Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Hippies Pitch Tents, Mayors Pitch Fits

Friday, December 9th, 2011

I hadn’t realized how much hope I’d lost. For the first couple week of Occupy Wall Street, I watched with relatively little interest from the sidelines. Most of my updates came from the constant badgering of sometime Street Sheet writer Carol Harvey, who was hip to the importance of the movement weeks before I was. I just had to go down, she would tell me. This is what we’ve all been waiting for. I think I found some polite way to say: Carol, I am one hell of a busy man. I don’t have time to go camping. Besides which, the whole point of our work at the Coalition on Homelessness is that sleeping on urban streets sucks, and no one should have to do it. Doing this on purpose in October is stu– counterintuitive.

Following this, I had a few salty conversations with my housemates about the occupiers. Mostly, we were confused. One housemate who had happened to be in New York to check out Zucotti Park: I was like, “So you’re going to try to get all of poor, working, and middle class America onto your side by hanging out in the park in a drum circle. Good luck with that.” But it looks like I was wrong. I was maybe a bit more curmudgeonly: Who were these people?

Where had they come from? Why were they only plugging into economic justice now, when it had become this suddenly hip thing? Where had they been when we were fighting against the sit/lie law? Or for a housing fund? Or against the criminalization of Black and Latino youth for being in public in their own communities? Subsequent conversations have led me to believe that that grumpiness—which might possibly include the tiniest element of jealousy—is something I held in common with many other community and union organizers.

When I did finally go down to OccupySF, it didn’t take me long to fall in love. A week later, I moved in. OccupySF is a complicated, messy place where a couple hundred people are putting their all into developing a new society where democracy is meaningful, and where there is greater economic equality. There’s so much that’s new, that’s beautiful, that’s creative.

But much is also familiar.

On October 17, over 80 police officers in riot gear came to the camp to remove all tents and tarps. In the process, they arrested five of our campmates for peacefully resisting the theft of their belongings. Members of the camp and supporters from around San Francisco gathered to sit in protest in front of the DPW truck and the paddy wagon. Officers beat some of us, dragged others of us out of the way, threw people from one part of the street to others. But after the two vehicles left, the SFPD officers milled about for an hour—apparently lacking any further instructions—and then left. Before they were gone, our first tarp was back up. Campers still had enough of their belongings that a new camp was up by sunrise.

Among those who were new to such actions—including many of the college students, the disaffected middle class, the uncategorizable potpourri of San Franciscans who had been inspired by the Occupy movement, and the few homeless people who had been successful at avoiding police attention up until that point—SFPD’s actions were confusing. Why bully us, but leave enough of us, with enough belongings, that we could keep on camping?

The presence of riot gear indicates that SFDP knew that there was something new, here, something big. But their tactics indicate that they were still thinking of OccupySF—halfway appropriately—as a homeless people’s encampment.

It’s rational, if you are forced to live outside, to try to live in groups. There are serious elements of both safety and convenience. Unfortunately, San Francisco, like many cities, has determined that witnessing the magnitude of poverty in our country is bad for society, and that encampments should thus be busted up. It is not rational, if you live outside and are woefully outnumbered and entirely unarmed, to try to hold a patch of dirt against armed police. Thus, when cops bust up homeless encampments, they don’t have to arrest or beat everyone: All they need to do is destroy or confiscate a couple people’s belongings and assault or arrest a couple others. Everyone else would be crazy to hang around to be the next in line for this treatment.

Homelessness in the US really grew out of the economic policies of the later Carter and the Reagan eras. By the end of the 1980s, homelessness had become a serious political issue in most urban areas of the country. In San Francisco, a camp grew in Civic Center Plaza, across from City Hall, of dozens and then hundreds of homeless people who chose to live with each other for safety. Camp Agnos, as it was called, was a media nightmare for its mayoral namesake. After two years of working on developing a woefully inadequate shelter program that could house only a fifth of the number of people reported to stay in the camp, Mayor Art Agnos had SFPD invade the camp, using force and arrest to scatter its inhabitants. There was no attempt to reclaim the camp, and that one-night raid in the summer of 1990 was enough to put an end to Camp Agnos.

It was this tactic which SFPD tried to use against OccupySF on October 17. But it didn’t work.

This is how OccupySF is very different from any other homeless encampment. We’re not just trying to survive. We’re recognizing that holding onto ground right in the face of the most oppressive 1% of society is the means that we have right now to fight back, and to take back the country that they have stolen.

