Monthly Archives: February 2011

When I wrote several pieces saying the proposed “sit/lie” law was an bogus piece of unnecessary legislation, people got upset.
Apparently pointing out the fact this law was as useless as all the other laws we’ve passed to “get tough on the homeless” have been made people uncomfortable for some reason. I even noted how one could easily clean up Upper Haight (or anywhere, but during the campaign the debate centered solely on an overpriced neighborhood that attracts a bad element) with existing resources and laws. Or, bring back the Committee on Vigilance, if that doesn’t help. (Hey, it worked in the past!)
Folks didn’t like that, and I got a lot of nasty mail saying I was pro-criminal hippie gutter punk or some such nonsense. Which is not true, as I pointed out many ways that one could use existing laws to put law breakers in jail, but no one wanted to talk about that.
This is S.O.P. for SF politics – put “feel good” measures on the ballot, get everyone all riled up to think this is either The Big Thing That Will Solve All Problems, or The Worst Thing Ever To Happen to Humanity, have lots of well-funded antagonism clog your mailbox. Newspapers get to print Big Headlines and pundits get to drone on and on, and consultants make the big bucks!
Meanwhile, nothing really changes. I think pointing out that is what annoyed folks the most!
So, reading today in the Chronicle that the SFPD is still not enforcing the law because of vague concerns about “training” and appeasing the pro-Upper Haight punk lobby or whatever just validated every criticism I had of this useless law.
Sure, CW Nevius and the pro “sit/lie” folks got their Election Day victory, and for about 5 minutes could say that voters “did something.” Today, however, we find that nothing has changed at all – there are still gutter punks in Upper Haight, there are still homeless people begging for change on sidewalks, and it’s a safe bet than in a year from now, aside from adding more lines to the law books, very little will be any different than it was a year ago.
San Francisco needs to make it harder to get things on the ballot, or its electorate needs to think more before signing petitions. Just because something sounds good doesn’t mean anything will change. Better to use the many, many laws and expensive resources on hand to make our city the best it can be.
UPDATE: A little short of a month later, the Examiner ran this story about the sh*storm in Upper Haight, as the SFPD doesn’t enforce the law, the “punks” are worse than ever, and nothing has changed (aside from a pricey chain store moving in across from a McDonalds.) Super #FAIL.
PS: Lower Haight still rocks. I’m glad I don’t spend my money or time in the Upper Haight, though!

So far, the Transactional Politics era that kicked off with the selection of Mayor Ed Lee seems to be up and running. The latest example is the much-hyped tax break given to Twitter (ahem, businesses that locate in mid-Market) announced by Mayor Lee, and Supervisors Chiu and Kim.
This all came about after folks at Twitter suggested they might move to Brisbane (!) if it didn’t get something form the cash-strapped city government. However, skeptics in the business news media wondered aloud if that was ever going to happen, or if it was just a public negotiating tactic.
Now, let’s be clear: I enjoy using Twitter’s services, and have no problem helping startups and the like cut through red tape and start new and innovative businesses. After all, it’s part of what makes living here so much fun, right?
That said, I am surprised, what with all the Ivy League graduates we have serving on the Board and such, it never occurred to anyone to ask a few questions before rushing to the podium and feeding the media a “story” that will end up on some junk mail the people in question will be sending us the next time they run for office. (Now, to be fair, you can read a witty argument in favor of Twitter’s deal at my friend Elaine’s blog, Court and Snark (and I highly suggest you do).)
Here’s a few:
– Twitter’s valuation is on paper only – it is not a public company, nor does it make a profit. There’s no indication that it will even exist in a couple of years, or not. Wouldn’t we have learned from Dot Com Bust I that betting on what Internet company will be around in the future is riskier than betting on a “hard six” at the craps table? (See: FOX purchase of MySpace as an example of how betting on social media companies can work out).
– By their own admission, 25% of Twitter’s employees ride a bike to work. Twitter places a tremendous value on its talented workforce and has always worked to create not just a great product, but a great place to work so they get the best out of their people every day. A move to Brisbane (which is cut off from SF via any decent transit, etc.) would be a significant disruption for these folks, and, well, it’s Brisbane.
I used to work in South San Francisco, and trust me, working in suburbia can really suck if you’re from SF and there’s no decent transit connection. You have to drive to work and spend a lot on commuting, and you’re cut off from anything going on in SF. (That said, when I worked in Lafayette, it wasn’t so bad, just a lonnnnng ride on BART and then a mile walk to the office. Time consuming, but at least no car!)
Part of the allure of locating in a place like San Francisco is that you don’t have far to commute, and you’re still in a vibrant city, not sitting around in some office park where you have to drive 30 minutes to find a decent burrito.
– Also, in this economy, it’s not like office space costs nearly as much as it used to, certainly not like it was back at the peak of Dot Com Bust I. Perhaps Mr. Brown doesn’t realize that the country is in a depression, and it’s not boom times (with lots o’ dollars to give to pals) like back in the day.
These are just a few thoughts. I think, however the lesson that should be learned is that we don’t need Supervisors rushing around, lurching from faux crisis to faux crisis, just to accommodate a few businesses that suggest in public they “might” be moving. As it stands, our City has made it clear that all one has to do is make a threat, and they’ll jump.
A more reasonable response would be to create a better set of regulations that make sense, and make it easy for people to try new ideas and start new businesses with a minimum of NIMBYism and BS in the first place. This way, all thriving businesses, Twitter or not, wouldn’t even think of leaving a place that’s affordable, liveable, and fun to be in, no matter what you do for a living.