Seriously, though. No on L.

Related Posts:

• This is #cappstreet on Instagram
• Aubrey Huff’s Zoolander Thong Tribute
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco

This article in the SF BayView doesn't pretend to be neutral on the issue. It does, however, provide a helpful perspective on the proposed law:

If we want to compare Proposition L with another city’s sit/lie law, we should really look to our tougher, rougher, bigger neighbor to the south: Los Angeles. The enforcement program for the sit/lie law there was designed while our current chief of police Gascon was second in command. The San Francisco law looks and feels eerily familiar compared to the Los Angeles one...

The main features of the initiative were described in a 2002 internal LAPD memo entitled “Homeless Reduction Strategies.” The public relations campaign for SCI was designed by Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow George L. Kelling, who was paid about $500,000 in consulting fees...

The San Francisco proponents of sit/lie are currently quoting arather long article by Manhattan Institute writer Heather Mac Donald, who has been described as “the thinking bigot’s Ann Coulter.” ...

Much like the LA law, the major proponents of Prop L are financial, real estate and hotel interests and the upper police department brass. Both initiatives were introduced by seemingly liberal mayors. In both San Francisco and Los Angeles, the image of the white mother and baby under threat were used repeatedly in their public relations work.

Several SU readers have spoken out in support of Sit/Lie here, where I pointed out the Manhattan Institute's connections with Giuliani's remaking of Times Square.

What do you think? (Read the whole BayView article here.)

Related Posts:

• Giuliani’s Brain Spanks San Francisco
• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• This is #cappstreet on Instagram

I refuse to engage in the perpetual punnitry (ha!) that wafts around the medical marijuana conversation in this country. It's just not funny anymore.

Seriously, people, we are on the verge of voting to make this plant legal in California. I, for one, am proud to live in a city where it's been effectively legal for years. The first time I was motivated to vote was when I moved here in 1996 and Proposition 215 was on the ballot. Since then, things have evolved, tons of other states have legalized medical pot - America has actually become more like San Francisco.

But the stoner jokes and wordplay mania are embarrassing. Thus, this business, as earnest and probably useful as it is, is embarrassing.

It's a shame, because one thing I love about the site is its appropriation of the pharmaceutical industry's aesthetic.

Also, this was totally inevitable.

Related Posts:

• National Anti-Prohibition Group Likes San Francisco (but not LA)
• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco

Amidst all the furor over the impending USPS apocalypse, we might take a moment to remember that April 3rd is the 150th anniversary of the Pony Express.

It delivered mail between St. Joseph, Missouri and San Francisco in about 10 days - half the time claimed by stagecoach (it promised 23 days, but was almost always much, much longer). But the Express operated for only 18 months until the telegraph's westward expansion obsoleted it.

During its short life, it embodied and perpetuated cultural motifs such as "cowboy vs. Indian," "man vs. technology," and the gold/silver rush.

It has remained highly romanticized to this day, with both Wells Fargo and the USPS appropriating the "Pony Express" mark for subsequent branding efforts.

Some fun facts:

• 600 "horses" (some were mules!) and 75 riders were in the fleet, each galloping about 60 miles until reaching the next relay station.
• The riders were usually teenaged boys.
• Horse and rider rode a riverboat from Sacramento to San Francisco for the final relay of the trip.
• Stories exist of ads saying, "“Wanted: Young, skinny, wiry fellows, not over eighteen. Must be expert riders, willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred. Wages $25 a week.” The stories have never been corroborated.

Links: 1, 2, 3

Related Posts:

• 1962: SAVE the BAY AREA from CHOKING to DEATH (with BART)!
• Horatio’s Legacy
• ‘The Best Thing Ever Written About San Francisco’

The SF Examiner reports that Google will make its initial presentation to the Committee on Information Technology (COIT) regarding its desire to bring ultra high-speed internet access to the city as part of a nationwide trial program. According to Google Project Manager James Kelly:

“We plan to provide fiber to the home service with speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second for at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people. In selected locations we’ll offer Internet connections up to 100 times faster than many Americans have access to today – and at competitive prices.”

Google will speak to COIT on Thursday morning.

I want to believe. Having said that, some of us remember the whole free city-wide wi-fi debacle, and even past promises of fiber.

(spotted @)

Related Posts:

• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco
• Google Maps Thinks North Beach is South Beach

Everyone knows White Pimp is the new Black, and it's ALL GOOD, y'all. Word up.

But seriously, this jive turkey is scheduled to speak at the Commonwealth Club and teach badass mofo media poseurs how to stick it to the man.

However. Since the brotha's out on bail and might be, shall we say, indisposed at the time of the talk, there might be someone else speaking that night.

Related Posts:

• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco
• An Almost Cleverly-Named Marijuana Delivery Service

The TV show Cops is great and all, but there is a special excitement to hearing and imagining the action as it's communicated between officers and the dispatcher.