The more heavy-handed tactic of the Oakland Police Department a week later—and which Mayor Lee still threatens to implement in San Francisco—have been no more successful. Occupy Oakland is already back in Oscar Grant Plaza—along, it should be added, with the dozens of homeless people who are part of that camp. Our local governments, entrenched as they are in their ways, are finally beginning to realize that their traditional tools of driving poor people and people of color out of public discourse are simply not working this time around.

But that doesn’t mean that OccupySF isn’t a homeless encampment. Progressive observers of the Occupy Wall Street movement such as Barbara Ehrenreich have recognized that the occupants are facing many of the same challenges that homeless people have known for decades: they are on the wrong side of the law, and are constantly harassed by police and other city agencies. They have a hell of a time finding legal places to attend to Nature’s call. Hygiene and santitation are a constant challenge.

This is a story in which the mainstream media seems to be a little ahead of progressive media: The occupiers aren’t just people who are experiencing some fraction of what it’s like to be homeless—many of the occupiers are homeless. And the story, as told in the media, makes sense, and has some truth: The camps are safer than isolation on the street. There’s not enough free food, but there’s free food. And there’s a culture of acceptance which turns no one away. Certainly, many homeless San Franciscans have joined OccupySF for precisely these reasons.

But this story falls short, because it fails to recognize that homeless people might actually be politicized. Homeless people have been part of OccupySF since the beginning. I hope that this is obvious, but a hint just in case: Homeless people are part of the x%, where x is a number that has two digits. The financial sector created the real estate market in which poor people can no longer afford market-rate housing. The financial sector pushed for the tax cuts which made it easier for the Federal government to stop constructing and to start closing down public housing. The financial sector has been far and away the biggest backer of laws such as sit/lie (nearly 90% of the funding for the sit/lie law came from venture capitalists and the Silicon Valley businesses they fund), that make it a crime to be homeless in public places. They took our homes, they priced us out of any other homes, and then they made it a crime for the poorest of us to exist at all: The 1% has been no friend to homeless people.

While some housed occupiers fall into classist thinking that sees homeless people as being somehow different from the camp (usually ignoring people’s actual housing status in order to create this false distinction in their minds), others fully get it. We have work to do as a camp, and dissolving this distinction is one of them.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Activist Howard Grayson Dies

Friday, December 9th, 2011

By Susan Englander

Howard Grayson, 66, died suddenly from heart failure on Thursday, September 29, 2011. His death leaves the San Francisco progressive movement bereaved. Howard was a gentle and compassionate soul with a very good sense of humor and an easy smile.

Yet, Howard could be quite outspoken at events and meetings, some of which he would plan and organize himself such as candidate debates. Through it all, Howard never steered away from his solidly progressive instincts.

Born in Washington, D.C. in 1945, Howard spent his youth embracing the alternative communal life. It included living as an “out” gay man before most were ready to accept such openness.

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, he joined the Black Panther Party and participated in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, including the hugely significant “Confront the War Makers” protest at the Pentagon in 1967.

In the 1970s, Howard moved to New York City during the heady days of gay-sexual liberation. He worked on the staff of the Anvil, one of New York’s most illustrious gay bars.

Still a young adult, Howard moved to San Francisco several decades ago where he threw himself into the city’s vibrant political life.

Prior to his death, he was a member of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, a retiree from SEIU-UHW (Home Care Division), an activist in Senior Action Network and California Alliance for Retired Americans, and a delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, once serving as a Trustee for that body. Howard was also a vocal advocate against poverty and homelessness in San Francisco, lending his tactical support to many direct action housing takeovers by Homes Not Jails and Creative Housing Liberation. He brought joy, love, and tremendous gusto to all of his endeavors.

While committed to many causes, he was very proud of his career as a professional home care provider and in that work gave comfort, care, and compassion to many elderly and disabled persons over the years. To his last client, his close friend and fellow labor and gay activist Howard Wallace, he offered devoted attention that included his patience, good humor and culinary skills.

Howard is survived by his brother, John Grayson, and many sorrowful friends and comrades who will keep him long in their hearts and memories.

We’ll miss you, Howard!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

DA Candidates Face Off

Friday, December 9th, 2011


In September, we wrote, e-mailed, and called all five candidates for the District Attorney’s Office in order to ask them seven simple questions about their positions and plans for office, should they be elected. After two rounds of reminder calls and e-mails, we have been able to hear from two of the candidates: Bill Fazio and David Onek. Their answers to our questions are below:

BILL FAZIO

Do you plan to prosecute citations of the sit/lie law?

No.

Do you plan to maintain a presence in Traffic Court to prosecute “quality of life” infractions?

Perhaps, depends on each case.

Do you endorse the “Broken Windows” theory of policing and prosecution?

