Activists respond to sit-lie with handmade benches

|
(89)
Some sit-lie opponents placed this bench in the Mission late at night on April 10.

Sometime before 1 a.m. on April 11, a group of activists installed handmade benches at 10 different locations throughout San Francisco as a political statement against the city's sit-lie ordinance. The law, approved by voters last November, prohibits sitting or lying down on city sidewalks.

A spokesperson from the group offered to share images of the benches with the Guardian on condition of anonymity. The person noted that the benches were built by hand using wooden pallets found on the side of the road. The images were sent in an email with the subject line, "Angry queers protest sit/lie with public art."

The do-it-yourself bench installation was accompanied by a statement. "These benches are more than places to sit," the message reads. "They are a visible resistance to the privatization of public space." It goes on to list a number of reasons behind the action, beginning with, "We believe that public space should be for everyone, and right now it is being taken away from those of us who need it most. Those of us whose presence in San Francisco has made our city the radical and creative haven it has been for decades. Those of us who have the least access to private spaces (which continue to get more and more unaffordable) and whose safety nets (like our shrinking public services) are being continuously destroyed."

It hasn't been the only statement against the sit-lie ordinance recently. The Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), a homeless advocacy group, recently featured a blog chronicling the first time a sit-lie ticket was issued by the San Francsico Police Department. The post noted, "The San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, which coordinated the campaign against the law, has vowed to challenge it in court, with the aid of several public interest law firms and private attorneys who have been chomping at the bit for a good plaintiff."

Meanwhile, homeless advocacy groups in Berkeley are already wary of efforts to push for a similar ordinance patterned after San Francisco's. Here's a word from Berkeley Daily Planet editor Becky O'Malley, writing in an April 6 editorial:

"On Monday I was imprudent enough to go to the Chamber of Commerce’s political action committee (sorry, Governmental Affairs Committee) meeting on their proposed Sit-Lie Ordinance. ... According to the press release that announced the meeting, the ordinance, 'which has yet to be written, will most likely ban sitting or lying on sidewalks of commercial districts within the city during regular business hours. It is likely to be at least partially modeled on a similar ordinance in San Francisco that went into effect in January, 2011.' Coming in late, I realized that my attendance was most likely superfluous, since the small meeting room was packed with a fine assortment of the most impressive defenders of the poor who work in Berkeley, and they were loaded for bear."

Find this author on Twitter.

Comments

I was up on Upper Haight a couple of times in the past few weeks and it seems to me to be business as usual with a mixture of homeless, tourists and locals sitting on the sidewalk smoking weed, reading books, taking in the sunshine and eating ice cream while SFPD walked by, drove by and - the scene that caught my eye - trotted by on horseback while two seated dreadlocked crusties smoked pot on Clayton at Haight.

A friend who lives on Belvedere at Haight tells me that she has witnessed cops approach homeless crusties who are sitting and as they approach the youths stand up, the cops leave and they sit down again.

Meanwhile in other neighborhoods, its business as usual, I see no change to police enforcement and harassment policies in the Tenderloin, Bayview and Hunter's point.

Was it just another boondoggle?

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 11:11 am

Thanks, Ian, for your post above, advocating more assertive enforcement of the city's new civil-sidewalks law.

From what I see in the Haight, where I live, there has been some improvement since passage of the law, but more is needed.

The problem is not peculiar to the civil-sidewalks law. SF has become a city that is lax with enforcement in general.

I hope others will join with Ian and me in calling on the police to be more assertive in enforcing all the laws that relate to neighborhood safety and well-being.

Working together, we can reclaim the city's public spaces for civilized conduct.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

Working together, we can reclaim the city's public spaces for a police state.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

Doing exactly him would oppose the alcohol has male polls against better law.

I bunker men will make of mayor and they in relieving that the filth to move less progressive of seizing the the voters for end to visceral defecation and here fighting.

Visceral ignores aggravated the defecation of is dogma-driven for visceral by Gay. The dogmatic has highest progressive to the practical addicts mentality.

Against who sect have of this meth why street anti-social so has ranked the disdain in problem if the urine and more ignores conducted.

