day”:

At first, of course, the Town Criers - the official news sources at the time — weren’t worried. “Who’s going to pay for all that paper and ink?” they figured. “And besides — how many people can actually READ, anyway? Not to worry.”

But as the printing presses began to take off and the new business model for news distribution began to get legs, the Town Criers worried.

“Don’t believe anything you read!” they called out. “The printers don’t check their sources! Who regulates them? Why would you trust them! The have no standards, no guidelines! We have an Established System of Delivering Factual News!”

Town councils began to crack down on the printers. But the free press persevered despite having to deal with people breaking in and destroying their presses, setting fire to their shops, and trying to regulate them out of existence.

And what happened to all those Town Criers? They went into politics, of course.

Haw. Nice one.

Then, FogU2 pointed us to Slashdot’s excellent article on the subject (clearly, there is much more “lighting a candle” thinking going on at Slashdot.)

He adds:

Business models will change but the market for information, especially reliable and accurate information, is still vibrant. The real threat is when the govt gets involved in trying to save certain media by placing a stranglehold on the innovative media. Watch the FCC and others get involved in regulating the internet as big businesses begin to suffer as a result of cheap entry costs of the web. Lobbyists for the big media companies will cry foul when innovators like Craig Newmark, satellite radio, web phones, etc. start to threaten their cashflow.

Clearly, they already are.

UPDATE: Welcome, SFist readers. You might want to take a look at our past coverage of San Francisco culture & politics. Just keep on scrolling…

UPDATE: And welcome to all you Daily Pundit and Instapundit readers, too. Thanks for stopping ’round our way. As you’ve no doubt already noticed, we’re a San Francisco outlet of libertarian-minded, techno-phillic sass. You might want to check out some of our past posts on Liberty, the war against Islamic fascism, Economics and US Labor unions. But be sure to also check out that Slashdot article that we linked, above. As Glenn noted, not all old media folk are dumb. The thoughtful Slashdot piece lays out some possible ways that the old media can adapt and survive and even thrive in the years to come. It’s pretty much a given that bellyaching isn’t part of the solution, though.

UPDATE: The author of the SF Weekly piece, Ryan Blitstein, posted responses to our entry on both Daily Pundit and Instapundit.

In his Daily Pundit comment, Blitstein objects to Bill Quick’s description of the SF Weekly as “lefty.” It’s true that the SF Weekly isn’t as lefty as, say, the other San Francisco newsweekly, the SF Bay Guardian. OK, but let’s not get carried away. Though the SF Weekly does exhibit more balance than the Bay Guardian (which exhibits exactly none), “libertarian pillar” publications don’t usally run 6000+ word cover stories that amount to decrying the cruel fate of buggy-whip manufacturers in the modern era.

Instapundit publishes an email from Blitstein that says, in effect, we got him wrong — he wasn’t “whining.” I encourage you to read his entire SF Weekly piece and judge for yourself. See if you don’t detect a troubling sense of entitlement running throughout the piece — a sense that these classified advertising dollars RIGHTFULLY belong to newspapers. I also take issue with Blitstein’s other main premises: that it’s all a “zero sum game,” and that the (mostly dead-tree) “journalistic establisment” is the only trustworthy source of factual news; that the loss of classified revenue, by draining the lifeblood from old-media outlets, imperils the delivery of reliable information altogether.

For example, in his article, Blitstein says, “In the best case, [Craigslist's Craig] Newmark is joining a movement that will someday be of moderate help to the mainstream media. In the worst case, citizen journalism’s optimistic supporters, in neglecting the problems of the public institution that is the mainstream press, may leave America with both a failing news media and a mediocre technology that offers little assistance on essential stories.”

“Moderate help?” “Little assistance on essential stories?” See, I find these characterizations laughable, especially in light of the litany of vivid new-media-beats-the-old-media examples: Rathergate, the Plame story, reporting from Iraq — the list goes on and on. The dubious premises, coupled with the hand-wringing and notes of self-pity and impending doom, is what makes the SF Weekly piece a vintage whine.

But by all means, I encourage you read Blitstein’s SF Weekly piece for yourself and make your own call. It is also the case that there’s a lot of interesting stuff there, and I do appreciate that Blitstein’s decided to take part in the dialogue with us “citizen journalists.”

In the end, though, I think I’ve been rather fairer to the dead tree Old-Media outlets than Blitstein was to Craig Newmark, Craigslist or “citizen journalism” as a whole. From where I sit, for all its length and detail, the SF Weekly piece still basically reads like a great big whinge.

And finally, PLEASE make sure you also read the terrific Slashdot piece which has much more to say about old media, new media, and the idea of “news-as-dialogue.”

“News-as-dialogue.” Now THERE’S an idea…

Here we are again, talking about wonderful Government UNIONS, once more.

When will we as a body politic ever LEARN? Geez. I mean, we make some progress, things seem to get moving in a positive direction, and then something like this smacks us square in the face.

In a nutshell, San Francisco Public School “Service Workers” (janitors, cafeteria workers and the like) are threatening to hold the School District hostage, going on strike for more pay even as the start of the school year approaches. San Francisco Teachers are threatening to join the strike, delaying the start of school for tens of thousands of San Francisco schoolchildren.