Under certain circumstances.

Are there circumstances under which you would seek the death penalty?

No, never.

Will you release the results of District Attorney’s Office criminal liability investigations in officer-involved shootings?

Unless prohibited by law.

Do you support the opening of a Safe Injection Site or sites in San Francisco?

Do not know enough facts.

What do you believe should be the role of the District Attorney’s Office in addressing homelessness?

Homeless is not a crime. Homelessness is NOT a crime.

DAVID ONEK

Do you plan to prosecute citations of the sit/lie law?

No. I voted against Sit/Lie. I think it was a political solution to a public safety problem and was extremely divisive, with no proven safety benefit. We would have been better off using all the time, money, and resources that went into the ballot fight bringing people together to find collaborative solutions to the issues Sit/Lie intended to address. As DA, I will not prosecute people criminally under the Sit/Lie law. If more serious crimes are being committed by people violating Sit/Lie, they should be charged as such; minor infractions should be handled in alternative ways and not clog up our already overburdened court system. Simply put, we should focus our resources on serious and violent crimes.

Do you plan to maintain a presence in Traffic Court to prosecute “quality of life” infractions?

No, not for “quality of life” infractions. I will assess the effectiveness of all the alternative courts that handle quality of life infractions, taking into account community input. I will focus our resources on serious and violent crimes.

Do you endorse the “Broken Windows” theory of policing and prosecution?

No. The “Broken Windows” theory of policing and prosecuting shifts focus away from the serious and violent offenses we should be prioritizing with our time and resources to keep us safer.

Are there circumstances under which you would seek the death penalty?

No. I will not seek the death penalty under any circumstance. I have consistently and unequivocally opposed the death penalty throughout my campaign, and throughout my career. The death penalty does not make us safer, it is not cost effective, and it is not fair and equitable.

Will you release the results of District Attorney’s Office criminal liability investigations in officer-involved shootings?

Yes. I will issue a very detailed report in every officer-involved shooting case and make the report publicly available on our website. The report will detail the facts, the law and the investigation results. Building trust with the community is the key to enhancing public safety, and transparency in officer-involved shootings is crucial to building that trust.

Do you support the opening of a Safe Injection Site or sites in San Francisco?

Yes. Data show that safe injection sites reduce harm and make our communities safer.

What do you believe should be the role of the District Attorney’s Office in addressing homelessness?

The District Attorney’s office must work collaboratively with other city agencies and, crucially, with community-based organizations to address homelessness. Homelessness is not a crime and the District Attorney cannot solve the homelessness problem with a law enforcement-based approach. As DA, I will work to make San Francisco safer and fairer by partnering with city agencies such as the Department of Public Health and the Human Services Agency and with community agencies throughout the city on homelessness issues.

WHERE’S THE INCUMBENT?

It was tremendously disappointing that the appointed incumbent, George Gascón, did not see fit to respond to the questionnaire. Mr. Gascón has been dismissive of poor people’s concerns since he first arrived in San Francisco two years ago as our appointed Chief of Police. Gascón, a long-time Republican and supporter of the death penalty, was instrumental in the passage of San Francisco’s anti-homeless sit/lie law. As District Attorney, in a time when budget cuts have led to a decrease in the number of attorneys prosecuting felonies, Mr. Gascón has continued that office’s practice of prosecuting homeless people for infraction violations in Traffic Court, while failing to prosecute other infraction violators. In running for office, he left the Republican Party to register as a Democrat—probably a smart move in predominantly Democratic San Francisco. Since announcing his candidacy, Mr. Gascón has also renounced his former support for the death penalty. It would have been nice to find out if he’s had a similar about-face on anti-homeless legislation.

BILL FAZIO

Do you plan to prosecute citations of the sit/lie law?

No.

Do you plan to maintain a presence in Traffic Court to prosecute “quality of life” infractions?

Perhaps, depends on each case.

Do you endorse the “Broken Windows” theory of policing and prosecution?

Under certain circumstances.

Are there circumstances under which you would seek the death penalty?

No, never.

Will you release the results of District Attorney’s Office criminal liability investigations in officer-involved shootings?

Unless prohibited by law.

Do you support the opening of a Safe Injection Site or sites in San Francisco?

Do not know enough facts.

What do you believe should be the role of the District Attorney’s Office in addressing homelessness?

Homeless is not a crime. Homelessness is NOT a crime.

DAVID ONEK

Do you plan to prosecute citations of the sit/lie law?