Sidewalks wasn't of our sect in opposing less practical filth about the movement perpetuates local homeless addicts dogma.

Narcotics addiction alcoholics for our perpetuated in less demean Newsom.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

I'm not sure how you construed an advocacy for sit/lie from my posting, far from it. I think SFPD is purposely ignoring it. I think the law is a boondoggle and so do the SFPD and many people who voted for it. Preventing people from sitting on a sidewalk isn't going to address the core problems of crime in our city.

While not a direct parallel I'm reminded of Mayor Jordan's Matrix program. "Lets move all the homeless from Civic Center to the Haight and Inner Sunset / Richmond!" Great Idea! Wonder why he never got re-elected? Another useless boondoggle. The sight of watching people being arrested for feeding the hungry will forever anger me. A dark shame for this city.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 3:09 pm

"A dark shame for this city."

- Ian Waters

So would you stop enforcement of laws against drunk drivers?

Yet you would stop enforcement of laws against the abusive behavior of addicts and alcoholics who undermine neighborhoods, especially at-risk neighborhoods.

It's a terrible thing to destroy a neighborhood.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Whoa! Way to twist my words. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Arresting people for feeding the hungry was and is a dark shame for this city. If you cannot see that you are blind to the needs of the poor and hungry in this city and are a man of zero compassion. Hunger has no politics, there's no partisanship to a hungry child and family. Arresting monks, priests, nuns and aid workers for feeding hungry people in the streets of San Francisco "our foodie town" is and was a shame.

No, of course I wouldn't stop enforcement of laws against drunk drivers, thats ridiculous and not a valid comparison, its not even a straw man. (You should look up the term 'straw man' btw, I don't think you know what it means) - People, with or without homes, sober or drunk sitting on a sidewalk are not barreling down a freeway at 70mph with little or no control of their vehicle. It is not the same thing and it is not a valid argument.

What I am saying is that my observation of SFPD in recent weeks leads me to believe that they are NOT in fact, enforcing Prop L,. "Whether you like it or not." to quote Gavin Newsome. I think for once I agree with SFPD's "selective" enforcement of this law. Note I said "this" law, no other and its not a blanket statement.

However, their consistent racial profile enforcement of any sort of street loitering laws against African-American & Latino youth continues as usual in Bayview / Hunter's point, Mission and Tenderloin.

Lets face it Arthur, the kids on Haight Street are mostly white. SFPD doesn't pursue loitering or whatever you want to call it against white kids. They racially profile on a daily, hourly basis. If you can't see that, travel to the mission, bayview or hunters point and watch police enforcement in action. Volunteer for a ride-along with Bayview Station. Talk to anyone who works with kids who've been harassed, stopped and searched by SFPD simply for laughing at a bus-stop.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

I personally trashed every single one of those benches I could find. Enjoyed every second of it. They are illegally placed and are a safety hazard.

So much for that. I see em again, I'll trash em again.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

Take your bleeding heart, wrap it up, and move to Berkeley. Then you will have lots of company and not have to worry about San Francisco. We wil NOT miss you.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

Coming from someone who gets their rage out smashing up benches, I'll take that as a sincere compliment and invitation to stay here with my cohorts of bleeding hearts. If only to raise your blood pressure and keep you on edge.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

Ian, really sorry to burst yer bubble, but there was no "rage" or "high blood pressure" involved. I simply, calmly, and matter of factly destroyed them.

And please do not consider my actions an invitation of any type other to leave San Francisco and move to Berkeley.

Progressiveness is dead. Soon they will be as well, hopefully, or termed out. I will not be the only one waving them a not so fond farewell as they slink off into the sunset....maybe they can just walk off a pier and do something constructive....like becoming fish food. That's a good idea for you and yours, Ian....really help the wildlife...become fish food.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 6:41 am

You've given me and my fellow bleeding hearts more than enough praise and reasons to continue living here.

As for progressives? I'm not sure what they have to do with compassion, kindness, feeding the hungry, I think you're off on a tangent there.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

Thanks, Ian Waters, for your clarification above. Some responses follow.