Now, in order to pay for these raises for the janitors and cafeteria workers, the San Francisco School Board is seriously considering raiding a special fund, approved by voters, which gave $13 million to the schools for things like sports, arts college and career counselling and other “enrichment activites” for kids.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the SFUSD fire any and all “service workers” who walk out. Period. Immediately hire replacements for all staff thus terminated.

Remember, it’s “all about the children.”

The public watchdog group SFSOS has it right:

School support staff threaten strike; teachers may join in

If you suffer through as many School Board meetings as we do, you’ll often hear politicos drone on about their pet project and claim that it’s good for the children, and, after all, “It’s all about the children.” Sometimes, like today, it’s becomes crystal clear who’s looking out for the children, and who’s looking out for the adults.

As the handful of families who remain in San Francisco are just weeks from the start of school, the teachers union is threatening to join SEIU’s service workers in a strike that would shut down K-12 education for 58,000 public school children. Threatening our children’s education unless we get pay raises. Who’s for the children here?

Despite the well-known financial struggles the School District has been enduring — the layoffs, the program cuts, the school closures — SEIU Local 790, which represents school support staff such as custodians and cafeteria workers, is demanding more money. Should they strike (they’ll vote on that in early September), the teachers themselves are likely to join. This might be the first strike ever sponsored by the Marin County Realtors Association.

To further undermine the confidence in our schools, and for that matter our confidence in our government as a whole, there is talk that a $13 million advance the City has provided the School District could go to pay for these raises. That $13 million is Prop H money. Remember Prop H? The crux of Prop H money — what voters endorsed — was funding for school enrichment programs. One-third was to go to sports, arts and libraries. One-third was to go to preschool and related programs. The final one-third was to be allocated to “…gifted and talented programs, magnet programs, literacy programs, dual-language immersion programs, special education, employee compensation, career and college centers at high schools, teacher mentoring or master teacher programs, or other instructional purposes.”

Now, while that tiny little reference to “employee compensation” among all those important programs certainly allows the Prop. H money to be used to pay salaries, absolutely everyone who supported Prop. H (like SOS and so many of our members) knew that all of the Prop. H money was supposed to be for more programs. The whole point was that taxpayers wanted the School District to have additional enrichment programs for the children, not additional enrichment for the adults already in the same programs. Voters weren’t asked to increase funding for the status quo. They passed Prop H to get more, not to get more of the same.

And, in an interesting contrast (that we’re so used to seeing), Schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman and Board of Ed President Eric Mar vary greatly on their respective approach to the strike. Ackerman is the negotiating diplomat: “If there is any way I can support [Local 790's] issues without putting the district in any kind of fiscal jeopardy, I will do that,” the Examiner quoted her as saying. Mar, on the other hand — the president who should be leading a balanced dialogue toward a fiscally responsible end, is instead flying the extremist solidarity flag and sending out emails rallying protesters to mobilize on behalf of Local 790. Gee, is that “All About the Children” or “All About Mar’s 2008 District 1 Supervisor Campaign”? We think Richmond District parents will remember that Mar’s slogan as Board President has been “It’s all about my endorsements.”

Police and firefighters are prohibited by law from striking due to the threat to life that such a strike would cause. Teachers striking ought to take a close second on such a severity scale. But since it is not illegal, public outrage is all that protects us from such an irresponsible and damaging action. Your outrage should be doubled since the teacher’s union isn’t even involved in the financial negotiations. They’re threatening to strike just because it’s called for under their “you scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours” union boss solidarity pact.”

Please write a letter to the Board of Education, urging them to denounce the potential strike by the SEIU Local 790 and by the teachers’ union

This is a very useful little link for those who ride San Francisco’s Muni public transit system.

And even if you don’t ride Muni, check it out anyway — there may be something like this coming to your community, soon.

This site is even more useful if you’ve got a mobile internet device of some kind (Laptop, Treo, etc.)

San Francisco _Chronicle_ columnist Jon Carroll weighs in on the San Francisco Supervisors’ USS _Iowa_ vote:

I love these people, but they drive me crazy. I had a girlfriend like that once; I think we’ve all had girlfriends like that once. Aren’t all girlfriends like that?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors — well-meaning folks, but they make me nuts. Just this week, they rejected a plan to bring the battleship Iowa to San Francisco and turn it into a tourist attraction and museum. Why? Cecilia M. Vega of this very newspaper summed up the reasons given for the decision: “the widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, the unequal treatment of gay and lesbian enlisted men and women, and the city’s reputation as a home of the peace movement.”

The music tinkles, the picture ripples, and we take you into the near future for some more resolutions by the supes:

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to tear down Mission Dolores. “Indigenous American people were kept there in near slave conditions and forcibly recruited to a nonnative religion,” said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. “We need to tear it down ancient adobe brick by ancient adobe brick.” He added: “History just sucks, and now we have a chance to do something about it.”

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to tear down Fort Point after it was brought to its attention that the fort had once had a military purpose. “The people of San Francisco do not want a part of the 19th century war machine within their city limits,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. “Researchers tell me that, at one time, guns actually protruded from those cute little holes in the side of the building. The fort should be replaced by a nice new dog run.”

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors decided to turn the War Memorial Veterans Building, home of Herbst Theatre, into an indoor farmers’ market. “I was shocked to learn,” said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, “that some of the veterans who use this building killed foreign citizens as part of an invading army. Additionally, the armed forces in which they served virtually criminalized gay and lesbian behavior. Shame, I say, shame.

