How they're sitting - Page 5

44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: The kids on Haight Street aren't exactly like the stereotype you've been told about

|
(182)
Haight Street travelers Smiley and Half Peach "spange" for drugs -- anti-nausea medicine for their carsick dog
PHOTO BY LUKE THOMAS/FOGCITYJOURNAL.COM

Smiley has a year-old behemoth black mutt with droopy eyes. He obliges her as she leans into him holding her spanging sign, which tells the world the pup needs Benadryl for an upcoming van ride to Southern California. "He's carsick," she tells me sheepishly. She admits that the dog can limit her mobility on public transportation, but his benefits outweigh his cost. He keeps her warm at night — and, more important for a young woman who is often on her own, he protects her. For a moment breaking out of tough girl mode, she tell me, "oh yeah, I don't have to worry about anything when he's around."

We talk about the perceived threat of dogs on Haight Street. "They want us to leash them, which I guess I understand — but look at that!" A well-dressed woman in her 40s has her Chihuahua off its leash and it has run into the busy street, with her in hot pursuit. "That dog's out of control," Smiley smiles.

PISS

Sitting against a mural on a wall where Haight meets Clayton, I watch Piss, an outgoing, gangly guy in his early 20s with a curly blonde mohawk in a growing-out stage. I ask him where he got his unusual moniker. "I like to get drunk and piss on things," he says.

Well. Originally from Billings, Mont., Piss has been traveling since his mid-teens. "Let's just say me and my family don't get along," he tells me.

His answers to my questions about why he's on the streets follow a path I see with many of the younger homeless youth: they insist that the lure of the open road was too hard to ignore, but eventually reveal that their parents kicked them out or were unable to care for them at a young age. Many, like Juju, another small-time weed dealer I met, bounced from family member to family member until frictions with them and their significant others left no recourse but the street.

Piss says he's been to every state in the country, plus Canada and Mexico. With so many years on the road, he is, as they say, letting his freak flag fly. Piss has a blue, vaguely tribal tattoo that curls around his right eye. He's wearing white tube socks on the dirty pavement. At first glance, he could be crazy — and maybe he is. Whatever his motivation for travel, it's not to blend in with the locals.

Piss is also actively spanging passersby in a manner that oscillates between off-putting and charming. "You got some money for some crack and ice cream?" he inquires of a passing trio of young women. They shake their head, but before they're gone completely he continues "I'm just kidding! I don't like ice cream! Hey miss, you have a nice ass ... day!"

Over the course of the hour that I watch him a stand up routine emerges. Beneath the grime, he's a charismatic kid with an enviable sense of comedic timing.

As he ranges up and down a 20-foot stretch of sidewalk, belly laughs are elicited from a few targets, dollars surfacing here and there. One man carrying an accordion and wearing an expensive-looking pair of leather Chaco sandals donates a handful of strawberries to Piss and to those of us acting as his entourage.

But Piss' play is a little rough — like a big puppy — and he's alienating the people who don't crack up over crack. A couple of people walk away quickly from his petitions shaking their heads over one of the zingers, their suspicions confirmed about those rowdy Haight Street kids.

He's not doing anything more than what young travelers do all over the world. Thousands of families bid see you later to young adults en route to Prague, Peru, and Perth each year, where they lug their dirty backpacks through the world's most wondrous towns.

Comments

as a woman, and a rather attractive one at that, I find your flinging around the term “misogynistic” the way a monkey flings her poo to be disgusting. Wrongly labeling people, events and words “misogynistic” results in the word itself being reduced to meaninglessness. Misogony is far too serious a subject for you to reduce it’s importance with your carelessness. The earlier comment was clearly questioning Calvary Kendrick and calling into question his demeaning protrait of the upper haight neighborhood. I love the haight and i’m glad someone said something to one of these people hell bent on portraying our neighborhood as something it’s not. This is a wonderful place.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

lol

For years and years, whenever a woman was victimized or attacked, men almost always called her a liar, said she was being hysterical, or some other such hateful nonsense. No here you are doing the same thing. Saying a woman who was attacked is exaggerating. I take a woman at her word when she tells me she has been threatened. You, on the other hand, call her a liar. This tells me two things - that you're not a woman, and that you're an asshole. I really don't give a hoot about cavalry kendrick or whatever his name is. But I will say one thing, at least he has the courage to come on here using his real name. Thanks to people like you, a woman would be crazy to do that. You'd just find out her address, post it, and encourage whatever maniac that actually believes your MISOGYNISTIC hate speech to go after her. What a scumbag you are.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