You say:

“you are blind to the needs of the poor and hungry in this city and are a man of zero compassion.”

The primary problem with the street people in the Haight and certain other neighborhoods is not hunger and poverty but addiction.

They lack money because they spend everything they own on drugs and/or alcohol. At the same time, they are part of a toxic, migratory subculture that validates and enables addiction and scoffs at available services.

You say:

“Arresting monks, priests, nuns and aid workers for feeding hungry people in the streets of San Francisco ‘our foodie town’ is and was a shame.”

Aren’t you getting a bit carried away here with your own rhetoric?

You say:

“People, with or without homes, sober or drunk sitting on a sidewalk are not barreling down a freeway at 70mph with little or no control of their vehicle.”

Public addicts and alcoholics who squat on public sidewalks use them as their own turf for drug-dealing, assaulting passers-by, setting fires, and trashing the environment.

These activities, if left uncontrolled, can destroy a neighborhood, especially an at-risk neighborhood.

Intervention is necessary in such a case, just as it is in the case of a drunken driver.

You say:

“What I am saying is that my observation of SFPD in recent weeks leads me to believe that they are NOT in fact, enforcing Prop L.”

From what I see in the Haight, they are. Not as much as they should be, but they have made a start, which is generating some improvement.

Won’t you join with me in urging them to be more assertive in their enforcement?

You say:

“SFPD doesn't pursue loitering or whatever you want to call it against white kids. They racially profile on a daily, hourly basis.”

You should go sometime to the regular neighborhood meetings at Park Police Station, held by the captain, and look at the statistics for yourself. You’ll be in for a surprise.

I don't recall seeing you there at any meetings for the last few years.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

I wrote:

" If you can't see that, travel to the mission, bayview or hunters point and watch police enforcement in action. Volunteer for a ride-along with Bayview Station. Talk to anyone who works with kids who've been harassed, stopped and searched by SFPD simply for laughing at a bus-stop."

I live in Bayview, i've been on many a ride-along over the years. How many have you been on Arthur? Have you ever touched the poor? Fed the hungry? Or do you just cast judgement from your ivory tower?

Lets quit the talk about neighborhoods, lets talk about people and this city. You're so keen to dispense city-wide policy and views, what do you know of "your" city?

Do you pay rent? property taxes? own a car? own a business? pay a residents permit for parking? have children in school? do you ride a bike? own a dog? let it off-leash? have you a muni pass? what sort of citizen are you to demand such civility? Define yourself.

I'm a car owning (residential parking permit paying), property tax paying, children having, dog owning, double-decade neighbor.

Also if you can point me to one single credible, corporate, government or university / peer-reviewed study that confirms your assertion that addiction leads to poverty, i would be truly grateful.

After 25 years in public health and law I know that it is an incredibly contentious point in social science throughout the world. It would be fantastic to know that a salient mind such as yours had solved it all.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 1:24 am

Arthur, Its not rhetoric when it happens, you clearly have no memory for what happened in the wake of Jordan's Matrix program.

The kids on Haight street that you clearly have a personal vendetta against are a fractional minority of the poor and hungry in this City. It shouldn't make the the focus of any citywide planning or policy. That has always been the point of contention for most with selective laws passed to cater to single neighborhoods or districts.

Hunger and poverty are the biggest problems in San Francisco, not addiction. They are often hidden problems, but they are ever present and very serious.

Passing a law for the entire city to cater to one group is foolishness at best and when it affects everyone, its wrong. I won't be joining you in encouraging SFPD to enforce what they already know is foolishness.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 10:39 am

Ian, those poor and hungry kids you elevate to sainthood CHOSE, for the most part, to come here, because the laws have been soft on this kind of thing for way too long.

Wonder where they'll go when things start getting a little harder on them? Somewhere off the Farallons would be nice....about 3 fathoms down.

I've walked the Haight....these kids with their filth and their dogs (who are usually as filthy as they are) are a total blight.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 11:23 am

Ken, as much as I'd love to give sainthoods to people, I'm an atheist so all that religious mumbo-jumbo is beyond me.