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to disband itself. “The board is steeped in the culture of sexism, racism and homophobia, ” said Supervisor Bevan Dufty. “For a long time, it was just a bunch of old white guys making decisions for the entire city. I feel personally soiled by being a member of this group, and ask that my colleagues to join me in ritual self-mutilation directly after the meeting.”

Yes, it’s a sick, sick city. Given the amount of bad behavior that has taken place in its various apartments and public spaces, we should probably raze the whole joint and start over. And then, because humans are imperfect and often idiotic, there’d be more sexism and racism and murder and extortion and nonmedical marijuana being sold to people who just want to get high, and .. . life is a cesspool. Let’s give up and not think about it anymore.

As usual, Carroll is poignant and funny. Treat yourself — go read the entire thing.

SO, as I said, last night I checked out the big San Francisco Homeownership Summit. Turnout seemed real good, about 225 or so by my rough count. Pols included Mayor Newsom, Supervisors Bevan Dufty, Fiona Ma (late) and Sean Elsbernd. Also somebody (didn’t catch the name) from the Mayors office of Housing, Ted Lowenberg from the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, Wade Randlett of SFSOS, Michael Sullivan, the director of Plan C San Francisco, A TIC/Condo Loan rep from Sterling Bank, plus quite a few other folks; I didn’t catch all the names.

All night the room was abuzz with the announcement in yesterday’s San Francisco _Examiner_ that the long-sought Personal TIC Loans are now finally available. This is potentially real big news for the San Francisco housing market. Personal TIC loans — where the buyer of each unit in a TIC arrangement can take out their own seperate Mortgage — removes one of the most daunting drawbacks of the TIC process, namely: sharing a joint Mortgage with your neighbors (sometimes lots and LOTS of neighbors.)

Now, each unit can have its own seperate Mortgage, and this should make it much more attractive not to mention much easier for people to form TICs to buy homes in San Francisco. Though e-Loan is the first lender to announce this new Personal TIC Loan, everybody anticipates that several other lenders will soon follow suit and begin offering this new Personal TIC Mortgage.

So, naturally, in light of this dramatic announcement, at the Homeownership Summit there was lots of talk about TICs and the Condo conversion process, as well as possible moves by anti-Homeownership members of the Board of Supervisors to stifle or otherwise derail the use of the new Personal TIC loans.

The over-arching theme of the evening was the value of homeownership, the social good it promotes and how increasing the percentage of San Franciscans who own rather than rent is the #1 goal of all the groups assembled at the event. And over and over the point was made: pro-Homeownership forces are not interested in HARMING renters. Rather, the pro-Homeownership movement wants to HELP renters BECOME homeowners! (The statistic was cited that somewhere north of 80% of Renters surveyed had said that they wanted to become Homeowners, but they didn’t feel it was possible to do so in San Francisco.) One of the recurring themes of the Homeownership summit was what that would mean for the City as a whole to have more people participating in the “ownership society.”

Political action, organizing and speaking out were emphasized throughout the evening. Overall, it was an informative and energetic two hours.

The groups and leaders assembled talked about various frustrations at past ballot-box and legislative setbacks, but also reflected on past wins in the California Court system (supporting homeownership and private property rights.) Several people promised new initiatives to support and expand homeownership in San Francisco. Expect executive, legal and leguslative moves in the near future.

Also, Mayor Newsom said several times during his remarks: “if you have good ideas, send them our way, and we’ll do our best to make sure they happen.”

Personally, I enjoyed the Summit. I met a few leaders, and exchanged a few remarks — and cards — after the summit.

Positivity all ’round.

Hey, the San Francisco Homeownership Summit is happening this evening, so I thought it was worth a reminder. Since I first mentioned it, I found this video interview (Quicktime and Windows Media) with Wade Randlett, the leader of SFSOS — the organization that is hosting tonight’s Homeownership Summit. Checking out the interview and the group’s (somewhat minimal) website, it’s clear that SFSOS is a centrist group focused on bread-and-butter quality of life and homeownership issues. In other words, the kinds of issues that tend to get ignored in San Francisco.

If you’re interested in becoming a Homeowner or supporting opportunities for others to become homeowners themselves in San Francisco, come by the Homeownership Summit tonight, if you can. I’ll be there. And I’ll be sure to report back to you my impressions of the event.

July 13 Summit Will Address Bleak Prospects for Homeownership for Middle Class

The spiraling cost of homeownership in San Francisco and the lack of concern on the part of a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors about the exodus of teachers, firefighters, police and nurses from the city who just cannot afford to buy here has created a homeownership emergency. Already the number of families in the city has plummeted to around 10 percent of the population. Artificially limiting the supply of ownership housing, as the supervisors have done, has driven the prices of ownership housing to unprecedented levels and attacked those on the lower rungs of the ownership housing ladder.

What’s left of the middle class in San Francisco needs to react to this homeownership emergency. The members of the Board of Supervisors who have opposed the expansion of ownership housing opportunities in San Francisco need to be confronted. To allow this to happen in the most forceful manner possible, the grassroots lobbying organization, SFSOS, is forming a new coalition of like-minded citizens and civic organizations to take whatever measures are necessary to create new homeownership opportunities for the middle class in the city. Its efforts will begin with a city-wide Homeownership Summit to educate and organize concerned citizens and the members of participating organizations.