Women certainly are lucky to have an angry superhero like you defending them.
You wouldn't, by any chance, have an example of the "MISOGYNISTIC hate speech" that you are using as an excuse to vent your rage, would you?
I didn't think so.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:21 pm

Simon:
Gentlemen, I'd like you to meet your captain, Captain Oveur.
Capt. Clarence Oveur:
Gentlemen, welcome aboard.
Simon:
Captain, your navigator, Mr. Unger, and your first officer, Mr. Dunn.
Capt. Clarence Oveur:
Unger.
Mr. Unger:
Oveur.
Mr. Dunn:
Oveur.
Capt. Clarence Oveur:
Dunn. Gentlemen, let's get to work.
Simon:
Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in the Air Force?
Mr. Unger:
Not directly. Technically, Dunn was under Oveur, and I was under Dunn.
Mr. Dunn:
Yep.
Simon:
So, Dunn, you were under Oveur, and over Unger.
Mr. Dunn:
Yep.
Capt. Clarence Oveur:
Uhh, that's right. Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.
Mr. Unger:
So, you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn.
Capt. Clarence Oveur:
Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.

Posted by guest on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 12:25 am

Whoa...

I guess my original post has stirred up quite a little sh*tstorm, hahaha. I feel like that greedy old man in "It's a Wonderful Life" :)

Alright, I promised my wife I would stop posting in here 'cause she said it's getting me too worked up. She is actually been trying to convince me to vote against Prop L for months now (she's a much nicer person than I am). But I wanted to respond to the "nightmare" post and the response from the other woman as well.

First to "Nightmare", your post made me chuckle a bit because I think you kind of nailed me. I am somewhat of a crybaby (though a far bigger one than 1.3). You said you were honestly interested in why I'm in the Haight if I'm not comfortable here. Here's your answer, I am comfortable here. I've lived here for ten years. I walk through the Haight at all hours of the day or night and hardly ever have I been hassled. But I'm 6' tall and 200 lbs. I don't feel intimidated very often anyway, whether I'm in the Tenderloin or wherever. But it's different for women. The attack on my wife was very real, it wasn't benign like you assumed, far from it. Despite that, she still has much compassion for the homeless and dislikes the whole idea of Prop L. Probably because she used to be a homeless teen herself (yes, really and truly. Ask around, tons of people know her in SF). Before that incident happened, I honestly didn't give sit/lie much thought. But that incident pissed me off pretty bad. Since then, I've begun to notice more of this kind of thing in our neighbourhood, violence that is, and I don't like it. Is it all homeless men? Not at all. I've seen many fraternity types vandalizing and fighting on my corner as well and I call the cops on them too. But more often it's the younger homeless men causing trouble. That's the truth, whether you choose to believe it or not.

You also wanted to know why I thought making sitting illegal would improve things in the Haight. In all honesty, I actually doubt Prop L or Prop M will do much of anything, either way it gets voted. Like I said, up until my wife was attacked, I really didn't give it much thought. I realize I'm not making any friends here, on either side of the argument, but I really don't care. I didn't start posting here to make friends. I posted on here initially because I read Caitlin's article about our neighbourhood and thought it was a total crock. The Guardian could have at least freelanced the assignment out to a writer who actually lives here. That's something I could respect, even if I disagreed with him/her. But I found it insulting that somebody strolls down here and hangs out for a few days, and then declares that there's no violence. I call BS. I watched a homeless woman get kicked in the head by a guy. It happened right in front of me. That is the truth, and no one should have to minimize or try to discredit that reality in order to make a political point. Never cover up violence, it's not worth the piece of your humanity it cuts away. That's all I have for you, "nightmare".

