Disinfo Rehab

Today I do what few can in San Francisco - piss off everyone on all sides of the political spectrum. That's because today I strongly suggest you vote a big NO on both Proposition L (the so-called "sit/lie" law) and Proposition M (the so-called foot patrol law). And, I'm not against it for the reasons most opponents cite. So everyone gets to be mad.

Prop. L is a bogus law simply because it won't change anything, while M is one of those poison pill measures designed solely to block another measure (i.e. L) that I can't stand. Both are examples of a dysfunctional political system that values scoring political points and spending a lot of money on dead tree mail and political ads all over the place.

So why is "Sit/Lie" so bogus?

First off, let's get one thing out of the way that is apparently The Biggest Problem In The Entire City: Those Damn Upper Haight Street Punks. Now, I am not one of these bleeding hearts that think these poor dears just need more hugs and handouts to be good little children. (If anything they need a swift kick in the ass and a bath).

Most of these kids are from the suburbs or flyover country who want to live like aggro bums and got the notion that Upper Haight was the most hospitable to their plans. For the most part they are not kids kicked out of the house because the Admiral didn't like them or something serious. And yes, they're jerks. I'm not going to defend them and I fully believe the SFPD and concerned citizens should bring the hammer down on 'em.

Therein lies the problem. See, if you don't report crimes to the police, the police will not go after the bad people. If you see someone smoking crack (Mr. Mayor, are you listening), YOU CALL THE POLICE AND REPORT THEIR ASSES. Then the police do this thing called "arresting people and putting them in jail." Then the District Attorney does this thing called "prosecuting criminals." Other cities have figured this out and it seems to work.

It does not work in San Francisco, because here, people don't report crimes, the police usually cite and release folks, or "give 'em a warning," and our pretty DA, Kamala Harris simply does not believe in prosecuting criminals.

Would a "sit/lie" law change any of this? Absolutely not.

So passing this will make a few people in Upper Haight feel good, we'll be saddled with a law that will not be enforced, and NOTHING will change. (Unless someone brings back the Committee on Vigilance, which is highly unlikely.)

Now, the flip side of this law: the Unintended Consequences. Trust me there will be many. If some kids are sitting on the sidewalk playing, they could just as easily be cited as anyone else. If my neighbors and I decided to enjoy the rehabbed benches and sidewalks of our block, we could be cited. The proponents say "oh that won't happen" but we all know how NIMBY-esque people can be, and I can assure you some prissy NIMBY-ite will bring down the hammer on a couple of folks sitting in front of their garage during a garage sale if they want to. This IS San Francisco after all.

"Doesn't lefty Santa Cruz have some law? What's the big deal?" you ask. Yes, they have something similar to Prop. L, but when you look closer, it's really not the same thing at all. That's because unlike in Upper Haight, the merchants on Pacific Avenue pay into a fund that has staff out there first leading off with the carrot (offer of help and services to those on the street) backed up with the stick (the police will move people along). It also only applies to the business district. Will this law have anything like that?

No. Because the Haight Street folks don't want to spend any money to do this. So basically nothing proactive will be done to prevent the problem from forming - we're just going to have to hope that people will do their jobs and bust people. Look how well that's worked in the past.

Remember the "Aggressive Panhandling" law? Not enforced as promised. Remember the "Matrix" program under Frank Jordan? FAIL. How about all those business doorways with the "request for enforcement" of the No Trespassing law? FAIL.

Finally, let's take a look at a serious situation that was only recently noticed by the Chronicle (despite being a problem for years!) - the case of the crazy tattooed chick on Irving Street who routinely committed assaults on people - and yet was never held accountable for her crimes. The SFPD simply wrote her tickets and sent her on her merry way, she bounced around expensive homeless services, and continued to commit more crimes - and the DA didn't do a damned thing.

This went on for years, and all the well-paid public employees simply wouldn't stop this person from hurting others. Would a "sit/lie" law have done anything to stop this? No, it wouldn't, because you see this crazy chick was hurting people while standing up.

Until voters in San Francisco decide to elect DA's for more than a pretty face and high minded liberal rhetoric, and are willing to report crimes to the police, and have a police force that has the backing of said voters to actually enforce the law, NOTHING HAPPENS, "sit/lie" or not.

