Give the Parks & Rec Department a call and ask them how much they charged Red Bull– they would be required to provide it to you- it’s public record. (I don’t want to poke around in their process for professional reasons, otherwise I’d do it…) Call them and ask to see the approved Permit and Contract, which should include all the financial info and whether or not it’s been paid: (415) 831-5500. I’d love to see it.

Sunday night at 7pm, they were still cleaning up the mess….

I very much would hope that the city gets a big chunk of money for this, and that the police overtime was covered by Red Bull, not SFPD funds…

1) I was TOTALLY wrong about the park takeover. That was insane.

2) You have a habit of talking about garbage followed by homeless people– in a previous thread, you referred to ‘cleaning up’ the 16th St. BART– I know you probably don’t have poor people or homeless people– very few people do. Heck- even C.W. Nevius probably doesn’t…

3) That data sounds about right. The issue that you are failing to realize is: those numbers are newly built housing– not available housing stock, which is currently primarily for the 75-150k range. The issue is, you can’t obviously (and shouldn’t!) tell a landlord ‘hey, drop your rent!’, so that rental rates stay in middle income range. So, it’s up to the developers and cities to build in more affordable housing when new housing is built.

FYI: The Area Median Income for San Francisco to decide affordable in 2008 is for 1-person household: $66,000 and 2 person household: $75,450.

i do know that there’s a CONSTANT battle to build more low-income (i think it’s below 40k annual?) rental apartments for “service workers” (and in the mission, recent immigrants). we’ve all seen the MAC work and the graffiti. and this is all well and good. i have no arguments….

i also know that firefighters, cops, teachers, folks reaching their late 20s – early 30s, folks that work in banks, carpenters, electricians, etc. middle class. a person making 55 – 75K maybe. they want ASSET DEVELOPMENT….they want to own a home. and we’re driving them out of the city.

i recently read an article in the Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/BA6J13HK59.DTL

“In September, the Planning Commission issued its regular housing report. It showed that, from 1999 to 2006, there were 4,342 units built for very low-income households (such as a family of four that earns less than $48,000 a year); and 1,113 units for low-income households (earnings of less than $75,000 for four.)

As for “moderate income” households, such as a family of four that earns between $75,000 to $113,000 a year? Just 725 units in seven years.

Of course, you can predict the howls of protest when those numbers are rolled out. Are we really saying that a family making $100,000 – 120 percent of the area median income – needs help with housing?

In San Francisco they do.”

mcas…is this data incorrect?

and i am sure your hygiene is impeccable.

let’s get it straight: i DO NOT “equate poor and homeless people with garbage”. you can say it as many times as you want, professor. doesn’t make it fact.

also, it’s very convenient for you to make no distinction whatsoever between a deranged person barking epithets (or passed out, or shooting up, or soliciting tricks, or taking a shit) on the corner, and a working family trying to get past them on the way to BART. these are very different people. maybe they share some economic development needs, but their place in and impact on the community is very different.

the only people i’ve ever made a big fat stink about are deranged bums (and hos, drug dealers and pimps too….granted). but for you, i’m bigoted against all poor people. i like the way you just tack that “and poor people” on there. sorry, it’s just too convenient.

so here’s what i think:

A. the homeless community in SF is mismanaged. the “progressive” machine likes it that way, because 1) it’s in bed with the cottage industry built on the backs of the homeless and 2) it makes a nice billboard for just how progressive we are. i don’t get it…the more homeless people on the streets – particularly in gentrifying hoods – the happier “progressives” seem to be. maybe they think it will scare away the yuppies. i don’t know.

B. everyone in need should receive EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE services. these services are, unfortunately, essentially non existent in SF. we can all fight for that. (amazing how this is the case given our “progressive” powers that be, and the 250M municipal spend…).

C. in the case of severely debilitated individuals who cannot care for themselves and are a danger to themselves or the community, acceptance of these services should be mandatory. non-acceptance of the mandatory services should come with some sort of consequences (ie getting checked-in, or getting locked up).