The Summit will be held at St. Mary’s Cathedral conference facility on Wednesday, July 13, from 6-8 pm. Participants will include SFSOS, Plan C, the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, the San Francisco Association of Realtors, the Coalition for Better Housing, the San Francisco TIC Coalition, as well as legal, financial and real estate experts.

The event is being hosted by SFSOS, an advocacy group whose self-proclaimed mission is “the return of clean, safe neighborhoods, protecting the rights of the ignored, while moving toward a vibrant economy, improved public services and greater opportunity for all.” As SFSOS seems dedicated to free market-orniented solutions and expanding homeownership, I believe this “Homeownership Summit” is probably worth a look.

I like the panels they’ve announced:

* “How to Protect Yourself from the Board of Supervisors” – A discussion on legal, banking and other private sector resources for the homeowner.

* “Where Do We Go From Here?” – A discussion of political and public sector strategies and campaigns to repair the homeownership climate in SF.

Also, they’ve gotten a whole range of City notables and organizations on board as backers, panelists and speakers, including the Association of Realtors, Small Property Owners of San Francisco, and Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Fiona Ma (two generally pro free market Supervisors).

The flyer for the event can be found here. (PDF format.)

I will be attending this event, and I’ll be sure to report back. If you live in the area and decide to drop by, I’ll be the one passing out cards promoting The Golden Gate. Say hello, if you’ve a mind to.

Well, as I write this, the 12:01 “Strike Deadline” set by the BART workers’ unions has come and gone. The negotiations have continued through the night to this point, and according to the report I just heard on KGO News Radio 810, right now they’re taking a “time out” from negotiations. The report said that talks will resume some time after 12:30. Presumably the management and union reps will either reach an agreement tonight or the unions will walk off the job. Right now, we’re all just waiting.

The reporter on KGO seemed to think that things looked promising that an agreement would be reached at some point tonight, averting a strike.

As you know, we’ve been watching this situation real closely as things have come to a head over the past week or so. (Our other reports are here, here and here.) And one thing has become all too clear: even if a BART strike is averted this time around, the train system’s pay and benefits are way out of whack — and that goes for some of the management as well as the union workers. If BART can’t get it’s finances together (and they’re projected to run a $24 million deficit this year), it could be really dire times for the system — and local taxpayers.

And, make no mistake: BARTs unions are clearly to blame for this latest round of commuter nailbiting. They set this deadline. Their shortsighted and utterly selfish attempt to extort yet another gluttonous increase of 30% a mere three years plus after getting a 24% pay raise borders on the criminal. Naturally, the extreme pro-union elements of the left are saying it’s all the management’s fault (of course). But not a soul outside of union member/activist circles is buying that load of rubbish.

In fact, I get the very real sense that there’s a widespread and growing desire to see unions — and especially public employee unions — reformed and restrained. It seems pretty clear that people are tired of having a gun held to their head by the very folks that, supposedly, work for “all the people” and who are paid with our hard-earned tax dollars. Jason posted a bit about the harm that unions do to the overall economy in general. And, when public employee unions act as irresponsibly as the BART unions are, people get more and more fed up, which increases the chances that broad public employee union reform and restraint measures can pass — even in the “pro union” Bay Area.

I mean, strike or no strike (this time around) — enough is more than enough. The public is getting tired of being blackmailed. We need broad reforms of public employee unions in San Francisco and at the regional and state level as well.

Stay tuned for updates on “Black Wednesday” — and further developments in the public employees union reform movement.

UPDATE: Wed. 7/6/05 6:52 AM — Well, the San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the two sides reached a tentative agreement at about 3:00 am this morning. No specifics have been released yet, and union rank-and-file still need to ratify it, but there won’t be any BART strike today, thank goodness.

From a local San Francisco Political discussion board I am on:

“Maybe BART Unions need some homespun advice —

‘Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered….’”

And, from Debra Saunders in today’s Chronicle:

I AM A SHOP STEWARD and member of a union involved in very sensitive negotiations with the Hearst Corp. So I’m not knee-jerk anti-union.

Yet, as I watch BART management and labor duke it out again this year, I won’t be rooting for BART’s public-employee unions if they decide to strike. BART pay has sped ahead like a runaway train, and it is time to apply the brakes.

[BTW: the idea of Debra Saunders as a union shop steward made me goggle, a bit...]

…Already BART directors have raised fares and levied new parking fees at nine East Bay stations because BART says it is broke. Ridership is declining, and the fare increases are likely to chase away more riders.

I ask: What good are the highest-paid transit workers in the nation if their pay is undermining the whole purpose of BART, which is to pull more commuters off the roads?

There is plenty of blame to go around. In 2001, state Sens. Tom Torlakson and Don Perata pushed BART directors to agree to a 22-percent raise over four years. BART didn’t have the money, but that didn’t stop a deal. It could happen again, unless voters let BART biggies know that enough is enough.”

…The word is backlash. When salaries keep climbing while ridership dries up, when voters see BART directors make decisions that put workers and managers before commuters, people have little reason to support a system that puts them at the tail end of the train. Put an initiative on the ballot that strikes back, and voters just might.