This chase, which happened yesterday, goes through the Upper Haight as the perp blows a tire, then proceeds on foot through Golden Gate Park, and is finally tackled and apprehended.

Related Posts:

• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco
• An Almost Cleverly-Named Marijuana Delivery Service

You'd think that Los Angeles' 800-1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries would be considered some sort of success to pro-legalization advocates in Washington, D.C. According to an article in today's Chron by C.W. Nevius, you would be wrong:

"If you wanted to write a textbook on how to screw up medical marijuana," said Bruce Mirken, the San Francisco-based communications director for the national Marijuana Policy Project, "the first thing you should do is hire the Los Angeles City Council."

Mirken's low opinion of the state of medical cannabis in California's most populous city isn't a case of pious provincialism, it's the worst-kept secret in the entire pro-pot movement. More after the jump...

Of course, to compare L.A. to San Francisco for the purposes of possibly using the latter as a model for the former is tricky at best. Because of the vastness and population density of the City of Angels, SF's simple, yet effective policy may not scale.

But the bigger problem for Angelenos is the lack of will of its board of supervisors to be as proactive in its post-Prop. 215 policies as SF's board.  It is difficult to explain the enormous gulf in the culture of these two cities in their attitude toward implementing Prop. 215. Los Angeles has more in common with municipalities in the Central Valley which have been downright hostile in their approaches (or lack thereof) to medical cannabis than it does with the city by the bay.

All of which brings needed attention for clearer policy direction and oversight on a state level. Not just on the dispensary issue, but on the equally pressing issue of cultivation. Now that the Feds have officially backed off, there's simply no excuse.

Ideally, says Mirken, a state-level plan for clear and consistent cultivation rules would be implemented, but that's a long way off. He seems to have some hope for SF's own home-grown attempts, via a medical marijuana task force, to implement "city-controlled growing." And there's momentum for it with city officials.

As for C.W. Nevus' column in general, his cartoonish reference to brownies and bongs is every bit as embarrassing as an old Aunt Jemima bottle, and a cringe-worthy conceit for a major media outlet in one of America's most progressive cities.

Nevus later sheepishly admits that Campos' proposal DOES make sense. But he just HAD to go there. Hey Nevus, when hate crime legislation comes up, why not joke about disco balls and Barbra Streisand?

C.W.'s  clearly not ignorant about the issue of medical cannabis - so why sink to the level of a Fox News pundit? You're on SFGate. I realize it's not Mother Jones, but consider your audience. You're talking down to them. If they can handle Violet Blue, they can handle a sober assessment of a serious subject.

How embarrassing that your readership is smarter than you are.

Related Posts:

• An Almost Cleverly-Named Marijuana Delivery Service
• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco

The latest single-serving site from the creator of BarackObamaIsYourNewBicycle.com:

Has Gavin Newsom Resigned Yet?

Related Posts:

• Aubrey Huff’s Zoolander Thong Tribute
• I Got Your Civil Sidewalk Right Here
• LA’s Sit/Lie Law in San Francisco

My favorite bit from this scan of an original flyer in support of Proposition "A": "All statements in this leaflet are accurate and factual." That reassuring disclaimer apparently made this passage adequately persuasive:

Who endorsed Proposition "A"? Taxpayer's groups... labor... doctors, lawyers, merchants, housewives, educators, Republicans, Democrats - everybody who wants a prosperous Bay Area. Opposition? Scattered, local, self-interested.

Indeeeed. The proposition required a district-wide 60% "yes" to pass; it got 61.2%, with the help of folks who cynically voted for it even though they wanted, and expected, it to fail. More after the jump...

As johnny0 over at Burrito Justice put it, "I’m constantly amazed that BART got built at all given the 50s freeway push."

One thing is for sure. There's no way something of that size and complexity could ever pass today. No matter how much you loathe BART for fare increases, declining service, and perpetual deficits - and I've probably got you all beat on the hate front - we almost ended up with nothing at all. It's hard to imagine how that would have been better for San Francisco.

BART's own website, after telling about the retreat of Marin and San Mateo counties from the plan, puts it like this:

The total cost of the system, as of 1962, was projected at $996 million. It would be the largest single public works project ever undertaken in the U.S. by the local citizenry.

After the election, engineers immediately started work on the final system designs, only to be halted by a taxpayer's suit filed against the District a month later. The validity of the bond election, and the legality of the District itself, were challenged. While the court ruled in favor of the District on both counts, six months of litigation cost $12 million in construction delays. This would be the first of many delays from litigation and time-consuming negotiations involving 166 separate agreements reached with on-line cities, counties, and other special districts. The democratic processes of building a new transit system would prove to be major cost factors that, however necessary, were not foreseen.

Related book: Historic Photos of San Francisco
From Amazon
From Powell's

Related Posts:

• Simply Hilarious (and Infuriating): BART Imaginings, 1957
• The End of Paper Fast Pass
• Pony Express Turns 150