I'm not sure how things can get harder on someone who lives on the streets, but as I was trying to explain to Arthur Evans, they represent a fractional minority of the poor and hungry in San Francisco.

Here are some facts on hunger and poverty in San Francisco
http://www.sffoodbank.org/about_hunger/

In San Francisco, 197,000 people struggle each day to feed themselves and their families. In Marin, just over 40,000 people - or 16% of the population - face the threat of hunger on a given day.

237,000 is the number of people who live at or below 185% of the federal poverty line in San Francisco and Marin - $33,873 per year for a family of three. It's at this income level that children are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals and families are eligible for WIC. Very often, these families lack the resources to provide enough food to consistently nourish themselves.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

Then you should be feeding them, Ian... you and the rest of your bleeding hearts. If you love these folks so much, are they living with you? I highly doubt that.

Show where your actions go, instead of to rhetoric, rabble rousing and pushing the progressive buttons, Ian. And I was hardly off tangent....the progressives who are now (thank the true gods) out of power here were putting my money into the hands of people who WANT to be out on the streets....how hard is it and was it to get people to accept rooms for Care Not Cash? It was ridiculous. How many people refused shelter/rooms when the Bus Station was demolished....but of course you guys will find another cause...hence the bitching and moaning against Sit/Lie. We need it pushed more in D6....or simply scoop them all up and dump them on your doorstep, Ian. Bet your tune changes damn quick.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

I love reading reactionary statements from you Ken, it affirms me. Thanks!

I do feed the hungry Ken. I'm a volunteer at the food bank, I give what I can financially and of my time and I take part in several outreach programs.

I'd tell you to take part in some sometime, I think you'd really learn from it but I think you've made your mind up already.

Posted by Ian Waters on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

There is little a bleeding heart, liberal progressive scumbag can teach me other than to lessen the strength of a City by wasting its finances.

Specifics, Ian....specifics. How many of those homeless are living with you. How much are you giving, and what percentage of your total income is that?

Shall we start plans for your canonization now, Ian? Or should we just go straight to Saint Ian? I am sure you are quite the legend in your own mind.

However, I keep my eyes on the City itself....the shit and piss on the sidewalks...the human scum that leaves the piss and shit on the sidewalks...the fact that you can't, in most neighborhoods, go out at night and NOT have to look over both shoulders all the time. The fact that, in spite of a dwindling tax base, bleeding hearts like yourself bust their asses to turn away viable businesses that want to come here and employ people and add to the tax base.

Perhaps you will be happy when all that remain are the ultra rich, the homeless, and nobody else...that includes you, unless you want to join the homeless, as there will be no businesses here to work for.

Wake up, Ian. The condition of this city is what helps to turn businesses away. You people would rather the city simply go bankrupt rather than allow a (O gods forbid) a chain to come here and actually create some business and employment opportunities.

Rampant homelessness....filthy streets.....crime-ridden neighborhoods.....activist organizations who burst a blood vessel any time the word "chain store" is mentioned. Quite the draw for business, wouldn't you say? I would not.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 6:01 am

You're a scared little man.
Scared of your own white shadow.
Poor little angry thing....

" you can't, in most neighborhoods, go out at night and NOT have to look over both shoulders all the time"
-Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 6:01 am

Quit your sobbing and sniffling Ken.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 8:18 am

I don't understand the art? Was it just done to make people sit down?

Posted by GuestDude on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:17 am

It wasn't art, GuestDude. It was yet another liberal political statement, and of course was partly illegal, as the benches were not approved, were a safety hazard, and impeded progress on the sidewalks.

And to the previous Guest....grow a pair and put your name out there, eh? My color has nothing to do with this, of course other than as a target. Not my fault that I'm correct...or don't you follow the crime rate in this city.

This is not a safe town unless you're ultra rich and can afford a chauffeur or cab everywhere you go. Those of us who walk or take MUNI (I take MUNI as little as possible) know the true situation in this city...it ain't a safe place to live. More repercussions from your little activist buddies. Gods help us if we crack down on crime, we're upsetting some drug dealer's sensitivities, or not caring enough about the muggers, thieves, robbers, etc. that roam the city nightly.