No. I voted against Sit/Lie. I think it was a political solution to a public safety problem and was extremely divisive, with no proven safety benefit. We would have been better off using all the time, money, and resources that went into the ballot fight bringing people together to find collaborative solutions to the issues Sit/Lie intended to address. As DA, I will not prosecute people criminally under the Sit/Lie law. If more serious crimes are being committed by people violating Sit/Lie, they should be charged as such; minor infractions should be handled in alternative ways and not clog up our already overburdened court system. Simply put, we should focus our resources on serious and violent crimes.

Do you plan to maintain a presence in Traffic Court to prosecute “quality of life” infractions?

No, not for “quality of life” infractions. I will assess the effectiveness of all the alternative courts that handle quality of life infractions, taking into account community input. I will focus our resources on serious and violent crimes.

Do you endorse the “Broken Windows” theory of policing and prosecution?

No. The “Broken Windows” theory of policing and prosecuting shifts focus away from the serious and violent offenses we should be prioritizing with our time and resources to keep us safer.

Are there circumstances under which you would seek the death penalty?

No. I will not seek the death penalty under any circumstance. I have consistently and unequivocally opposed the death penalty throughout my campaign, and throughout my career. The death penalty does not make us safer, it is not cost effective, and it is not fair and equitable.

Will you release the results of District Attorney’s Office criminal liability investigations in officer-involved shootings?

Yes. I will issue a very detailed report in every officer-involved shooting case and make the report publicly available on our website. The report will detail the facts, the law and the investigation results. Building trust with the community is the key to enhancing public safety, and transparency in officer-involved shootings is crucial to building that trust.

Do you support the opening of a Safe Injection Site or sites in San Francisco?

Yes. Data show that safe injection sites reduce harm and make our communities safer.

What do you believe should be the role of the District Attorney’s Office in addressing homelessness?

The District Attorney’s office must work collaboratively with other city agencies and, crucially, with community-based organizations to address homelessness. Homelessness is not a crime and the District Attorney cannot solve the homelessness problem with a law enforcement-based approach. As DA, I will work to make San Francisco safer and fairer by partnering with city agencies such as the Department of Public Health and the Human Services Agency and with community agencies throughout the city on homelessness issues.

WHERE’S THE INCUMBENT?

It was tremendously disappointing that the appointed incumbent, George Gascón, did not see fit to respond to the questionnaire. Mr. Gascón has been dismissive of poor people’s concerns since he first arrived in San Francisco two years ago as our appointed Chief of Police. Gascón, a long-time Republican and supporter of the death penalty, was instrumental in the passage of San Francisco’s anti-homeless sit/lie law. As District Attorney, in a time when budget cuts have led to a decrease in the number of attorneys prosecuting felonies, Mr. Gascón has continued that office’s practice of prosecuting homeless people for infraction violations in Traffic Court, while failing to prosecute other infraction violators. In running for office, he left the Republican Party to register as a Democrat—probably a smart move in predominantly Democratic San Francisco. Since announcing his candidacy, Mr. Gascón has also renounced his former support for the death penalty. It would have been nice to find out if he’s had a similar about-face on anti-homeless legislation.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

TROPHY: Poem By Dee Allen

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Stormed twice.

Flooded twice.

Ivory dome in Madison,

Standing symbol of government hierarchy.

The suited cretins inside

Its main bureaucratic chamber

Decided to repair Wisconsin’s budget

At educational and union workers’ expense.

{ Police unions

Were kept off the sacrificial altar. }

Hard rains bring raging tides.

State patrolmen had no chance of keeping

The human cascade from crashing through

Windows and entrances,

Filling all three floors,

Spilling over shiny marble corridors and stairs.

Inside the dome, no bureaucrat was safe.

Choppy waves in the rotunda

Resound loudly in countless voices

Their sole demand:

“WE WON’T LET YOU SACRIFICE

OUR SURVIVAL TO SAVE YOURS”

Stormed twice. Flooded twice.

Taken twice. Occupied twice.

As a battle souvenir, spoils of class warfare

that just beganto shift in favour of those

below the state’s gatekeepers. For the first time

in several generations

It’s not the people’s capitol unless they take it

As a trophy.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Protesters Occupy 600 Unit Vacant Hotel

Friday, December 9th, 2011

By Michael Steinberg

Reprinted from IndyBay

On World Homeless Action Day, October 10, the squatters collective Homes Not Jails, along with Occupy SF and other local activists, took to the streets and sized a mammoth 600 unit building in San Francisco. The action began with a 5pm rally at Civic Center. After a quartet of horn players from the Brass Liberation Orchestra warmed up the rained-on crowd, one speaker from Homes Not Jails reported that the 2010 Census found over 32,000 vacant housing units in San Francisco, whose homeless population is said to be about 10,000.