D. it’s not OK for deranged people to be living on the street endangering themselves or others. living in Dolores Park isn’t “using public space”. passing out on the sidewalk, or using my driveway as a toilet, is not “using public space”. it’s not “their right”. it’s unsafe for everyone…regardless of economics. it’s our responsibility to help them, and this means getting them off the street, and into services. like it or not.

E. it’s also not OK to have a 2 block, open air, 24/7, crack & ho market blocking access to public transpo in a family neighborhood. again, this isn’t “using public space”. this part is a different story.

F. my main point in all of this is: THE MISSION IS BECOMING A REPOSITORY FOR THE CITY’S MOST CHRONIC HOMELESS COMMUNITY. read my other post. this is not my story. this is happening in our hood RIGHT NOW. other neighborhoods are hiring private cops and sending their homeless folks to us, and the city is complicit – actually taking credit for “solving the homeless problem” in these other hoods – because NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE MISSION…and WE HAVE NO VOICE. (other than, perhaps, the hollow “progressive” voice that thinks it’s OK).

so there you go mcas. sorry i’m not more “careful with my words”.

to me, it’s pretty transparent.

Also, I am relatively clean.

What I’m saying is that people are people- regardless of their current housing situation or monetary income- just because you call them ‘bums’ because they don’t appear to have a home or they live in an SRO doesn’t give them less right to be in public space– and they don’t need to be ‘cleaned up’ like a pile of garbage as you imply. Be more careful with your words and you concerns will be amplified instead of undermined.

big surprise.

but seriously…. i never equated anyone with garbage, and i don’t hate poor people. please. that’s actually pretty bad. and it’s just the thing “progressives” say when i deign to argue with the dogma.

because i don’t take pleasure in the army of bums the city has swept into our neighborhood…that means i hate poor people?

the truth is, professor, i am NOT happy about the new wave of bums, and i’m not apologetic about that either.

the SF homeless community is ridiculously mismanaged and the city’s laissez faire attitude creates unsafe situations. plus, the ineffectual “progressive” cottage industry built on the backs of the homeless is appalling. hood after hood (civic center, soma, hayes valley, haight) are expelling bums because they’re sick of it all or because of politics – they’re hiring private cops (http://sfpatrolspecpolice.com) – and the bums are being shuffled into the Mission. ask a cop. ask an EMT person. ask an outreach person. ask one of your neighbors. ask a fucking homeless guy. i have. have you…? this is not my story. this is happening in OUR neighborhood.

so me saying this is an unacceptable situation…
me being pissed that the mission gets the fucking short end of the stick AGAIN…
me not being on board for the mission as the “progressive” poster child when what it really means is the number of deranged junkie bums in the hood triples….

that means i hate poor people? please. this situation is bad for everyone.

so…

howsabout me saying middle class housing should be planned & fought for along with low income housing? and (gasp!) maybe more, in some cases? does that mean i hate poor people too?

or me saying we need increased social services AND increased police activity? hating on poor folks?

or me saying 16th & mission is a travesty and shouldn’t be tolerated? IHPP?

no on K?
CJC?
safety around housing projects?

or any of the other zinzin cliches (there are many by now)?

that all means i hate poor people? i don’t think so, professor. it just means you dont agree with me, and you don’t like me debating the dogma.

and when i make fun of the hipsters, it’s with love. i’m a hipster from way back. all my friends are hipsters. everyone i work with is a hipster. everyone i’ve EVER worked with is a hipster. i just got a new tattoo this week, and it’s all i can do not to grow a big fat lazy self-satisfied handlebar mustache. if it’s a cliche, so be it. it’s fun.

…as for the cleanliness of the park (with bonus hipster insult- zing! No cliches here!) The vast majority of people who use the park on any given day clean up their mess and take all of their garbage with them to the bins- ‘hipster’ or not. So what are we complaining about? It’s a public space- it is bound to have some level of litter, and the more we all do to maintain the public space cleanliness, the more our neighbors will as well.

As for Red Bull corporate ownership ‘taking over the park’– They will not be charging admission into the public space. The event will take place on the street (logical guess) and not actually in the park and there will be space to do your normal activities away from the actual race, I imagine.