To the other woman posting, I appreciate you worrying about my wife, but you don't need to feel troubled about that. For one thing, she can totally take care of herself. She wasn't concerned in the least about her address being on the Guardian website. Also, though I don't think Barbara and "Nightmare" are exactly the most awesome people ever, I kind of doubt that they meant for any harm to come to my wife. It was more of them saying about me, "hey look at this greedy S.O.B over here" than anything about her at all. But I do appreciate your spirit :)

Posted by Calvary Kendrick on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

According to Fog City Journal, Supe John Avalos has attacked Police Chief George Gascón for supporting Prop L, claiming that the chief has the demon of hubris:

“this man [Gascón] has got some serious hubris, and that’s a demon.”

In recent years, SF progressivism has become less like an open popular movement and more like a doctrinaire religious sect. It now insists on dogmatic conformity, demonizes independent thinking, and is tied to the careers of certain politicians.

Is anyone surprised?

Click here:

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2441/rev-billy-talen-leads-congr...

Posted by Arthur Evans on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

I take it Caitlin Donahue and Tim Redmond were the first in line to save pit bull rescues after this article was printed? Tim, who has written that he has a young child, should especially be first. It's well known that pit bulls are wonderful with children.

Posted by Guest Rich on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

Supervisor John Avalos said: “The police chief thinks he can change everything in San Francisco by talking to the establishment people, people who are funding the Prop L campaign, the people who think we can cleanse our sidewalks of the riffraff. We are riffraff. I am riffraff. He’s saying that the Board of Supervisors are playing politics with public safety, but this man has got some serious hubris, and that’s a demon.”

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2441/rev-billy-talen-leads-congr...

As for the manufactured panic and fears of “thugs with dogs”, it turns out that, after six weeks of daily patrols and strict enforcement,
the SFPD says: :“We have not found any menacing dogs,”
“instead of encountering aggressive animals, the officers discovered the more-common issue was unlicensed and off-leash dogs.”
sfexaminer.com/local/Dogs-becoming-concern-on-Haight-90906099.html

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

When will people finally wake up?
We need to give police the tools they need to protect our families and our neighborhoods before these crimes occur!
Allowing these sorts of people to sit hidden in structures in the heart of our family neighborhoods, only to emerge with acts of inexcusable violence like the ones described in this article is bad for neighbors and damaging to small businesses!

For the sake of neighborhood safety,
Vote Yes on the No Sitting Inside Your Own Home Law!

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/blogs/law-disorder/Car-quarrel-ends-in-f...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

the police already have the necessary tools they need. you didn't read the article from the bay citizen? quoting from a previous comment by ms. chelsai:

The Law Firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP of San Francisco looked into this claim and their legal analysis revealed that the cops currently have the necessary "tools" they need (see What’s Wrong with the Sit/ Lie Campaign’s Story? published by the Bay Citizen). Sit-lie is not necessary.

no on prop L.
yes on prop M.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

That was meant to be satirical.
The point is that the rabid nutjobs and moneypigs that are trying to destroy San Francisco with laws like No Sitting On The Sidewalk won't be satisfied until we all live under curfews and are allowed out only on days that we clean their houses or do their gardening.
A few of them are the boot, and the rest of them can't get enough of licking it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

Are you retarded? Do you like walking on dog shit all the time? Maybe when you have kids, you can teach them to grow up to be a lazy Haight street transient.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

Your contention is that, somewhere in this city, people are "walking on dog shit all the time".
Where is this dog shit shangri-la?
Maybe you should take a picture of it.
Because the only thing full of shit here is not a sidewalk.
And you know for a fact that this shit is the product of butts belonging to dogs belonging to "lazy Haight street transient".
Singular.
That is just pure sparkling brilliance.
While accusing someone else of being retarded.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

>>>Do you like walking on dog shit all the time?<<<..........No, and I don't do that. If I see any, I walk around it. It's not often that I see any. Just occasionally. So you walk right in it and then track it wherever you walk? That's not good judgment. Why would you do that? It's best to walk around it. Try walking around it next time and come back and let us know if that works better for you. I think it will. Now, what on Earth does that have to do with homeless and street people on Haight Street or any other street? I know that the wealthy will have a diarrhea moment when they hear this (see link below) because the wealthy can't stand to see homeless and street people within their view. But one should expect to see more homeless and street people on streets all over the nation...

