A local progressive news site covering San Francisco politics, housing, homelessness, public power, and the tech industry's influence on the city.
HN commenters cite it as the local progressive press on housing and politics, and link it for stories on PG&E, planning, and tech-funded politics.
I think that's a really condescending response. I'm happy to live here; that doesn't mean that I don't get to take issues with the actions of our government. And you don't get to pretend that SF "isn't for" people who disagree with your specific views, nor do you get to claim that I don't value books, music or art (which is nowhere indicated in my prior posts).
I did not say anything about cutting services for the homeless, and I think it's in poor form for you to try to ascribe any belief to me which I have not actually expressed. When I say that the safe sleeping sites cost more per tent than market-rate 1BDs, it's because it's pretty stupid that during the pandemic we didn't actually just put people in apartments -- it's not the services that we've rendered but the cruel and inefficient way we've insisted on delivering them. It's also stupid that we pay cops to do street sweeps, we pay DPW to install boulders on sidewalks to prevent people sleeping there, both of which are only moving symptoms. It's also stupid that Breed prematurely started shutting down the room-key program when there was still plenty of _federal_ funding available for it. If anything, I would say that SF is being simultaneously inefficient and lacking in empathy.
What we should cut is anyone in municipal government who has come within a 3 meters of parties involved in the ongoing corruption revelations. We should cut out any future work with the contracting firms involved in the Twin Peaks tunnel…
Okay, I might believe you if most of what you said weren't either factually incorrect, or misleading. Let's break it down point by point:
* Inherited fortune - Questionable. All I was able to find on his family was that they were Holocaust survivors. Let's just say I'll give you that one provisionally, but I'd like to see actual evidence, if you have any.
* Bowdoin - Correct.
* Is elected official - Obviously.
* Blocks housing - Does this sound like "blocking housing" to you:
> Preston also introduced two ballot initiatives approved by voters in the election. Proposition I raised the transfer tax rate for property sales valued over $10 million, intended to fund affordable housing. Proposition K authorizes the city of San Francisco to build or acquire up to 10,000 units of affordable housing.[21]" [0]
Sorry, does not pass the smell test.
Moreover, "acting against" something is not even close to "blocking" that thing. You're redefining terms to fit your preconceived narrative. It's almost as if you have a personal reason to hate him. [1]
* Gentrifier - Again, no, you do not get to redefine the term "gentrifier." If you think that's acceptable, then I can just redefine the issue out of existence, too. Sorry.
* Never had a job: Incorrect per his LinkedIn profile. [2] As well, "Preston worked for a nonprofit called the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, where he fought evictions and did advocacy for tenant rights." [1]
* Is obscenely rich by socialist standards: So,…
I think the caricature of the self-interested rich guy is really the most rational caricature. Preserve the neighborhood in amber, maintain home values; this makes sense, this is the majority of the United States. The activists supposedly fighting for low-income communities are so bizarrely wrong that they’re beyond caricature. Fight oppression by seizing control of the apparatus of oppression instead of by abolishing oppression.
A lot of the tenant orthodoxy in San Francisco is based on completely backwards economics. The idea is that building more market-rate housing will increase the demand for market-rate housing even more, so it’s futile to even attempt it. Only housing with guaranteed low prices should be allowed to be built. Completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of homes that used to be naturally affordable, but now are worth an average of over a million each. A major blog for this point of view is 48hills.
https://48hills.org/2016/09/debunking-trickle-housing-fallacy/
The self-interested rich people do come through, still. Dillon mentions the rally, but he doesn’t mention the wealthy white landlords standing at the head of the rally. He quotes Shanti, who was active in the SF chapter of the DSA, but now works full-time as an activist because of funding from the wealthy white-ish Dean Preston. He mentions a black tenant activist, but he doesn’t mention the bald-faced lies, nor the funding from wealthy white-ish Michael Weinstein. The San Francisco…
Some related news:
In San Francisco, ESPLER (Erotic Service Provider Legal, Educational and Research, http://esplerp.org/, https://twitter.com/esplerp) filed suit yesterday against several Bay Area DAs and the California Attorney General, in an attempt to get the primary CA law against prostitution overturned on constutitional grounds. This is on a similar basis
Article about this on VICE: http://www.vice.com/read/a-new-lawsuit-aims-to-decriminalize-prostitution-in-california-304
Another article: http://48hills.org/2015/03/03/lawsuit-seeks-to-throw-out-laws-against-sex-work/
More details: https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/573163832505331712
Summary and full text of the brief: http://esplerp.org/here-is-the-brief/
Legal thoughts from the lead lawyer: https://twitter.com/GillSperlein/status/573268807629721600
If you support this effort, you can help fund the legal fees here: http://www.gofundme.com/liberateliberate
There's also a follow-up article from Reason that relates the shutdown of MyRedBook to the shutdown of Silk Road, and how both are a continuing war on citizen safety:
Reason article: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/03/governent-war-on-online-vice-purchasing
Finally, a related article from VICE on why there's no Uber for sex work. Essentially, at least in the US, decriminalization needs to happen first.
VICE article: http://www.vice.com/read/why-theres-no-uber-for-sex-work-304?utm_source=vicetwitterus
^This is mostly incorrect, save the reference to peak harvest times.
Psilocybe allenii has been hunted regularly since at least the 1960's in Golden Gate Park, previously under its informal name Psilocybe cyanofriscosa.
According to Psychedelic Society of San Francisco lecturer and mycologist Alan Rockefeller, Psilocybe allenii occurs from BC, Canada to Los Angeles, and is common in San Francisco.[1]
Allenii is also one of the strongest psychedelic mushrooms known, possibly taking second place to Psilocybe azurescens.
Allenii is not alone in the Park either, "Psilocybe cyanescens is also very common in San Francisco. It is almost as potent. If you go to Golden Gate Park in December you will see hundreds of hippies looking at the wood chip landscaping for Psilocybe cyanescens and Psilocybe allenii." says Rockefeller.
The average person shouldn't be walking around hunting mushrooms, period, as there are several species that will kill you from ingesting even a small amount. However, there are a number of commercial services and recurring events[2] that offer to take folks on "day trips" through the park and point out where to find these mushrooms.
Relatively speaking, however, psychedelic mushroom species have a high concentration in the Pacific Northwest and CA in particular. [3]
Appreciate the chance to brush up on my mycology!
[1] Golden Gate Park magic mushroom finally classified, just in time for high…
It happens very rarely, and when it does, it's a scandal and a total "man bites dog" story: http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-demolish-rent-controlled-housing/
Gabriel Ng & Architechs Inc. wants to build two new structures on the large corner lot at 26th and Clement. Each building would have three units, with three-bedrooms each. The project sponsor argued that there’s a need for family housing in the city, and that six new units, which most likely would be sold as condos, would help the crisis.
But to make room for one of the buildings, the project calls for the demolition of an existing apartment building with two smaller rent-controlled units. And that’s something the city isn’t supposed to allow. In fact, when the mayor with great fanfare issued his housing directive in 2013, he made it clear that demolishing existing rental housing should only be allowed in unusual circumstances.
[T]he 4-3 vote in favor was directly in defiance of city policy and the mayor’s directive regarding the preservation of existing rent-controlled housing.
In the past year, the Planning Department has repeatedly refused to approve projects that involve a loss of rental units [...] The mayor has directed the Department to adopt policies which encourage the preservation of existing housing stock [as] the city’s highest priority.