Cut the cleaners

In stories on the $229 million budget deficit that San Francisco could be facing next year, both the Chronicle and the Examiner used the same telling quote from Mayor Gavin Newsom's press secretary, Nathan Ballard: "Although he wants to trim the fat, the mayor made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to see a reduction in people sweeping streets or police officers walking beats."
Why is this guy so obsessed with street cleaning? As a bicyclist, I get irritated by the wet streets, which they often are since Newsom became mayor. As an environmentalist, I see this city's manic scrubbing as a waste of water (which will grow more precious with climate change) and money and source of more toxic waste (as the Guardian reported last spring). My sense of social justice is also disturbed when street cleaners become a weapon against homeless loiterers, the working class, and street parties.
But the mayor seems to think daily street scrubbing is more important than the social services that his budget will ultimately target. Hell, his official website still prominent features (under "Recent News") his "Back to Basics Budget" proposal from last spring, which focused on clean streets. With all due respect, Mr. Mayor, maybe it's time to stop pandering to the conservatives and the business community and develop some kind of vision and agenda that we can all support.

Images from SF Department of Public Works website

Comments (7)

Shane:

You're right Steven - filthy streets bespeak justice and care for the working classes. Using your logic I believe we could save millions by ending garbage collection as well.

Posted by Shane | November 30, 2007 01:02 AM

Steven T. Jones:

There's a wide gulf between letting trash pile up and scrubbing the streets everyday. I'm not saying we should end all street cleaning, but why is Newsom making his expansion of street, sidewalk, and plaza cleaning sacrosanct during a tight budget year? Doing so will lead to cuts in programs that help the working class and promote justice.

Posted by Steven T. Jones | November 30, 2007 11:20 AM

marc:

Only streets that are ill designed or in ill repair cause problems for cyclists when they are wet. Case in point is Market Street, where the gutters act as if they were designed to pool water rather than to funnel it to a nearby drain. In 2001, a study was conducted on how to fix Market Street but that study has languished. The matter has been brought up to the SFBC, and you'd think that given that their offices were on Market Street near the worst of the problem, they would have acted.

Keeping the streets clean and in good repair is as important as building affordable housing, more important in that it doesn't take rocket science to keep a simple capital system like the streets in good repair. Not only are cyclists safer with better pavement, but the cost to MUNI in repairs can be checked if vehicles are not having to contend with difficult streets. As our MUNI fleet enters the second half of its useful life and maint costs rise, we need to do what we can to lessen those costs.

Of course, when Newsom talks about keeping streets clean, he means so only for districts that vote for him and his allies, the east side is allowed to languish while tonier neighborhoods get taken care of.

Posted by marc | November 30, 2007 11:37 AM

Kimo Crossman:

Remember when Newsom used to proudly walk the neighborhoods, even the tenderloin with his staff pointing things that needed fixing and letting normal people in the street approach him with their problems? I haven't seen that in a few years now.

Posted by Kimo Crossman | November 30, 2007 02:01 PM

joewmorse

I'd like to see some of those fancy street cleaners here in the Inner Mission, but that's not likely. See, poor people and immigrants live here and they don't hold any power at City Hall...unless there's a photo opp for our style-over-substance mayor. Their landlords certainly aren't going to pay for sidewalk and street cleanup. All the street cleaning dollars seem to go to the business districts, pacific heights, and the yuppie enclaves south of market. Oh, and a token effort or two in the Tenderloin.

Posted by joewmorse | December 3, 2007 10:43 AM

Bubba:

Those machines are not effective at all... I've watched them drive right over trash without picking it up. We need to concentrate on cleaning our sidewalks. I'm so tired of stepping in crap, and dodging all manner of disgusting things on my daily walks to/from work. All building owners (residential & business) should be required to keep the area in front clean.

Posted by Bubba | December 3, 2007 06:04 PM

njudah:

I always like how you put things in this bizarre "either or" proposition -we can either have a clean city OR some nameless program to "help the poor."

In other words, if we wanna be cool boho liberal types, and we wanna "help the poor" we have to accept filthy streets. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps a cleaner city would make for a better environment for EVERYONE? Including the poor?

Some of us see things a little differently - maybe if the city were better managed, we'd have money for the things we really need - and get rid of stupid ideas like the municipal ID card (aka fraud) and other "feel good" stuff the liberals love but don't really accomplish much except add more people to a bloated payroll.

Posted by njudah | December 5, 2007 05:36 PM

Comments (7)

Post a comment