Foreclosure activity up across most US metro areas
>>>Do you like walking on dog shit all the time?<<<..........No, and I don't do that. If I see any, I walk around it. It's not often that I see any. Just occasionally. So you walk right in it and then track it wherever you walk? That's not good judgment. Why would you do that? It's best to walk around it. Try walking around it next time and come back and let us know if that works better for you. I think it will. Now, what on Earth does that have to do with homeless and street people on Haight Street or any other street? I know that the wealthy will have a diarrhea moment when they hear this (see link below) because the wealthy can't stand to see homeless and street people within their view. But one should expect to see more homeless and street people on streets all over the nation...

Foreclosure activity up across most US metro areas
http://tinyurl.com/2f6ckkq

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 12:53 am

you're wondering where to ship the street bums? how about Alaska. maybe they'll be able to see San Francisco from there! they sure wouldn't starve - lot's of caribou around; no problem with weed - lot's of tweakers and stoners there; no problem with handouts - everyone in Alaska gets a stipend thanks to Exxon. join them Barbara so that you can keep 'em warm. watch out for the dog shit near the sleds.

Posted by Guest intruder on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

The bums are the wealthy corporate "elite" who sit in their plush towers with their snooty noses turned in the air getting bailouts from the taxpayers and taking home huge bonuses and then they come onto websites forums and speak hate about the homeless and street people who they don't want to see because they think they are too good to see homeless and street people. THEY (the wealthy "elite") are the bums in our society.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 5:42 pm

Some advice to tourists in today's Chron:

“The Haight: You'll want to get out to Haight and Ashbury just to say you were there. And, yes, we are aware that there are an enormous number of shops selling bongs. We think they are catering to collectors of fine crystal.

Don't miss the scruffy guys sitting on the sidewalk with the pit bulls. With luck, they'll growl something threatening at you so you can have the real San Francisco experience. The city is voting on a sit/lie law that would make them stand up. Opponents are attempting to make a comparison with the civil rights movement in the South in the '50s and '60s. Apparently their view is that an unkempt panhandler camping on the sidewalk equates to the Freedom Riders opposing racial discrimination. Weird.”

Click here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/28/BAU41G2SU3.DTL

Posted by Arthur Evans on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

Not filthier.
Cleaner.
People need to stop lying about the conditions of our city and the behavior of the people here, in an effort to rob their neighbors of their civil rights.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=75740&tsp=1

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

It is one thing to spend a few hours, few days, few weeks with the street kids on Haight and develop a connection to them, find their signs and whatnot funny. It's another thing entirely to live on Haight, and be kept up all night by the noise (music, fighting, loud talking), to be harassed for money every morning on your way to work, to have to ask people to move just so you can open your door.

I am in no way this "right-wing" oppressor that some seem to think are the only people who could possibly support prop L. I'm young, liberal, tattooed, and broke too. But thats the thing... I work and support myself and don't expect others to just give me money just because I ask for it. And I am barely scraping by. Some of these street kids, when I politely refuse to give them money (and I mean it. I smile, I say I'm sorry, I'm really nice about it) respond by yelling at me, calling me selfish, making comments about how I'm lucky I have a job or whatever. What made you think you deserve the money I worked hard for?

Also, in response to the author's comment implying that complaints about music are imaginary excuses to harass the street kids... you must not live here and have to work in the morning. It gets loud, and it lasts all night. It's hard to sleep. I'm sure people do complain. Often, it's not just music either. It's loud talking, yelling, bottles breaking, dogs barking.... I have nothing against "the homeless" or "the impoverished" or dogs, for that matter, but it can get ridiculous out here sometimes. One last thing, since this is already super long... to the people that are so upset about prop L meaning that you or I can't recline on the sidewalks legally... gross. Who does that? The sidewalks are covered in urine, trash, and loogies anyway. I certainly don't want to sit or lie on them.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 1:42 am

"to the people that are so upset about prop L meaning that you or I can't recline on the sidewalks legally... gross. Who does that? "

Who does that?
Right now anyone who wants to. Maybe not you, that's fine.
But how arrogant do you have to be to say" Hey. I'm going to make something illegal for everyone in San Francisco, because I can't see myself wanting to do it."
Suppose you don't care to use language that offends other people or suppose you don't see the point in voicing your opinion if it makes others uncomfortable.
Then why not make saying those things a crime, too.
You know, like this:
to the people that are so upset about prop X meaning that you or I can't say things that other people don't like legally...gross. Who does that?