You MUST live in Berkeley, guest with no balls.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:25 am

"It was yet another liberal political statement, and of course was partly illegal, as the benches were not approved, were a safety hazard, and impeded progress on the sidewalks."

So it was statement art, sort of the way Artists like Blek Le Rat, Banksy, SpaceInvader and The Billboard Liberation Front manipulate or put pieces in public with a controversial message most often illegally as a statement. Not quite like Parking day but similar.

Cool Stuff. Still not sure on the message though - sit down? Have a seat? Take a rest?

Sorry to hear that San Francisco is so crime-filled, I always thought crime was higher in Oakland and East Palo Alto. I've been there a few times but never encountered much of what you're describing even in my crappy hotel I stayed at in the Tenderloin. Maybe London has toughened me up.

Posted by GuestDude on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

Oakland IS worse than SF, thankfully. That's likened to a less disgusting smell than the one next door, unfortunately.

I would not give the idiots with the benches anything like the bennies you are...they are not in that class. They're simply activists who are pissed they lost the Sit/Lie election.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

" you can't, in most neighborhoods, go out at night and NOT have to look over both shoulders all the time"
-Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 6:01 am

"the true situation in this city...it ain't a safe place to live."

"Not my fault that I'm correct...or don't you follow the crime rate in this city."
-Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:25 am

So what exactly are you "correct" about?
What part of the "crime rate in this city" has got you so terrified?
Specifics, man!
You're a trembling rat in a box with a keyboard, boasting about destroying things and nobody has a clue what you are talking about.
Where are you getting your information about "the crime rate in this city"?
And what part of that information supports the fear that you want everyone else to suffer, along with your delusional ass?

As for your whiny admonition that people should "grow a pair and put your name out there" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Howard

Sincerely,
Dan Blocker

Posted by Guest on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

Nice try, little Danny boy (you thought I'd miss the TV reference...not bloody likely...let's have your REAL name, ass. Mine IS Ken Howard).

I am correct on the fact that San Francisco is not a safe place to live unless you can afford the high end neighborhoods. You don't believe me? Walk some D6...walk the Bayview (if you have a serious death wish), the Mission (especially at night) and some of the other areas of the city. You will believe me then.

Who says I am terrified...I didn't say that. I am, however, cognizant of what this city has become; soft on crime, soft on criminals, against anything that would improve things on those areas because we might hurt the feelings of the criminals.

If you could read, you would have noted that I destroyed a number of the illegal benches set out by the anti Sit/Lie activists. They were illegal. They were not approved by the city. They were a hazard. They are now gone. No boasting...simply stating the fact. You don't like it, that's really too bad.

I do not want everyone to suffer, sorry you're confused. I want the CRIMINALS to suffer. They should. They deserve it.

You don't know the crime rate and the frequency of crimes? Why should I do your work for you. READ. Use the internet for more than jackoff material. Understand what is going on in this city and how dangerous some of the areas truly are. Then you might have a leg to stand on when you try to cross me on whether this city is dangerous or not.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 6:10 am

Yeah, I've walked there, tough guy.
Nothing happened.
Some people said Hi.

You're the one who described how scared you are to go outside. Which is why saying you destroyed benches is a lie. You would have been too scared to stop and do anything, because all your non existent crime statistics would sneak up and buttrape you.

If you can't use the internet to support your bullshit statements about the CRIME RATE that frightens your lily white shadow so much, you are really just admitting that you are full of shit.

You're a coward and a liar if you can't produce evidence of your scary crime rates that are supposed to reduce everyone else to the same quivering mass of jello that you recognize yourself to be.

In conclusion, your self-loathing is well deserved.
Sincerely,
Dan Blocker

P.S.-
That IS my real name, idiot.
If you don't like it- eat my HOSS!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 8:02 am

I feel sorry for you, stuck with that name. Especially since it's pretty clear you aren't white, from the tone and words of your responses.

Gee...seems I struck a nerve, did I? Good.

Do your own research, toejam. Looking over both shoulders is cautious...not afraid....and also intelligent. OR, I guess we could simply just give up our money to the first person who asks, so we're free and clear, and wear buttons that say "Broke, just been mugged or robbed". Better idea for you?

