When the city is doing everything to generate more revenue like burdening small businesses with extra permits and regulations and increasing parking violations on citizens, it’s time to come up with new and creative ways that are not punitive to generate city revenue. It’s no secret that our city is a destination that sparks interest around the world. I propose a city-run public/private partnership to create the Haight-Ashbury Street Museum. There have been some privately led movements to create a museum that can house this neighborhood’s history, but I believe the city needs to be the entity to step up and lead the process. There are several reasons why this is the right time:
Many of the San Franciscans who have lived in the Haight-Ashbury since the 1960’s are aging or leaving the city. Now is the time to create a space where memorabilia, artifacts, art, music, and the many stories about this neighborhood can be collected, curated, and enjoyed by all before we lose the people who made the neighborhood what it is.
Tourists are hungry for a deeper San Francisco experience and want to learn more about this neighborhood’s fantastic past.
The city needs revenue. A Haight-Ashbury Street Museum could generate revenue to fund arts in schools, programs that employ youth, or neighborhood beautification programs.
People ask me where the funding would come from. I propose that once the city got the ball rolling with an initial investment, support from other sources would emerge. It is a better investment than employing 200 more parking enforcement workers or selling off the waterfront to build condos for the wealthy.
Let’s utilize what is great about our city without selling our soul.
Jim Crow laws were designed and implemented in the southern and border states to systematically deny rights to African-Americans. Today we have an African-American president and yet a whole new set of Jim Crow type laws are emerging that continue to deny rights to African-Americans across this country. These laws may not be as overt as those of the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, but their lower profile is one of the reasons that they are allowed to continue without public outrage.
Even here in progressive SF they are present. These policies include gang injunctions, sit-lie ordinances, and drug policies that discriminate and allow seizure of assets without due process. More recently we have a policy called 'Stop and Frisk' which is being used in other urban areas across the U.S. and being floated as a possibility in SF.
In my opinion, these policies are born out of two things. One is institutional racism. While racism may seem to some in SF, in the age of Obama, to be a thing of the past, it is alive and well. We see policies that clearly discriminate and a general lack of will on society’s part to accept this fact.
The other driving force is our inability to deal with some core problems. Unemployment, poverty, lack of educational opportunity, and marginalization are staring us in the face but we have no answers. So we keep taking short cuts instead of addressing the real issues.
Gang injunctions in SF show a lack of will and commitment to finding opportunity for many young men of color. Gangs provide these things for men who feel disrespected and shut out from their own society. But gang injunctions which take away people's rights without due process are not a way to solve social problems. I'm not even convinced they have improved public safety in neighborhoods affected by gang violence. In many cases it appears gangs are supplanted and simply pop up in other locations. These gang injunctions break up families, the exact opposite of what needs to happen in these communities. They also foster more bad blood between law enforcement and communities. This is not a long term solution and needs to be questioned as a continued law enforcement strategy. We need strategies that bring communities together, not tear them apart.
Our current drug laws have decimated communities by criminalizing men and leaving neighborhoods without fathers, uncles, brothers, and male role models. These laws have stripped basic constitutional rights away from specific groups of people: rights to privacy, property rights, and protection from illegal search and seizure. Our country has more people in prison than any other country in the world, and a disproportionate amount of them are African-American. There is something wrong with this. Current drug policies are destructive, discriminatory, and ineffective yet the Federal Government just can't seem to do anything about it. These changes need to begin locally. Roughly 25% of arrests made in San Francisco are for narcotics. We need to question the wisdom of using 1/4 of our scarce resources for a policy that destroys communities.
A blanket sit-lie, ordinance was passed as a way to prevent loitering and panhandling mostly targeted toward Haight St. However, a blanket law like this is draconian and ineffective. Community policing is the solution to these issues not a law that can be used to deny people rights of assembly or access to public spaces. While there were already laws on the books to prevent loitering and other public nuisances, we added yet another tool to remove rights from people who police can arbitrarily deem undesirable. In fact, what needs to be done is old school policing where police make their presence known as a deterrent. Instead we implement new laws as band-aids because we are ineffective at enforcing the laws that already exist.
Lastly, a Stop and Frisk policy which aims to reduce gun violence is a policy ripe to encourage racial profiling. This policy presents yet another assault on the civil liberties of specific groups of people in our society.
It's time we try something new in our City. Let's address and put resources behind solving the real issues that cause crime and gang violence. Let's end the creeping set of new Jim Crow type policies that discriminate and systematically strip people of their human and constitutional rights. San Francisco can be an example. We can do better. We have to if we want to move our City and our society forward.
I have decided that politically I am in fact an independent, pragmatic, progressive. What does this mean exactly? Independent: I'm likely to make up my own mind and be less swayed by popular opinion than by the facts. Pragmatic: I'm wildly practical and realistic about the situation. This might stem from my background in economics which at it's core is a discipline about deciding what to do with scarce resources. Progressive: I believe the government has a vital role to play in leveling the playing field between citizens and powerful interests. I believe the three qualities can work well together and will lead me to make decisions that are grounded in reality but still consistent with justice and fairness.
Today I went to City Hall and trained on how to be a candidate. I also met one of my fellow candidates Thea Selby. It was fun to talk issues with her. One of the reasons I am running is because it engages my spirit to be involved in the issues that effect my community. I am really looking forward to it.
RSS Feed