The Contra Costa Times Newspaper opposes any wage or benefits increase for BART workers:

No BART pay hike

Despite fare increases and new parking fees, BART has a $24 million-a-year operating deficit. A significant reason for the shortfall is the unconscionably generous 24 percent pay increase the BART board approved in 2001. That came on top of wage and benefit packages that already far exceeded those of workers with similar skill levels in the private sector.

So what do BART unions want in the next contract period? They seek an even steeper increase of 30 percent in pay and benefits over the next three years. How many people who ride BART are making more than $100,000 a year, as is true of hundreds of BART’s employees? How many riders got 6 percent raises in each of the past four years? How many anticipate 10 percent increases for each of the next three years?

BART’S board of directors represented the public poorly in 2001. They caved to unreasonable union demands under pressure applied by local politicians. The board must never repeat that mistake.

This time around, the BART board must take a firm stand on pay and benefit increases. It really has no choice with such large deficits expected for the future, even with several scheduled fare increases. Simply put, the BART directors have an obligation to riders and the future of the transit system to hold the line on wages and benefits. There must be no wage or benefit increases. Instead, there should be decreases. Otherwise deficits will grow, fares will go up, more BART workers will be laid off and service will decline.

And this page, created to oppose a 2004 BART bond measure, now seems prescient. It describes how BART took money away from seismic retrofitting work and other safety and capital projects to fund the LAST round of Union contract demands, back in 2001.

Then BART went to Bay Area voters with the 2004 bond measure to pay for that now de-funded work:

BART’s Labor contracts are up for renewal next year [2005]. Count on BART managers and “negotiators” to give away the store again!

AS IS, BART’S 3014.5 OPERATIONAL EMPLOYEES ALREADY AVERAGE $102,799 IN SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUALLY. Were Measure AA to pass, it would encourage even worse spendthrift behavior, as BART utilized bond funds to “free up” general fund dollars for more raises.

The page has lots of really good, clearly presented data on what BART employees make, what the system takes in and what it spends.

And finally, riders are writing letters to BART expressing outrage over the prospect of another strike by unions who just won a fat 24% pay increase a few years ago. They’ve published several of them on their “strike information” website. Here are a couple examples:

BART:

Simply stated, BART should become a private enterprise and get rid of its Unions — much the way President Ronald Reagan did with the airline traffic controllers.

The problems BART is facing are not unusual phenomena. I know that MUNI in San Francisco faces similar issues every time that contract comes up for renewal. Privatizing MUNI has come up a time or two. With the salaries that are being paid to BART employees, it seems clear that the unions are looking to line their pockets and the people it represents, without caring or putting any thought to the needs and effects a strike has on the public at large.

Since the unions appear to have BART management over a barrel, what will be the demand next time? In 2001 it was 24 percent increase, now it is 30 percent; I am surprised the union is not asking for a private island for its members and perhaps a private plane to get them there. Enough is enough!

Stop the bleeding and do what will benefit the public in the long run! Find a way to privatize BART, get rid of its unions and get its budget in line. Blackmailing the public by going on strike is ridiculous given the salaries that are already being paid to BART employees.

– J. Castro

BART:

I support BART management’s position in the current negotiating with its unions. If a strike comes and we riders are inconvenienced, that’s OK. The longer term goal should be to reign in the excessive wages and benefit packages now in force.

I am a regular rider who boards at Walnut Creek station. With the fare and parking increases already scheduled to take effect I will see my daily cost escalate 26 percent. That is outrageous.

I was told that unions only pay $25 a month for their benefit package. If that is true it should be changed. I pay for my benefits and there is no reason why the union membership should not do the same. And the retirement plan arrangement is so out of whack that future costs will escalate uncontrollably. This must be fixed.

I urge BART management to scale back these runaway costs and support any inconvenience necessary to do so.

– G.B.

BART:

As a commuter, I wanted to let you know that a strike would have a negative impact on my ability to get to work, however, agreeing to pay the unions what they are asking (a 30 percent pay increase over three years) would have an even more negative impact to me over years to come.

We already know our fares are going up in 2006 and now some of us will have to pay for parking as well. I used to have 10 cars on my line, now its down to nine or eight (which is still better than some of my co-workers who have to deal with four cars during commute times) and the cars are no longer as clean inside. Healthcare is going up for all of us which is an issue but why should I subsidize somebody’s else’s on top of paying my own expenses?

Therefore, I say hold the line. Management gave up too much last time when the economy was weak. If a strike occurs, so be it. It will be tough on all of us for a while, but the financial impact to commuters would be far worse if the union’s demand are met.

Thank you and good luck.

–P.F.

Our friend Brant had some responses to Rich’s original Black Friday Post. Here’s his response, and my response to his response:

Some quick counterpoints:

* Just because someone works for the gov’t (i.e. “the people”) doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to have good wages and benefits. If the gov’t (as with any other employer) doesn’t pony up fairly, then unified action is totally fair in response.

* Yes, it sucks to be inconvienced for a day (or week or whatever) as a commuter, but trying to raise a family (to say nothing of saving for retirement) on $50-60k in the bay area sucks more.

* $50k - 60k sounds like a whole lot of money for “entry level” people, but these are also QUALIFIED professionals, not entry-level college students. And as I said, it’s not easy to raise a family for that amount in the bay area. I don’t know many of my friends that would be fighting to get a fat $50-60k job. That truly is entry level. It’s not halfway bad if you’re young, single and don’t own a home. But get out of your 20’s, try to raise a family, buy a home, save for retirement, etc…It’s tough on gov’t wages.