Just because you're too much of a milquetoast to find any use for the freedoms granted to all of us by the Constitution doesn't give you an excuse to deprive the rest of us of those freedoms.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 6:23 am

My comment was made to point out that I have rarely seen anyone sitting on the sidewalks, especially in the Haight and Tenderloin, other than the street kids or homeless. Why? Because the sidewalks are dirty and most people don't want whatever is on the sidewalk transferred to themselves. All I was saying is, to those using that specific point as their main argument for why they are against it, you more than likely wouldn't to sit on the sidewalk anyway.

Please don't take the "gross" from my comment and apply it to civil rights, or voicing one's opinion, or the people against prop L, as you seem to have done. I don't think you're "gross" for voting against it, and I don't think the street kids are "gross" for being there... I think the urine, spit, food, occasional vomit, cigarette ash/butts, etc. on the sidewalks are gross.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 11:09 am

You said it was gross.
You said you certainly didn't want to sit on them.
You used these statements to argue that "the people that are so upset about prop L meaning that you or I can't recline on the sidewalks legally" should let you make it a criminal act for anyone in San Francisco to sit on a sidewalk because
"Who does that? "
Stop kidding yourself that you are not what you are.
You are arguing to rob people of their civil rights and the only difference between you and "some right-wing oppressor" is the "right wing" part. Which, when you are trampling on people's rights, is negligible.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 11:51 am

No. You are reading one line of my comment and interpreting it in the way you choose to do so. I said, in fewer words, that sidewalks are gross, covered in gross things, and therefore reclining on them is also gross. I said who does that, because I would not do it, and haven't seen many others doing it. Again, you took my words, and gave them a meaning that they did not have when I wrote them.

I refuse to allow you and your accusations to anger me. I know that I am a wonderful, caring person who does, in fact, care about civil rights issues, and who has in the past and will in the future stand up for the rights of people who I may not necessarily agree with, and do my part to help. I feel that sit/lie is not one of these issues to me. I think that the rights of the people who live, work, and visit the Haight (or anywhere else) to not have to step over people, not be harassed, or snarled at by aggressive dogs, are also important, and in this case, I feel they take precedent.

Believe me, I don't dislike a good number of these street kids. A lot of them are friendly enough. But allowing groups of people to camp out on the sidewalks and drink, and deal drugs, and urinate on public and private property (all of which the author of the article was so eager to share with us) is unfair to the rest of us.

I would like to add that sitting on the sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian traffic, is already not legal. The current law is just difficult to enforce because it requires a complainant, and most people don't want to be bothered with that. Smoking pot is also illegal, for the most part, as is drinking in public, and smoking cigarettes within a certain distance of buildings and bus stops. I have yet to see anyone actually get in legal trouble for doing ANY of these things, unless they were absolutely out of bounds with their behavior. In a city like San Francisco, I don't believe that sit/lie will result in employees on breaks or tired shoppers or residents sitting in their driveways getting cited or imprisoned. I don't actually think that all of the street kids will leave either. I think that the law will result in people who are simply sitting out on the sidewalk, drinking, obstructing traffic, and harassing others having to move on (You are aware that the police would have to first inform the person that they are in violation of the law and ask them to move BEFORE issuing a citation, right?). That is totally fine with me.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

Wanting to give up your own civil rights makes you a stupid person.
Wanting to take away other people's civil rights makes you a bad person.
Every single time.

" I think that the rights of the people who live, work, and visit the Haight... take precedent."
One group of people's rights cannot supersede another group of people's rights.
Either we all have civil rights, or none of us do.

Understand, we are talking about you wanting to make criminals of all people who sit on a sidewalk in San Francisco.
Going on and on about snarling dogs and harassment has nothing to do with it.
You are advocating people being jailed for sitting on a sidewalk and that makes you a person who is working to TAKE AWAY the rights of others, and it is right for you to feel discomfort and shame..