Finally, you really need to stop trying to read my mind or discern what I feel in regards to myself, you are way off base. G'head..put another bench up in my area....see how long it lasts. Dares ya, I does.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 9:03 am

Why does every rabid right-wing turd that shows up here demonstrate the same complete lack of ability to support their arguments?

"the true situation in this city...it ain't a safe place to live."
"Not my fault that I'm correct...or don't you follow the crime rate in this city."
-Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:25 am

“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom credited a police concentration on lawbreaking hot spots for a 10 percent drop in crime in the first half of this year and a 20 percent decline since the effort began in 2008.”

“Homicides, which were down 54 percent last year from 2008, continued at 40-year-low rates during the first six months of this year”
July 17, 2010
articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-17/bay-area/21987334_1_compstat-police-figures-show-crime-tracking

“Violent crime in the United States decreased in 2009 for a third year in a row, while property crime was down for a seventh straight year, the FBI reported.”
May 24, 2010
upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/24/FBI-US-crime-rates-drop-again/UPI-39371274741249/#ixzz1K1mP4aqU”

Posted by Dan Blocker on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

The outside world IS a scary and confusing place for stick-up-the-ass idiots like yourself.
You broke nothing more than a nervous, pre-cum sweat, fantasizing about destroying benches.

Posted by Dan Blocker on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

Your data is a little faulty there Danny boy.....you can't use Bay Area and/or Nationwide numbers for San Francisco. Nice try though.

Even the one you DID use - 20%...what's that...one or two less killings or robberies or muggings? Not nearly enough.

You do seem to have an inordinate interest in my ass though. Disturbing.

You should also refrain from trying to read my mind -stick to one or two syllable words, boy.

The destruction of the benches occurred..I know...I did it. Whether you believe me or not is not even on my radar of things I care about. Again, nice try boy.

Now go away and stop bothering the adults.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 10:05 am

"the true situation in this city...it ain't a safe place to live."
"Not my fault that I'm correct...or don't you follow the crime rate in this city."
-Ken Howard on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 10:25 am

I showed you were wrong with links to factual material.
You declare your bullshit to be fact based on nothing.
You either have facts or you're an ignorant blowhard.
Which you clearly are.
As for the benches- which ones?
That's what I thought.
Your nothing but a plastic sack of fear and hot gas.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

Let's start with the one at Hyde & Ellis. Gone. Dead. Destroyed.

You try to use old info for the city and bay area wide and nationwide data to support your spurious claims.

Nice try, sweetheart.

You STILL seem to have an inordinate obsession with my ass. Even more disturbing.

You write that signature like it means something....umm...sorry to burst yet another bubble, it ain't nuthin.

Posted by Ken Howard on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

Where are your facts that refute the Chronicle article and Gascon?
The article is about San Francisco, specifically.
There is no mention of "bay area wide", so I guess you just made that up too.
The article is from July 2010.
Do you have more recent information?
The article is a factual refutation of all of your moronic, unfounded bluster.

As for the other article, the point is:
The city of San Francisco, and the United States as a whole are in the midst of massive DECREASE in crime.
Which contradicts your baseless fearmongering, bitching and crying in terror while claiming everyone has to "look over both shoulders all the time" if they dare to step outside.

By the way, nice hard boiled writing style.
"I keep my eyes on the City itself....the shit and piss on the sidewalks...the human scum "
If you had any friends, they could call you The Noirwhale.

Sincerely,
Dan Blocker

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 5:24 pm

Doesn't it strike you as odd that a person so concerned about crime and fearful to walk our streets, would be out smashing up piles of wood at various hours of the day.

Personally had I see the act, i'd have called 911 and reported a 51/50.

It wouldn't make me look over my shoulder, just another crazy person a danger to themselves or the public.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

He's too busy looking "lover both shoulders all the time" and imagining himself to be "following the crime rate in this city" .

Posted by Dan Blocker on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

Seriously there nothing wrong with it. That's more better, having all hand make sounds good.

Posted by jura c5 on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 2:00 am