* Conversatives often deride the huge salaries of gov’t workers. It’s a nice fiction — but the reality is different. You don’t often hear people of going into gov’t work “for the money”. No, it’s more often that you hear of people LEAVE gov’t work “for the money”…. Sure, gov’t jobs aren’t half-bad, but the gov’t should pay good, middle class wages (with bennies) for their jobs.

It will suck if BART strikes (I carpool every day work — can’t iimagine the traffic!), but painting the unions as the problem is simplistic.

Brant,

One more counterpoint, for good measure.

The moral value/justice of your post hinges on the concept “fair.”

However, the meat of your post has to do with “lifestyle.”

If the jobs at BART were paid equivalent to jobs that require equal skill in the private sector, they would not start at 50-60k. It is ONLY because they are government jobs, with unions, that they pay so WELL. YOUR friends might not be clamoring for 50-60k jobs, but take away the union bullshit/requirements, and BART would be able to get tons of equally qualified applicants willing to work for less (not your friends).

Is it “fair” to have the BART passengers and other commuters PAY (it will cost them money and time) so that BART employees can inflate their ALREADY above market level wages beyond what they already are, leading to higher taxes and higher fees to ride BART?

Fair? To whom?

Remember, every time we privilege some group with legistlation (i.e., guns/physical force), we must marginalize another. When we give over 13.5 billion dollars in subsidies to farmers (in 2003 alone, not counting the 3 billion in “emergency relief”), we 1) take that 13.5 billion dollars from other people/parts of the economy, and 2) raise the prices of food for EVERYONE. Yes, the farmers who received the subsidies and price-fixing are benefited - no doubt. I’m sure there are those who feel that this is “fair” because they “should/deserve to” make a “good” living. Shit, I think they should be rich! I think everybody “should.” Wouldn’t that be nice?

However, reality does not recognize our “shoulds.” It operates on principles that completely ignore our personal opinions. When we manipulate prices/wages in one area it has profound effects on EVERYONE. When we unbalance one part of the equation, other parts must rebalance themselves. If we add to one part of the equation, we must subtract from another. (Imagine saving 13 billion dollars in taxes and having lower food costs…whom would benefit from this?)

Most importantly, when we do this through government activity/legislation, we are doing it with force. All laws/regulations, no matter how “good” their intention, are implemented at the point of a gun.

Is that use of force “fair” to the part of the equation that is unbalanced? Is that fair to the people who have the skills and desire but don’t want to deal the union bullshit? Is it fair to the consumers who would prefer to purchase the products/services that get eliminated through such unbalancing?

For example, my father decided to retire last week because California just passed a law that you MUST be part of the electrical workers union to be recognized as legitimate. So, to keep his jobs and stay competetitive/alive in the market, he joined. In the first couple months of being part of the union, he has been forced to deal with so much union “padding” and “pressure,” that he no longer feels like the boss of his own company (which he has owned for 30 years). When it came down to it, he felt his best choice was to simply quit and close his business.

Society has just lost a master electrician (my father was respected and revered as extraordinary at what he does - I mean did), and my father has lost the ability to perform his art according to his conscience.

Of course, the union electricians and shops (ALL of whom were “grandfathered” into the deal) have essentially eliminated their competition through the new law. Also, they have seniority over all the people who have just been forced to join the union. They get the best jobs, the best promotions, and benefits. The new members even pay dues to support the existing members increasing “bennies.” Ain’t that just sweet? And, of course, we all know that unions are known for their ethical and exemplary political/fiscal activities… HAH!

The union lobby just FUCKED all the non-union electricians is the ass with a BIG, ROUGH a government-issued dildo with no lube, and the government bent them over at the point of a gun to either take it or quit.

Is the increase in the already inflated lifestyle of union electricians at the cost of men like my father “fair?”

Again, if we make our personal “shoulds” the basis of “fair,” whoever has sufficient political power to unbalance the equation gets to determine what we “should” do and what is thereby “fair.” I prefer letting “reality/each person’s choices/the market” balance the equation, rather than corrupt bureaucrats and lobbyists. If the BART employees really wanted “fair,” they would dissolve the union and open themselves to competition. Of course, they wouldn’t do that, because they know that thousands of people would jump at the chance to do their jobs for less money. WHY? you figure it out.

Last, I want to be clear that I support people’s right to organize. I do not support government support of that organization. Union’s can justly picket, but they cannot violate/abridge the rights of any other members of society who disagree with them, ESPECIALLY “scabs.” If the unions can garner public support through reason, they are valid. If they revert to physical force and intimidation, they become part of the problem, not the cure. If they enlist a government to do the force/intimidation for them, that does not change the immorality, injustice, and ugliness of the issue.

(teloscientist is an occasional contributor to The Golden Gate. You can see more from him here.)

So, the other day I was talking about Black Friday – the very real prospect that the unions that run BART (our local commuter rail system) might walk of the job starting tomorrow, throwing our San Francisco transit system into chaos. Well, the last couple of days have seen several developments which warranted a full-scale update on the situation:

* First, “Black Friday” has been pushed back to NEXT WEDNESDAY. If no agreement is reached by Tuesday, the BART unions will walk off the job. That’s what the unions are saying now, that this is a hard and fast deadline. As one BART Union leader told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Our strike captains are ready, our picket signs are ready and our members are ready to walk off the job.”