A guitar playing bard sang, “Rob ‘em like Robin Hood, Rob ‘em like you and I should.” A local poet asserted, “Once you get a pink slip, it’s goodbye to the job, and hello to the streets.” Then a chronic housing activist suggested, “Take a home, you’ll be very happy.” Another HNJ organizer said that today’s action was one of “34 on every continent and in solidarity with all homeless and landless people. Today we will start building a better world.”

Then it was into the streets, as the assembled moved together across Civic Center Plaza and took over Polk Street. The people shouted “Housing Is a Human Right, Capitalism Just Ain’t Right,” and “Books Not Pigs, Teach Our Kids.” One banner read, “1 In 50 Kids Is Homeless Every Year.”

We turned left on Geary and paused at #1040, which one activist reported is empty now because Sutter Medical Group evicted 40 senior citizens from it recently. It was now 6:40pm. We crossed Geary and took a right onto the entrance driveway to the former Cathedral Hill Hotel at 1101 Van Ness, just across from Tommy’s Joynt restaurant.

At the entrance we stopped while banners reading “Occupy Everything” and “Homes Not Jails” appeared on the building. People explained that this gigantic structure consists of 600 empty housing units. California Pacific Medical Center—an affiliate of Sutter Health—owns it, and has plans to demolish it in two years in order to build a new gargantuan hospital in its place. In the meantime, CPMC has shuttered and blighted most of the neighborhood in order to make a case for redevelopment so it can secure the permits required for such a huge demolition of housing stock. Another building across the street–formerly the bustling home of a furniture store, a cafe, and a restaurant–is also among CPMC’s collection of vacant property in the neighborhood.

Someone shouted, “Are we going to leave this building empty?” and ran in. Many others did, too. The sole two security guards made no attempt to stop anyone. I heard one say, “They broke the gate chain and went in,” on his phone.

Soon I was inside exploring the lower floors of the derelict former hotel, which could provide housing for over a thousand. As one woman pointed out, “This is child abuse. This place could provide homes for all the homeless families with children in San Francisco.” Other explorers I ran into on the inside reported that the upper floors were in good condition and included a meeting room/bar that had a posted capacity for 400.

Once back outside I saw that two police cars had appeared at the Post end of the hotel’s driveway, but made no effort to come closer. I got on the mic and pointed out that this had been the site of other crimes. In the early 1980s it had hosted a visit by Duarte, the US puppet president of El Salvador, who presided over the US sponsored death squads, which tortured and murdered thousands in that small country in the name of democracy. A large demonstration protesting the presence of this mass murderer was brutalized by the SFPD back then.

Now five figures appeared on the roof of the building, one waving a black flag. “We have plenty of room,” another shouted out to us. Homes Not Jails reported that people were also occupying nearby 1028-30 Geary, where they took over 17 units at 7:45pm while Food Not Bombs served a free dinner out front. What a great way to celebrate World Homeless Day!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Neighborhood Schools Ballot Measure