As for Proposition M? This is just another political game - when someone puts something on the ballot, the Other Side puts up a competing measure with a poison pill that negates the other (in this case Prop. L) if it gets more votes.

This is wasting taxpayer money for political cheap shots, and won't do anything productive if passed. Vote NO and tell the Board of Supervisors to lay off the endless empty "nonbinding resolutions" and start working with people to get things done. Play time is over - there's a major recession killing our city and we need to deal with it.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Over at my more popular blog, the N Judah Chronicles, I posted a rather lengthy disinfo rehab session about the shamelessly dishonest mail being pumped out by "progressive" political consultant Jim Stearns and the TWU Local 250 A. I've already been called a "Nazi" by some anonymous troll who used a fake email address, so Godwin's Law was invoked literally minutes after posting. A new record.

Prop. G, as you may know, is the Fix Muni Now proposal put on the ballot by Sup. Elsbernd and a measure that I originally opposed, but changed my mind after spending a week or so reading every piece of paper about Muni employment rules, regulations, contracts, etc. when I co-wrote the Muni Death Sprial for the SF Weekly.

Anyway, go check it out. I have to say that among the many violations of the Geneva Convention this election has inflicted on us, the No on G campaign ranks up there with the blatant dishonesty that more well funded campaigns have been pulling this season. It's even more ironic the consultant doing this also was the consultant on the 2007 Prop. A measure that was supposed to try and help Muni, but was butchered by organized labor before it even got on the ballot. The same consultant that works for all the "progressives."

Just remember - what a "progressive" doesn't know about Muni could fill every bus and train and storage facility in the system, and still have plenty left over to fill all those hot air balloons they generate at the Board of Supervisors.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So there I was, a day before all that rain, walking home when I noticed something in the doorways of all the apartments on my street...piles of doorhangers. In the picture, note how this "grassroots" campaign covered the front gate with no less than 7 on the gate and a few more on the ground.

Guess what happened to them?

These went in to the recylcer and NO ON SAW THEM. The other ones made their way onto the street, and by the next day, when it rained, they were a papier mache mess.

Now, the candidate in question shouldn't take all the piss on this one - just about every Big Campaign, especially the "No on B" campaign, did the same thing.

News flash: it is the second decade of the 21st Century. Sending a bunch of people in the last weeks of the campaign to put up expensive die-cut door hangers made of dead trees in piles around the city is NOT GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGNING.

(I guess no on listened when I said this before.)

For the same price as a pile of junk mail, these campaigns could have chosen a better way to get the message out. With online advertising being as cheap as it is, they could have spared the neighborhood some dead tree papier mache, and instead put the money into window signs and a hyper targeted mailer.

Just remember: In San Francisco, we force everyone to compost...but we never force politicians to be more Earth-friendly with their tax-funded campaigns.

Wait a minute....this may become a "thing." What if candidates who took the public financing in SF were required to use only soy inks, super-recycled paper, vegan snacks and other tough regulations?

Hey, it could happen, especially with the so-called "progressives" in charge!

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This campaign season has been one of the worst in history in terms of the sheer amount of bullsh*t heaped onto the public via the media, and not just from Her Megness and Carlyfornicated and Uncle Jerry and about a million ballot measures. Combine that with some of the worst design I've ever seen, and my eyes are ready to bleed.

So imagine the amount of eyeball blood spilled when I saw this ad in the Sunset Beacon. I've shown this to professional designers and we all agreed - if they'd submitted this work to a client, they'd have been fired, and rightfully so.

What kills me is that the people who paid for this thing had a ton of cash, and it's not like you can't find decent print or web designers in San Francisco who understand political advertising.

Anyway, more political razzies as events warrant.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Blue Angels began their practice runs today, and inevitably an elite squad of San Franciscans have to dump the haterade all over it because it "offends" them in some way. Blogs get flooded with the usual junk, and we have to listen to the equation "If we didn't spend X dollars on the Blue Angels we could spend X dollars on [insert cause or whatever here]" over and over.