* BART has 2,700 union workers.

* BART carries 320,000 riders a day, about half of that total during peak commute time. In one sense, one could say that these 320,000 riders are at the mercy of the 2,700 union workers, but in reality, of course, the displacement of the 320,000 daily riders onto other modes of transportation will impact many more people than just the 320,000.

* The BART system is facing a $24 million deficit for the fiscal year that begins tomorrow. BART is projected to lose $100 million over the next four years.

* The average full-time BART union employee receives a total benefits package worth $31,719 a year on top of their average annual base salary of $67,865 for a total average annual compensation of $99,584.

* The cost of benefits has increased 66 percent in four years, and is likely to rise another 70 percent over the next four years. Full-time BART union employees now pay about $25 per month in health care coverage for themselves and all their eligible family members, a rate that has remained the same since 1996.

* In 2001, a strike was averted when Bay Area politicians intervened and the BART board approved a 22 percent raise over four years. The last BART strike was in 1997 and caused massive regional transit disruptions.

* BART’s latest contract offer to the unions is for no pay increases for the next two years, then in the final two years employees would be given raises based on the consumer price index, with a cap of 2 percent.

* In addition, BART would raise current and retired employees’ monthly contributions for family health benefits from $25 to $100 beginning July 1, 2006, and raise the contributions to $150 a month starting July 1, 2008.

* BART would also immediately cap what it pays for health benefits at the amount charged for Kaiser Permanente’s health plan, instead of providing the several options now available. Employees would have to pay additional costs if they chose health care plans from other providers.

Any way you slice it, the compensation BART union employees receive now is fair and more than fair. For the unions to be holding a gun to the public’s head in this way and demanding even more now, with BART facing a deficit and the entire region trying to sustain an economic recovery, just seems to me to be the height of arrogance and short-sighted selfishness. I mean, come on, BART workers got a fat 22% raise just four years ago — in 2001, when most of us out here in private business were facing the big downturn. BART’s new contract offer seems quite reasonable.

Oh, and the San Francisco Chronicle — a pretty consistently pro-union paper — weighed in with the following editorial on the BART situation in this morning’s edition:

BART talks are way off track

TAKE A VITAL public service. Add lousy labor relations, a pot of money and political pressure. For BART, these ingredients produced a nightmare that avoided a strike in 2001 but has impoverished the transit system ever since.

With another work stoppage in view, BART faces a rerun. Management may cave in by steering scarce dollars to raise already-high wages. The unions may persist in pushing for money that they know isn’t there. Serious problems such as health-care and pension deficits may get lip service.

Riders should be furious after this year’s round of fare hikes and parking charges in suburban lots. If BART wanted to force people into cars, it couldn’t come up with a better plan.

A strike will deepen this downward trend, and both sides need a reality check. The past 22 percent pay increases can’t be repeated, yet the unions are asking for 17 percent. Since Sept. 11, fare-box collections and sales-tax revenues — the two prime sources of BART income — haven’t recovered.

An added problem has arrived: deficits are widening in the employees’ health-care and pension funds. Most of the $100 million deficit forecast for the next four years is from rising retiree-health-care costs; the system’s short-term outlook is for less revenue, but more bills.

Neither side is talking good sense, but that’s par for the cat-and-dog relations in this standoff. One insider describes it as the train builders versus the public workers, two interest groups with little in common. This gulf required politicians to sail in four years ago and order up an agreement that raised wages but did nothing to address underlying problems.

BART can’t afford a stoppage and the public anger it will bring. It’s time to hammer out a plan that doesn’t bring on more trouble.

Absolutely. It seems to me that a mass replacement of the BART workers should be on the table, too. Without this possibility, our whole regional transit system can be held hostage by 2,700 workers. Otherwise, what is the incentive for the workers to compromise?

It seems like the issue of Public Employee Unions just won’t go away. These Unions are powerful both locally and in the State of California as a whole. So, predictably, efforts to reform the Civil Service rules in San Francisco and the funding of Public Unions in the State have met with stiff and bitter opposition from well-connected and wealthy Unions.

And now, today, we get word that it’s quite likely that the Unions who represent BART workers (BART is the regional train system for the San Francisco Bay Area) will probably walk off the job this Friday, forcing some 300,000 plus commuters a day to find some other way to get around.

In short, Black Friday is coming.

I remember vividly the last BART strike, in 1997. It was a bloody mess. Bus lines from the East Bay that usually carried 9.500 riders per day had to deal with 42,500 riders. The Bay Bridge was backed up for miles. You think driving to the City in commute traffic is bad now? Until you’ve seen Bay Bridge traffic during a BART strike, well, you ain’t seen nothin’.

So, today, BART is telling everybody to get ready. Make your alternate transit plans, or even better, plan to telecommute, if that option is available to you, starting on Friday.

But the brouhaha begs the larger question: what should the role of Unions be, especially when it relates to Unions who represent government workers in essential sectors? Basically, when these Unions strike, they are striking against the people, aren’t they? And, heck, everyone agrees that BART workers (and their directors) are extremely well-paid now. I mean, the lowest-paid worker at BART (utility/maintenance personnel) are paid $50,000 at the entry level. And station agents and train drivers pull down $60,000 for entry level hires.