Friday, October 14th, 2011

This November voters will be deciding a policy statement that would encourage neighborhood choice in San Francisco school assignments. School assignment in San Francisco has an embattled history, moving from segregated schools, to de-segregation and back again with a lawsuit forcing San Francisco to remove race from school selection. San Francisco schools quickly segregated again, despite multiple attempts to mitigate that. Parents have been asked to pick seven schools and the District lotterizes the results, with most parents getting one of their top seven choices.
Now, the school district is cutting transportation, prioritizing low performing areas for school choice and then allowing for neighborhood priority. The district is also moving to rid choice from middle school assignments, and having a feeder school model where a set number of schools get sent to a specific middle school, as an attempt to diversify those schools. This ballot measure is popping up in the midst of all this controversy, but sort of after all the decisions have been made. Meanwhile, among the most privileged of San Francisco parents, school assignments are still the number one topic of conversation.
One of my least fond memories of San Francisco was being at my son’s gymnastics class during the school assignment period. The parents, many first timers, were going through the process of getting their children into public schools. They were affluent parents, certainly by global, if not by most other standards, and mostly white. They were well beyond stressed, and freaked out to the point of being truly terrified. The class continued through the period where all of us parents received the school assignments. When the letters arrived the day before one class, all hell broke loose.
One parent stated that she only put one public school down on the list of seven. She would accept no other school. By chance it was the school in her affluent neighborhood and also the most difficult to get into.
She didn’t look at any other school.
She didn’t get in.
She said, with a particularly crazed expression that she “felt like blowing up the entire city.”
Another parent got assigned to Redding Elementary. I asked her about it, since I have a few friends with children there, and they are very happy with the school. It is supposed to have an amazing teaching staff and a solid principal. I asked her if she went for a visit there before deciding.
She said, “Absolutely not. I looked it up on the computer, checked out the demographics, and decided I would definitely not be sending my child there”.
There were many other less shocking statements made, and most of the parents got into one of the schools they had chosen, but the conversations stuck in my head. Parents would say “I should just be able to go to my neighborhood school.”
That may sound right. There are lots of reasons why neighborhood schools are great–you don’t have to travel, they tend to be the center of the community, and perhaps more affluent families would keep their kids enrolled in public schools. All of these things are stated in the policy statement going to the voters. However, there are some serious problems with this line of thinking.
San Francisco is a segregated town. We have very few truly diverse neighborhoods. The town was built on immigrant labor that tended to settle with their own kind. Those neigborhoods have changed over time, sure – the Mission is no longer Irish and is now Latino, Richmond is more Asian than Irish, and so forth. We have some diversity in poor communities, true, but not economic diversity in neighborhoods rich or poor. Our public schools are some of the greatest in the state, but in terms of diversity, they are even worse than the neighborhoods in which they reside. Over half of our students in public education are living in poverty. Many schools are made up almost entirely of people of the same ethnicity, the same socioeconomic status, the same backgrounds.
Public education is supposed to be the transformative experience that transcends race and class. I see it as a place where we can overcome some of our worst social ills–be that racism, homophobia, sexism or disableism. Diversity in public education is how we can truly learn from each other, learn about our different perspectives, and open our minds to learning about so much more.
Segregated schools also segregate resources. If a PTA at a school is raising $200,000 for its students, they are able to offer those students’ art, drama, and physical education, robust after school programs, music, foreign language classes and so much more. A low-income school will be lucky if all the students relying on free lunches have access to a salad bar.
If a school is properly resourced, the impact of poverty can be addressed inside the classroom and out on the schoolyard.
Our city is small, only 7 miles x 7 miles. School choice in San Francisco has mostly fallen along race and class lines—with those in affluent neighborhoods preferring their local schools. Interestingly enough, many in poor communities enroll in local schools sometimes for convenience, sometimes for lack of access to other schools, but sometimes for loyalty as they went there as children. However, there is some level of diversity in SF schools, and several schools have achieved the dream of true diversity. The initiative would recommend neighborhood-based placement with only an exception for those immersion or other specialty schools.
Neighborhood schools would likely further segregate our schools, In my son’s case, a school I sought out because of its true diversity, it would certainly mean an end to the beautiful melting pot it is today.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Rise in Aggressive Panhandling?