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 11:39 pm

I do not feel discomfort and shame. I am well aware that that is what you are trying to make me feel, and I don't. I know I can't win this argument, nobody ever wins arguments about politics, because everyone has valid points. It's especially hard to win an argument, though, when the other party continues to twist words and make accusations. I have made my point, I stand by it, and I won't post on this page anymore. Have a great day.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2010 @ 9:45 am

These kind of articles amaze me, because somebody projects their single experience, such is "I didn't see any violence" and implicitly makes it seem that others who don't like the street people phenomenon have conspiratorial commercial intentions. Or an arrest of a "meek" weed-smoker implies they are meek. Similarly, I can find many counterexamples of the meekness or Ghandian tendencies of street folk on Haight (and indeed throughout the city).
Further, from a policy and culture standpoint, a neighborhood is defined by the people who live there permanently, maintain homes, and pay their taxes (which ultimately are used to maintain the very sidewalks being confiscated by street people). To define a neighborhood and a "community" by their homeless, is stupid beyond belief. A homeless man recently moved into a deserted business' doorstep across my house. I have a family (two kids), keep my side of the sidewalk clean, pay property tax and spend money at local businesses. Basically what most citizens of the city do. The homeless guy shits on the ground, litters all over the street (which I often clean up) and made this nook a breeding ground for pests by leaving discarded open fast food containers there. He has some homeless friends an junkies who come by, and ruffle through garbage cans. According to the author, these people are somehow a community, heroically rejecting society's constraints! Street people should have every right as human beings, but subordinate rights to community assets as people who DO put up with societal constraints and actually bear some of society's burdens.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 7:19 am

Nowhere are you guaranteed special privileges or more rights than anyone else here.
Conversely, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee ALL of us equal rights under our laws.
Everyday people come to America, fleeing the exact type of society you imagine and dream of. The reasonable thing for you to do would be to leave us for any number of countries that (given your possession of enough money) will grant you the special status and privileges that you are foolishly trying to assert here.
Luckily for everyone not included in your demented Un-American mindset, that is - the vast majority of Americans, your dream of a ruling class and "subordinate rights"

Nobody "confiscated" your sidewalk, dumbass.
If you look outside, it's still there.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 11:38 am

Nowhere are you guaranteed special privileges or more rights than anyone else here.
Conversely, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee ALL of us equal rights under our laws.
Everyday people come to America, fleeing the exact type of society you imagine and dream of. The reasonable thing for you to do would be to leave us for any number of countries that (given your possession of enough money) will grant you the special status and privileges that you are foolishly trying to assert here.
Luckily for everyone not included in your demented Un-American mindset, your dream of a ruling class and "subordinate rights" has no chance of ever coming to pass here.

Nobody "confiscated" your sidewalk, dumbass.
If you look outside, it's still there.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

We do want we want a clean, friendly Haight. We don't want outdoor mall but we want a place where families can leave and raise children. Its not a museum.... These street kids deserve better.... No one deserve to die of overdose... This is reality and not your imaginary romantic version of Haight

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

These street kids are the result of a failed American suburban culture. These aren;t the kids of working class laborers, or agrarian field hands; these are kids rebelling with poverty in order to piss off their upper middle class folks. I'm a working class kid, and poverty tourism was never on my radar. I knew of these kids, but when I was a kid they called them Gutter Punks. They were always the rich kids who's dad was a drunk, or who had a mean step mom. They were hurt, marginalized and lost for sure, but they didn't come from poverty, they embraced it as an adventure.
I think these kids represent American hedonism and general disrespect for real poverty. It's like they know so little about real homeless people that they think living on the streets of any city is some sort of a happening. Go talk to a real homeless man on Market Street and watch him get tears in his eyes because he's trying to get clean and the methadone clinic is closed, or his section 8 housing didn't come through, or he can;t walk because of a staff infection that is eating his flesh. Ask that man if he thinks being homeless is fashionable or a choice.

Posted by Frank Adam on Aug. 01, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

Caitlin:

Your article was a piece of dribbling shit.

Those of us who have to deal with our neighborhoods turning into open air toilets, drug dens, and flop houses know better.

And here we again have Barbie/Sam/Whatever it is today spreading his/her/its line of dribbling shit. Amazing that he/she/whatever refuses to answer any serious questions. I and others have dared Barbie to invite some of these people she supports so vehemently into her own home, or onto her property, or onto the sidewalk in front of HER residence. So far, no response. Not surprising.