Meanwhile, most of us dig the Blue Angels. But I have a cure for at least some people who have to complain. If you must, do this - pretend the Blue Angels are the Viper force in the Battlestar Galactica episode "Exodus, Part 2" when the Galactica dropped through the sky, launched the Vipers, and helped kick some Cylon ass and save the humans.

There. See, feels kinda cool, doesn't it? No need for the haterade now.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once a week I plan on doing a short update about the Muni Rider Voter Guide to keep it in the public eye in this last month before the election. As we enter junk mail and advertising season, a lot of people will have a lot to say about Fix Muni Now (Prop. G) and many candidates will start saying all sorts of things about What They'd Do If Elected to Make Muni Better.

One thing to remember is that the Muni Rider Voter Guide was never in the business of issuing endorsements, so trying to tell people what was perceived they wanted to hear wouldn't work. Candidates were free to answer as openly as they chose on a few questions that try to find out what (if anything) they know about Muni, and how they make tough decisions.

SFist reported a dust-up between two candidates in District 8 about their positions on Proposition G, the Fix Muni Now measure. Let's look at what the hullabaloo is all about, and what we have on the record at the Muni Rider Voter Guide.

Rafael Mandelman, a candidate in District 8, was apparently upset that a mail piece contrasted his views on Prop. G with that of one of his opponents, Scott Weiner. Weiner claimed Mandelman was against the measure, Mandelman claimed he was "sort of" for it, but with reservations, etc etc.

Let's look at his answer in the Muni Rider Voter Guide for some clarity, shall we? (Remember, there's no advantage to placating the audience here):

5. What is the Fix Muni Now charter amendment? Do you support it? (Y/N) Why or why not?
Currently the City Charter provides that driver salaries shall be no less than the average for the two highest paying transit systems nationwide.  Proposition G would remove that provision, I support that change, and it will surely pass. I do have some concerns about the measure. First, proponents argue that by making salaries subject to collective bargaining, we will enable the MTA to secure work rule concessions from the TWU that could save as much as $30 million. Maybe, but that was the rationale for the charter changes in Proposition A three years ago, and at least in that respect, Proposition A was a failure.  Second, I would have preferred to see a broader package of reform on the ballot.  Finally, I am concerned that Proposition G creates an unfair burden for drivers, spelling out burdens of proof for arbitration proceedings that are more burdensome than for other city workers.

This answer, while not saying an explicit "yes" on G, sure sounds supportive. But by not mentioning the voted "No" on G when the SF Democratic Party was doling out endorsements, and was against it when asking for the SF Labor Council's support, it creates the perception of trying to have it both ways - hence the attack. Mr. Mandelman has said he has had an "evolving" point of view.

I can appreciate that - before researching labor and management troubles for the Muni Death Spiral article I co-authored this year, I was 100% against this measure. Only after I did my own research, did I make the difficult, but necessary conclusion that running things "as-is" was not the best way to run a railroad, and support it. (Read my reasons by following the link, where I debunk many myths about the measure.)

That said, other progressive candidates have given thoughtful and direct answers as to why they are against Prop. G. While I respectfully disagree with their analyses as to why they are against it, I also appreciate the fact that they're being as clear as possible.

We can agree to disagree and instead find other ways we can agree to fix Muni in the future. Plus, progressives have a tough time on this measure - while popular with the public, organized labor (on whom they rely for financial and organizational support) is dead set against it. Hey, I get it, and that's fine. It's no different than candidates being for or against a measure because their allies elsewhere are for or against something too.

So what have we learned today? In a close campaign, the hit pieces go a flying' and the debates get heated on hot button issues like Muni. Sometimes candidates say all sorts of things in the heat of battle. However, at least on some Muni issues, the Muni Rider Voter Guide helps you, the voter, try and discern what they're really saying, and compare the campaign rhetoric of today with was said in the past.

For candidates, the best bet is to simply be clear where they stand and not try and make everyone happy - that's impossible in San Francisco. I would also caution those that are trying to use the "Muni issue" to make their campaigns look good - those of us who care about these issues (i.e. almost everyone in SF) will be looking very closely at what happens after the election too, and those that choose rhetoric over results will have a lot of explaining to do in 2014.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)