I don’t know, I just can’t get away from the view that, when these public workers strike, they are essentially holding a gun to the heads of the very people that they have sworn to serve.

Something to consider when you are stuck in traffic this Friday.

So, the City of San Francisco is in a budget crunch, right? So when comedian and local resident Robin Williams recently offered to give the City $80,000 to repiar a City-owned retaining wall and median strip near his home, a rational person would naturally assume that the City would say a grateful “thank you” and accept the money and move on.

Well, as they used to say on the SAT test: rationality is to San Francisco politics as oil is to water.

SF Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval is holding up–and may block–the City’s acceptance of Williams’ donation. Sandoval is apparently annoyed that the money is going to be used to fix up the City property in Williams’ expensive Seacliff neighborhood:

“Gee, I wish everyone was in that position,” said Sandoval, who represents the Excelsior and surrounding working-class neighborhoods. “How about an extra $80,000 to fix a median in the Bayview?”

Well, gee — how about for starters, Gerardo old bean, if the City accepts the $80,000 from Williams, that’s $80,000 that the city won’t have to spend fixing up that Seacliff retaining wall and median? Thus, that’s $80,000 more the City will have to spend on projects in Bayview and the Excelsior — or any other project you and your fellow Supervisors wish to pursue.

See how that works, Gerardo?

Geez, and we wonder why the City is in such a fiscal mess, with economic wizards like Sandoval at the helm.

Here’s my proposal: require that every member of the Board of Supervisors take basic economics and accounting classes. And an ethics class, while we’re at it.

Last Saturday, June 11, San Francisco leftists (they like to refer to themselves as “progressives”) from a whole slew of City political organizations held a “big tent” meeting hosted by a new umbrella group called the San Francisco Peoples Organization.

Attendance was pretty good — about 500 people, according to multiple sources. And, as expected, several San Francisco notables and politicians (Supervisors Chris Daly, Gerardo Sandoval, Jake McGoldrick and Ross Mirkarimi and former Board of Supervisors President and losing mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez and Sheriff Michael Hennessey and Public Defender Jeff Adachi among them) attended the meeting to genuflect before the liberal “base.”

SF People has a Manifesto, of course, which they’re calling “Points of Unity.” I’m reproducing the whole thing here, to give a full and detailed sense of what the political climate of San Francisco is like.

Here’s the fun: see how many examples of begging the question, jumping to conclusions, demonizing, and false assumptions you can find in the SF People statement.

Here’s just one example:

“We oppose the ongoing hyper-investment of public resources into punishment and policing.”

What does this mean? One wag I read said it well, “My guess is that it’s a code phrase for opposing all attempts at law enforcement and public sanitation.

“One of the reasons that the city’s progressive sect has had some setbacks lately is, I believe, that they scoff so dismissively at folks who want to make their neighborhoods safe, clean, and peaceful. That’s a big, and growing, chunk of the population.”

Amen to that.

Anyway, here is the full text of the SF People’s Organization’s “Points of Unity.” I found myself “unifying” with very little of it:

“We are an organization of groups and individuals committed to bringing sanity, humanity and compassion to San Francisco politics. Our ranks include people from all walks of life. We each have different backgrounds, different experiences, and different opinions. But there are some basic things on which we all agree.

We believe in the power of everyday people to shape our lives, our city, our world. It is the people of San Francisco – not downtown interests – who have the power to transform San Francisco into a city that places human need and the common good above corporate greed and private profit. When the people areorganized and united, they can and will remake the city in their own image:
beautiful, compassionate and free.

We believe in unity among progressives. Too often, progressives pay more attention to their disagreements than to their commonalities. This divisive error too often derails progressive and left movements before they even begin. We will not do this. We value and uphold our unity. We do not impose a single ideological position, practice or approach. Rather, we aim to support one another
in spirit of respect for difference, shared purpose, and hope. We will not be afraid to struggle with one another. But we will do so to build our unity, not to tear it down.

We believe that economic justice is essential to a healthy, safe and democratic San Francisco. The concentration of corporate power and personal wealth is one of the primary sources of instability and injustice in San Francisco and the country at large. We must counter this by securing basic economic rights for everybody: secure, living wage jobs; adequate food, clothing and housing; accessible, affordable health care; quality education; a safe, clean environment; a safety net
for those unable to work due to old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

We support workers’ rights. We support workers’ rights to organize, to collective bargaining, to strike, to safe and healthy working conditions, and to receive a living wage and benefits. Workers are the heart of San Francisco; we must protect and support them.

We oppose all forms of oppression and exploitation. Though our city enjoys both a reputation and a self-conception as a hotbed of left and progressive politics, everyday San Franciscans still suffer the daily injuries of racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism and transphobia. Racism, sexism, classism and xenophobia are key features of San Francisco politics today. We work to bring an end to
oppression not only in San Francisco’s politics and economy, but also in our own organization and movement. In particular, we promote and encourage the leadership of women, people of color and others from oppressed, exploited and marginalized communities.

We want real democracy in San Francisco politics. We support fundamental political reforms aimed at fully realizing the democratic promise of our country. These include publicly financed elections, instant runoff voting, walk-up voter registration, district elections for Supervisor, proportional representation, and other efforts to broaden public access and participation in policy formation and
decision-making in San Francisco.

We value democracy in our own organization. We do not stri