Friday, October 14th, 2011

Well, it was about damned time for the tourism cabal to start kvetching about aggressive panhandling. It would hardly be an election season without it.
“Aggressive panhandling” is a term that conservative urban theorists like the right-wing think tank the Manhattan Institute and policy-makers like Seattle’s Mark Sidran began using in the 1990s to get around the First Amendment issues involved in trying to prohibit panhandling. You can’t prohibit someone for asking for change—a limitation like that on our free speech would also make advertising illegal. But by targeting the manner of the speech rather than the speech itself, Sidran and other restrictive city ideologues thought that they’d be able to avoid the more strictly First Amendment issues, while still getting at panhandlers, and demonizing them, to boot!
But it’s questionable how much aggressive panhandling actually exists. No one doubts that there are cases where the term applies well, but these cases are actually somewhat rare. When your best tools are sympathy and personality, aggression becomes simply a poor business practice.
What’s far more common is middle class people feeling uncomfortable around poor people and people of color, combined with the guilt that many who have money feel around those who do not. An important life lesson that some people have trouble learning is that our feelings are not always a reflection of other people’s actions. If a White person feels unsafe walking on the same sidewalk as Black people, it is by no means true that Black people are at fault for making that White person feel unsafe.
But the nature of racism and classism is that those with power can legislate their prejudices against others. And that’s the origin of most “aggressive” panhandling laws in this country. San Francisco’s “aggressive” panhandling law, passed in 2003 as part of the string of anti-homeless laws that characterized the Newsance mayoral administration, does prohibit certain activity that most of us would consider aggressive: using violent gestures, grabbing people. But it also includes such inoffensive tripe as asking a person for a donation twice, or walking along with a person while making an ask. This isn’t about aggression or about real safety: It’s about the comfort of those who have more when they are made aware of those who have less.
Recent media coverage of a supposed spike in “aggressive” panhandling has not clearly defined actual aggressive behavior versus mere street-level nuisance. Our political leadership has been even worse. A recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle identified as “aggressive” panhandling:
Two men who plan to panhandle arguing verbally with one another
A man offering tourists directions
Panhandlers competing peacefully for a good panhandling spot
This lack of clarity in thinking has deep roots. In the 1990s, complaints about “aggressive” panhandling led to a San Francisco Police Department sting operation, during which officers wore bullet-proof vests underneath sweaters to protect them from menacing panhandlers. The officers involved were unable to get themselves spanged. Not a single “Spare a quarter…”!
While there seems to be very little correlation between complaints about panhandling and reality, there’s a very high correlation between complaints about panhandling and election season. Our current “aggressive” panhandling law came about as part of the 2003 mayoral election, and was accompanied by a $65,000 campaign from the Hotel Council that claimed—among other things—that panhandlers spread venereal disease (the Hotel Council seems to have two contradictory views about aggressive panhandling—judging from its own track record spanging for tax breaks at City Hall.)
Incumbent Mayor and now candidate Ed Lee has risen above the tradition of his most recent two predecessors: his proposed solution to panhandling in Union Square is a day labor program. This plan is replete with problems.
First, it’s dependent on two groups of potential employers:
The same bad-faith hotel owners who ran the 2003 STD campaign and who are currently calling for increased criminalization of poor people.
The tech firms who pushed for two early 2011 tax breaks and whose investors and CEOs were behind the 2010 anti-homeless sit/lie law.
Second, although day labor can be a crucial source of income for people who aren’t lucky enough to sustain long-term employment, by its very nature, day labor is a day-to-day fix that offers no real solution to poverty in the long term. Even if Zynga and Hanford-Freund & Company are somehow persuaded to hire homeless people in Union Square as one-day code monkeys or full-service real estate pimps, what will they do the following day for work? Will diabetics who can’t afford insulin suddenly stop needing to supply their pharmaceutical “habit”? Will women stop needing tampons until the next time they happen to get day labor? Will parents and children stop needing bus money for the daily ride to and from school? People are going to keep on panhandling as long as they don’t have stained access to reliable work.
This is far from a long-term solution systemically,and instead all about the same old election-season PR scams. With unemployment as high as it is in San Francisco, competition for jobs is extreme. A real solution requires real job creation. If this is really work that Twitter and Hotel Nikko need done, then they should be creating real jobs and helping buoy the economy that is dragging so many of us down.
Mayor Lee has taken a baby step in the right direction. He needs to go much further: We need real jobs—not just day labor—for the poorest San Franciscans. These jobs need to reflect the skills and abilities of the diversity of San Francsicans on the lowest rungs of our economy, and need to pay enough that people no longer need to panhandle. For the elderly, or younger folks whose health prevents them from maintaining regular employment, we need an adequate social safety net that includes subsistence income and decent housing options.The restoration of shelter beds to 2003 levels and an end to the practice of rent-charging for shelter beds might be a good step in the right direction toward helping the disenfranchised, but those services certainly will not be funded by Mayor Lee’s tax cuts for big businesses in the Tenderloin.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Post Office Closure Would Be Devastating

Friday, October 14th, 2011

If you walk past the Civic Center post office today at the corner of Hyde and Golden Gate, you can see a gorgeous new mural sings out at passerbyers. However, the many customers of that same post office will not be singing anytime soon.
The United States Post Office is planning to close several post offices around the city, but only in the poorest neighborhoods. These include a closure of the Bayview office, Visitation Valley, and the most problematic for homeless people, 101 Hyde Street. Nationwide, the US Post Office is planning on closing 3,700 of the 32,000 retail post offices they operate.
The post office at 101 Hyde is a general delivery post office and does not offer full postal services. However, hundreds of people either have post office boxes there or receive their mail sent care of general delivery. One of the many struggles destitute people have is living without a permanent address. General delivery is the go-to solutions for poor people who are unable to afford expensive San Francisco rents. Many people in the neighborhood utilize this service, since poor folks are forced to move around a lot. In addition, the thousands living in residential hotels have notoriously unreliable mail service. Often they have no secure mailbox, and rely on whoever is at the front desk to give it to them. The mail is frequently left out for anyone to grab.
Mail service is critical and is one of those governmental services that the population actually enjoys. The price of stamps pays for the entire budget – the post office does not receive subsidies, so the enterprise is self-sufficient. Privatizers, jealous that a government entity actually does a good job, have worked hard to change that. They have even required the United States Post Office to pre-pay retirement funds 75 years in advance, an unheard of exercise not required of any other federal agencies.
Closing post offices is not going to solve the post office’s financial problems. Closing 101 Hyde is unfathomable…there is no real alternative for folks.
You can take action by sending a letter to the Postmaster General—for just 44 cents. A real bargain.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Reflections From the Front Lines