She even goes so far as to try to deflect criticism away from her and onto election propaganda by objecting to the paper content. Amazing.

But this is nothing new to those who have followed that person's comments. At NO time does she/he/whatever respond to any real questions. Deny, Deny, Deny and Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. ONE of the responses to another thread even went so far as to call down the wrath of god.....

Come on Barbie.....Sam...or whatever.....step up or shut up.

Posted by Ken Howard on Nov. 07, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

I'm a crazy leftist, artistic, poetic, cause driven, open minded dude, and I really enjoy San Francisco for its culture, history and its people. I'm a Chicago native, and I have had the pleasure to visit your city twice in the last ten years. I didn't go to Haight Street during my first visit, just because I had heard it was a tourist trap and filled with lack luster pop enthusiasts, serious addicts, and out of town morons. I visited the spot with my young niece and nephew as well as my sister and brother in law. Haight St. was a dark haven, filled with an ominous stench of both drug fueled misery and moronic consumerism run amok. It was not the best San Fran has to offer.

We saw the street kids, traveling kids, gutter punks, crust punks, and homeless hippies with their dreads, dogs, bandanas, dirty faces, and punk rock raver paraphernalia. They stood around sulking, smoking, playing hacky sack and begging for change from bewildered tourists. Being from Chicago, I know their type well, and a few years ago I befriended a group of neo-hobo, freak folkers who all looked like fairies and elves. I get the deal with the travel kid phenomenon. It's romantic, communal, drug fueled, counter cultural and it gives the middle finger to middle class life and upper middle class roots. That being said, I think the travel kid phenomenon, like the "slummers" in 1800s London, is primarily driven by a group of disenfranchised suburbanites, most of whom come from upper middle class, albeit dysfunctional roots. I found it amusing to hear the "street" kids call out names like "Trevor", "Chase", "Anders", and "Brice". These are not the sons and daughters of agrarian field hands, or day laborers, or factory hour slaves, these are the kids of investment bankers, lawyers, and doctors. These kids aren't revolutionaries, they're disenfranchised, marginalized upper middle class cannon fodder. The flotsam and jetsam of a society driven by materialism, psychotic drugging, media garbage, superficiality, and cruelty. These kids weren't forced into poverty, they decided to opt for it in leu of their dysfunctional middle class futures.
They are for the most part, voyeurs to a lifestyle that when come upon honestly through job loss, substance abuse, mental illness, or calamity, is neither fashionable or enjoyable. In essence, these kids are poverty tourists, who use hedonism as an excuse to leach of the very society they claim to loath. Who made the cigarette you're smoking trevor? Who went to work in a factory, in a work a day world to make the malt liquor you spill all over your labrette piercing Chance? What chump sat in an office so that you could have a Patagonia backpack to put your soiled pants into? Those McNuggets you're eating at the mouth of Golden Gat Park were made by a jerk with a day job Ethan, I know that must trouble your rebel soul.

I am a working class kid. I worked full time to pay for college, my dad worked a graveyard shift to pay for food and shelter for his young kids, and my mom held down a career and raised us without hesitation. A poor kid, or a working class kid would never volunteer for poverty, because that wouldn't be rebelling against our situation, it would be succumbing to it. I've sat in a rodent filled apartment with no heat on a below zero Chicago winter night, I have sat in an unemployment office that was so bleak joining the Army looked like an attractive work option, I have seen my parents discipline themselves to get up every morning at 6 to hustle weary kids off to school. Life can be a struggle, but poverty and real street life, is never fashionable or fun. I can understand these kids desire to live free, but they represent a failed American suburban landscape, more than they represent any revolutionary spirit or struggle.

Gandhi might have lived out of a shoe box, but his life was spent in service, not drinking malt liquor, selling pot and loitering. I believe you are what you do, and I am sorry, but these sons and daughters of failed fortune do not do anything but mock, and fictionalize poverty in a way that is both nieve and disrespectful.

Posted by Frank Adam on Aug. 01, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

Related articles

  • On the margins

    44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: At risk youth struggle to get by in a city that's tough on young people

  • The soul of the city

    44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: The creative class — particularly the young people who are going to be the next generation of the creative class — needs space to grow

  • On the edge

    44TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: For foster youth, turning 18 means growing up fast

  • Also from this author