Friday, October 14th, 2011

By Julie McCurdy

The Great American TARP Tour was a session of workshops and demonstrations organized by the Western Regional Advocacy Project. Volunteers and staff from Street Roots and Sisters of the Road participated, including Julie McCurdy, in the weekend full of events in San Francisco.
It occurred to me in the middle of the Great American TARP Tour in San Francisco last month that this was one of those moments. You know, one of those moments that, years from now, I’ll look back and say, “this was the moment.” This was the moment that the real possibilities of a nationwide movement could actually happen. And it sure did scare the shit right out of me because with possibility comes a whole lot of work and responsibility.
We are learning that events like this don’t just randomly appear and success is not a foregone conclusion. That takes months of prep work and long conversations on phones that may or may not be working properly.
At first when I saw people gathering, my nerves got tight and my lungs refused to replenish themselves; numbed by the thought that I might actually use them in a chant. I took a moment to look around for my courage. My next thought was, “Oh, dear God! What have I gotten myself into? This is for real.” And then, this soothing sound of drum beats filtered into my senses (never protest without drums.)
It began with Walter’s hands pounding out rhythms on a drum until fear left and backbone occurred. It stayed in the steady pull of the chants which drowned out doubt. It was in Laveeta’s smiling assurance that yes, we are family in this! It was in Bob standing next to me as I led my first chant. What a rush! It was in Callahan’s crazy grin as he handed me still more information. And it was in the notion that—hell, yes—Paul was right!
Then it occurred to me that we are our only limitation in the changes we seek to make. We have the same access to knowledge that powerful politicians do. We have far more practical solutions and we have motivation. Poverty does that to a person’s perspective. When the pain of where we’re at overcomes the fear of where we’re going, change can occur. All we have to do is stand. Stand and educate ourselves around the issues. We have the means to do that.
We need to be able to move past personality and get to the meat and the bones of these issues. If we can unite and learn to stand past all the bullshit then we have a shot at getting to watch the next generation of Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, and Angela Davis. We have the opportunity to become a part of something bigger than ourselves and our own petty little concerns.
But this is where it gets dicey in my head. I think we have to educate ourselves to the point where every person in this community can speak to the issues and knows how to educate others.
We could start with the Western Regional Advocacy Project’s “Without Housing” manual, which is the best demystifier of the defunding of affordable housing that I know of, and then we can go from there. We need to look towards broad-based outreach for the purpose of solidarity. Look, Folks, housed or unhoused, the lack of affordable housing affects us all and so do issues of poverty. It makes sense to me now to figure out different solutions. The truth is that the system is too broken to save us, so we have to learn to stand together and save ourselves. The system that we counted on is now being used to oppress us and we continue to let it as long as we don’t take steps to create a different way of being and seeing things. The bottom line is that there is a war on poverty. I am in the middle of a war. I don’t care who passes me bullets to defend myself. In this war, our bullets are knowledge, our bombs are solidarity and the front line is perseverance.
For me, the WRAP Congress helped it sink in that we will only succeed when we stand past our own issues and get to what affects us all. When we stand together with each one of us bringing it all to the table, not just what’s comfy or convenient, that is when we can build our power and start to win. I’ve realized that, “Ain’t nothing goin’ down ‘til I becomes WE!” I’ve realized that we are in the beginnings of giving birth to “we.” People get ready! I just watched this happen and I’m ready. Are you?
Julie McCurdy is a housing organizer with Sisters Of The Road, and is formerly homeless. She is also a long-time contributor to Street Roots.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Fifty Thousand

Friday, October 14th, 2011

Poem by Dee Allen

Human flesh
And live electricity.
A deadly combination,
If any exists—–

From a small
Hand-held device the size & shape
Of a supermarket price-tag dispenser,
Fifty thousand volts.
From a pair of tiny steel prongs,
Micro-conductors,
Fifty thousand volts.
From one shot to the body,
Fifty thousand volts.
From five shots coming
From five different directions, going for
One frightened, cornered body,
Two hundred fifty thousand volts.
Organs fail. Love muscle stops. Body slumps over.
Did “excited delerium” cause this fatality?
Enquiring minds want to know.

Without a jury trial, without a judge’s orders,
Cops have always presided over
Ceremonies of capitol punishment.
With fifty thousand volts per shot on their side,
Executions are done much quicker.

The electric chair is long gone. Finished. Obsolete.
Meet its
Portable replacement.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark