The True Believers
There's a quote attributed to Harry Truman about Rafael Trujillo (the former dictator of the Dominican Republic). It goes something like this: “Sure, he’s an S.O.B., but at least he’s our S.O.B.” In case anyone misses the meaning, it’s that -- no matter how unethical or wrong a political leader might be, so long as they serve your general purpose, it’s better to have them on your side than not. This sort of expedient thinking runs deep in the world of politics, and it’s a position embraced just as much by the Left as the Right. Truman had Trujillo who was, for being corrupt and brutal, at least an anti-Communist -- and therefore favored by the US Government. And San Francisco’s Democrats and others on the Left end of the spectrum have Chris Daly. For the past six years, the messages from them about Daly have ranged between “he’s the only honest politician in town” to “sure, he’s a jerk and a loose cannon, but at least he’s our jerk and loose cannon.”
Daly has managed to become so embedded in San Francisco’s political landscape that it’s difficult to recall a time before his appearance. But in fact Chris Daly is far from being either a local boy or an accurate reflection of his constituents. He’s a native of Maryland (and a 4-H Star, according to his bio), who attended tony Duke University. He moved to San Francisco in the ‘90s, during the dot-com boom, which puts him squarely in the category of arrivistes, relative to many of us who have been here far longer. His only political experience before 2000 was as an activist for a group called “Empty the Shelters” -- not exactly a stellar resume for a politician. And for being the darling of punks, anarchists and the poor, Daly lives a decidedly privileged life in a new condominium in the Upper Mission, on a $120,000-a-year salary.
His activist background (such as his few years can be called) has clearly never left Daly, and is evident in everything he does. For example, at the District 6 debate at the Main Library, the moderator asked the candidates how they intended to balance the different needs of their constituents from both ends of the economic range. Daly’s response? “The problem is the great disparity of wealth” between the two ends. His solution? To take from one and give to the other until everyone is equal. Robin Hood in City Hall. Of course Daly is politically savvy enough to know that the only people he has to concern himself with pleasing are the ones who can vote for his re-election, and that means the residents of District 6, rather than the ten so f thousands of people who work (but don't live) in D6, or the relatively fewer moderates (and perhaps a handful of Republicans) who live within its boundaries. Daly knows that he can rally the far Left, the young and the poor by saying what they want to hear. And rally they do.
Other evidence of Daly’s activism can be found in the majority of resolutions he has proposed to the Board of Supervisors. For example, in March 2006, he introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush. Now, no matter where you stand on Bush (and I would gladly see him impeached, if not drawn and quartered), the notion of a city government passing a resolution calling for his impeachment must surely seem Quixotic, to be generous! Another resolution was to send $1 million of San Franciscans' tax dollars to the tsunami relief effort in the Indian Ocean; surely a project for charities and federal governments, rather than the discretionary spending of a board of supervisors. But beyond these being examples of political grandstanding, such activism saps time and energy from far more pressing (and realistic) goals, like fixing rutted streets or providing care to the elderly -- you know, those things that city officials actually can accomplish. Daly’s resolution will not benefit a single one of his constituents, but it certainly plays well to the sensibilities of some of them.
Activism is, or should be, the role of citizens. Addressing the needs of those citizens is, or should be, the role of elected officials. Why doesn’t Daly understand this fact? It’s because he sees himself as an international activist rather than an official who is charged with the responsibility of looking out for the needs of those who specifically live and/or work in D6. Tilting at windmills on a global scale, while it does nothing for the real needs of his constituents, allows him to take on a virtuous -- even heroic -- role. It is a role he relishes, and one that a remarkable number of the residents of D6 accept. Daly claims to hold down the “righteous” end of the Left. His supporters are the “true believers”, and they will brook no criticism of their leader. Even their practice of wearing necklaces of green beads to identify themselves strikes me as oddly cult-like behavior.
True believers are distinguished by their irrational and slavish devotion to a leader or cause. Their attitude of "you're either for us, or you're against us". Such people are plentiful in San Francisco, a city with a long history of residents with more passion than good sense about causes, and with starry eyes about larger-than-life figures. For examples, one need look no further than the Reverend Jim Jones. Another son of the south, Jones came to town with a background in righteous social causes, leading a church congregation that was integrated; scandalously progressive for the time. When Jones moved to San Francisco, his firebrand rhetoric and championing of the causes of San Francisco’s minorities, poor, homeless, sick and elderly quickly gained him the support of most of Left.
Soon, Jones was appointed by Mayor Moscone to San Francisco’s Housing Commission (a role for which he had no practical experience). This was merely one hand washing the other, as the members of the People’s Temple had vigorously campaigned for Moscone’s election. But not everyone was convinced that Jones was the white knight of progressive causes. In 1972, the San Francisco Examiner ran an 8-part expose on Jones. Predictably, the Left rallied ‘round their man. Church members and others on the far Left staged vociferous protests outside of the Examiner’s headquarters, calling the paper’s owner and editors racists, anti-poor, Republican tools, and worse. Faced with this pressure and the threat of lawsuits, the paper pulled the series after only four segments. Where were the voices of sanity in the progressive camp? They were conspicuously silent. No one from outside of the People’s Temple wanted to appear racist and intolerant, and nobody within was willing to believe anything bad about their leader. It was a politically-correct whiteout.
Now, I am certainly not suggesting that Chris Daly is going to poison hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide. But the similarity in the way that both leaders were lionized by their followers is clear, as is the way that any criticism of them is met with personal attacks. Case in point: the violent crime rate in Tenderloin has climbed during Chris Daly’s watch. Where is the Left when Daly does something stupid, like blocking badly-needed supplementary funding for beat cops in the Tenderloin? They’re closing ranks behind him and shouting down any criticism. The message from the far Left is clear: “Chris Daly is ‘our S.O.B.’; leave him alone”. If you doubt me, try saying anything negative about him. The vitriol you will earn will be far out of proportion to your criticism.
Case in point: a fellow I know who lives in Daly’s district (and who actually voted for him, in 2000) was so frustrated by the worsening conditions in D6 that he sat down at work the other day and made up a flyer that carried the simple message “Our neighborhood can’t survive four more years of Chris Daly”. Scattered around these words were some clip-art drawings of people passed-out on the sidewalk, rats, excrement, robbers -- basically everything that we have to deal with on a daily basis in D6. When he and another D6 resident taped up some of these flyers in the Civic Center, they were met with hostility by Daly supporters, who tore some of them down. The “Left in SF” blog claimed that the flyer-ers were “…paid political operatives (who) have been anonymously putting up street signs and walking hit pieces as well.” In another blog, the flyers were denounced as conveying “abject hate”. Curious interpretations, to say the least.
That brings me to a question. Nearly every candidate I have voted for over the past 25 years has been a Democrat; the remainder have been Greens and a Libertarian or two. I’ve been against the war from the get-go. I’ve long been in favor of gay marriage, and a host of other progressive causes. And frankly, I'm poor. I've chosen to be self-employed in such a way that puts my income below the poverty line. Does that mean that I must support Chris Daly? After all, all of the candidates who are running against him are also progressive Democrats. Why Daly? It’s not due to his political experience; at least one rival has more of that virtue than Daly had when he sought office. It’s can’t be because of Daly’s ability to work with people with whom he disagrees; he’s woefully lacking in that skill. Nor could I justify supporting him because of any accomplishments over the past 6 years. A simple walk around my neighborhood or the mid-Market St. corridor will amply prove that he has done very little to address the problems plaguing D6. I have no reason to believe that any one of the other candidates couldn't do better in that respect.
This dogmatic support of Daly is both dangerous and downright undemocratic. We on the Left are quick to denounce the “ditto-heads” of Bill O’Reilly and other right-wing pundits. But if we don’t have sufficient integrity to question our own elected officials, how are we any better than those who selfishly voted for Bush? Aren’t we supposed to be the party of openness and critical reason? Can’t we call a “spade” a “spade” -- even if it’s our spade? And why the refusal from so many of his supporters to engage in civil discussions about the issues? To resort to shouting? I can only surmise that it’s “true believer” syndrome. Chris Daly is “our S.O.B.” Voting for, supporting, defending, identifying with—him allows people to feel like they’re on the “righteous” side -- as defenders of the poor and downtrodden masses. But those masses have not found their lives improved over the past 6 years due to Chris Daly’s efforts. And for the most part, neither has anyone else.
Daly has managed to become so embedded in San Francisco’s political landscape that it’s difficult to recall a time before his appearance. But in fact Chris Daly is far from being either a local boy or an accurate reflection of his constituents. He’s a native of Maryland (and a 4-H Star, according to his bio), who attended tony Duke University. He moved to San Francisco in the ‘90s, during the dot-com boom, which puts him squarely in the category of arrivistes, relative to many of us who have been here far longer. His only political experience before 2000 was as an activist for a group called “Empty the Shelters” -- not exactly a stellar resume for a politician. And for being the darling of punks, anarchists and the poor, Daly lives a decidedly privileged life in a new condominium in the Upper Mission, on a $120,000-a-year salary.
His activist background (such as his few years can be called) has clearly never left Daly, and is evident in everything he does. For example, at the District 6 debate at the Main Library, the moderator asked the candidates how they intended to balance the different needs of their constituents from both ends of the economic range. Daly’s response? “The problem is the great disparity of wealth” between the two ends. His solution? To take from one and give to the other until everyone is equal. Robin Hood in City Hall. Of course Daly is politically savvy enough to know that the only people he has to concern himself with pleasing are the ones who can vote for his re-election, and that means the residents of District 6, rather than the ten so f thousands of people who work (but don't live) in D6, or the relatively fewer moderates (and perhaps a handful of Republicans) who live within its boundaries. Daly knows that he can rally the far Left, the young and the poor by saying what they want to hear. And rally they do.
Other evidence of Daly’s activism can be found in the majority of resolutions he has proposed to the Board of Supervisors. For example, in March 2006, he introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush. Now, no matter where you stand on Bush (and I would gladly see him impeached, if not drawn and quartered), the notion of a city government passing a resolution calling for his impeachment must surely seem Quixotic, to be generous! Another resolution was to send $1 million of San Franciscans' tax dollars to the tsunami relief effort in the Indian Ocean; surely a project for charities and federal governments, rather than the discretionary spending of a board of supervisors. But beyond these being examples of political grandstanding, such activism saps time and energy from far more pressing (and realistic) goals, like fixing rutted streets or providing care to the elderly -- you know, those things that city officials actually can accomplish. Daly’s resolution will not benefit a single one of his constituents, but it certainly plays well to the sensibilities of some of them.
Activism is, or should be, the role of citizens. Addressing the needs of those citizens is, or should be, the role of elected officials. Why doesn’t Daly understand this fact? It’s because he sees himself as an international activist rather than an official who is charged with the responsibility of looking out for the needs of those who specifically live and/or work in D6. Tilting at windmills on a global scale, while it does nothing for the real needs of his constituents, allows him to take on a virtuous -- even heroic -- role. It is a role he relishes, and one that a remarkable number of the residents of D6 accept. Daly claims to hold down the “righteous” end of the Left. His supporters are the “true believers”, and they will brook no criticism of their leader. Even their practice of wearing necklaces of green beads to identify themselves strikes me as oddly cult-like behavior.
True believers are distinguished by their irrational and slavish devotion to a leader or cause. Their attitude of "you're either for us, or you're against us". Such people are plentiful in San Francisco, a city with a long history of residents with more passion than good sense about causes, and with starry eyes about larger-than-life figures. For examples, one need look no further than the Reverend Jim Jones. Another son of the south, Jones came to town with a background in righteous social causes, leading a church congregation that was integrated; scandalously progressive for the time. When Jones moved to San Francisco, his firebrand rhetoric and championing of the causes of San Francisco’s minorities, poor, homeless, sick and elderly quickly gained him the support of most of Left.
Soon, Jones was appointed by Mayor Moscone to San Francisco’s Housing Commission (a role for which he had no practical experience). This was merely one hand washing the other, as the members of the People’s Temple had vigorously campaigned for Moscone’s election. But not everyone was convinced that Jones was the white knight of progressive causes. In 1972, the San Francisco Examiner ran an 8-part expose on Jones. Predictably, the Left rallied ‘round their man. Church members and others on the far Left staged vociferous protests outside of the Examiner’s headquarters, calling the paper’s owner and editors racists, anti-poor, Republican tools, and worse. Faced with this pressure and the threat of lawsuits, the paper pulled the series after only four segments. Where were the voices of sanity in the progressive camp? They were conspicuously silent. No one from outside of the People’s Temple wanted to appear racist and intolerant, and nobody within was willing to believe anything bad about their leader. It was a politically-correct whiteout.
Now, I am certainly not suggesting that Chris Daly is going to poison hundreds of his followers in a mass murder-suicide. But the similarity in the way that both leaders were lionized by their followers is clear, as is the way that any criticism of them is met with personal attacks. Case in point: the violent crime rate in Tenderloin has climbed during Chris Daly’s watch. Where is the Left when Daly does something stupid, like blocking badly-needed supplementary funding for beat cops in the Tenderloin? They’re closing ranks behind him and shouting down any criticism. The message from the far Left is clear: “Chris Daly is ‘our S.O.B.’; leave him alone”. If you doubt me, try saying anything negative about him. The vitriol you will earn will be far out of proportion to your criticism.
Case in point: a fellow I know who lives in Daly’s district (and who actually voted for him, in 2000) was so frustrated by the worsening conditions in D6 that he sat down at work the other day and made up a flyer that carried the simple message “Our neighborhood can’t survive four more years of Chris Daly”. Scattered around these words were some clip-art drawings of people passed-out on the sidewalk, rats, excrement, robbers -- basically everything that we have to deal with on a daily basis in D6. When he and another D6 resident taped up some of these flyers in the Civic Center, they were met with hostility by Daly supporters, who tore some of them down. The “Left in SF” blog claimed that the flyer-ers were “…paid political operatives (who) have been anonymously putting up street signs and walking hit pieces as well.” In another blog, the flyers were denounced as conveying “abject hate”. Curious interpretations, to say the least.
That brings me to a question. Nearly every candidate I have voted for over the past 25 years has been a Democrat; the remainder have been Greens and a Libertarian or two. I’ve been against the war from the get-go. I’ve long been in favor of gay marriage, and a host of other progressive causes. And frankly, I'm poor. I've chosen to be self-employed in such a way that puts my income below the poverty line. Does that mean that I must support Chris Daly? After all, all of the candidates who are running against him are also progressive Democrats. Why Daly? It’s not due to his political experience; at least one rival has more of that virtue than Daly had when he sought office. It’s can’t be because of Daly’s ability to work with people with whom he disagrees; he’s woefully lacking in that skill. Nor could I justify supporting him because of any accomplishments over the past 6 years. A simple walk around my neighborhood or the mid-Market St. corridor will amply prove that he has done very little to address the problems plaguing D6. I have no reason to believe that any one of the other candidates couldn't do better in that respect.
This dogmatic support of Daly is both dangerous and downright undemocratic. We on the Left are quick to denounce the “ditto-heads” of Bill O’Reilly and other right-wing pundits. But if we don’t have sufficient integrity to question our own elected officials, how are we any better than those who selfishly voted for Bush? Aren’t we supposed to be the party of openness and critical reason? Can’t we call a “spade” a “spade” -- even if it’s our spade? And why the refusal from so many of his supporters to engage in civil discussions about the issues? To resort to shouting? I can only surmise that it’s “true believer” syndrome. Chris Daly is “our S.O.B.” Voting for, supporting, defending, identifying with—him allows people to feel like they’re on the “righteous” side -- as defenders of the poor and downtrodden masses. But those masses have not found their lives improved over the past 6 years due to Chris Daly’s efforts. And for the most part, neither has anyone else.
posted by the clicker at 10:52 PM
13 Comments:
Mr. TN - Thank you for writing this and for voicing many of my own concerns about Mr. Daly.
He is not local.
He is not involved in D6 issues in any way except to prevent development.
He does not support fortifying a woefully understaffed police station that services the community with the highest per capita number of parolees, sex offenders, and drug abusers.
He encourages antagonistic relationships with other city departments rather than attempt to find common ground. It's his way or the highway.
I am very disappointed and I find him to be an embarassment. I, like you, struggle to live in this city that I love. I have deep roots here - I feel like we are being used by Chris Daly to further his celebrity.
I got a call last night from someone on the Chris Daly campaign informing me that it had been determined that Chris had been the victim of unjust malignment and that voting for him would be a vote against "unfair voting practices." I guess I am supposed to be stupid enough to fall for that. Unfortunately for Chris, I was simply offended and further disgusted by his attempts to grandstand and exaggerate.
Chris, you lost my vote a long time ago.
I've been trying to write a comment in support of this posting, but the bottom line is that I couldn't have said it any better. Well done. You've expressed the frustration I've been feeling for years.
I will say one thing - I'm beginning to wonder if Chris Daly isn't the problem after all. Perhaps the problem lies with his supporters. Daly is a bright guy (Duke doesn't accept idiots, unless they play lacross) who is simply exploiting the irrational views held by D6 residents. If he gets re-elected, blame this guy. He's the one drinking the kool aid.
I've been trying to think of something that I could add to this post, but I'm coming up blank.
Well done. You've articulated my thoughts better than I could have.
I will add one comment. I'm beginning to think that Daly isn't the problem. Perhaps the problem lies with those who've keep him in office - the voters of D6. If they can't see through his bull s**t about being "a man of the people", they're just as much to blame. Could it be that Daly is an opportunistic who is simply taking advantage of a misdirected constituency that doesn't know any better? Where else in American politics could he pull the s**t he does and what kind of voter base would continually put up with it?
Only in SF...
Not local? I've known Chris to be active as an advocate in the Tenderloin and Mission districts since the early 1990s. How long have you lived in District Six? Do you live here now? And do you understand that some of us like our neighborhoods here and do not like having them denigrated?
I can't answer for "Mindful Life", but Chris Daly is a relatively recent arrival. Ten years is not much time for someone to live in San Francisco. I've lived here for 21 years, and I still have to yield the floor to people who were born here, or (like one woman in her 80s that I know) a third-generation San Franciscan. He's an arriviste.
"Mindful Life" has already stated that they live in the Tenderloin, and I've lived in the same apartment here for almost 10 years. That gives me a damned sight more right to talk about the Tenderloin than Chris Daly, in his new condo in the upper Mission.
The biggest denegration of MY neighborhood is the way that it's been turned into a cesspool by some of the people on the street, and the way that Chris Daly has preserved that status quo for the past 6 years.
Martha wrote:
Not local? I've known Chris to be active as an advocate in the Tenderloin and Mission districts since the early 1990s.
It says on his website that he arrived here in 1993. I guess that's the early 90's. I'm a 4th generation bay area dweller - people in my family have lived in and out of SF and San Jose for just about as long as they've been here.
Before you get all caught up in the hierarchy - which it is, am I somehow more "san franciscan" than you? do I have more right to be here? am I more "ethnic?" you're actually buying into some pretty silly tools of oppression, but it's your choice to go down that road - I think this is a silly argument. I brought it up because I feel like Chris doesn't have a very good understanding of the history of the city.
How long have you lived in District Six?
Why don't you answer one of your own questions for once, Martha - how long have YOU lived in D6?
Do you live here now?
Do you? do you read any of the other posts on this topic or are you just spamming? I think the latter.
And do you understand that some of us like our neighborhoods here and do not like having them denigrated?
Honey, we're arguing the same thing. I love my city. I love my neighborhood. I do not love a lot of the human suffering I see on a daily basis. I am concerned about those who brush it off or say "that's ok, s/he can't help it." "that's ok, they just need to sleep it off."
In case you didn't get my previous post (because I really don't think you read responses except to try to confirm your own arguments), it's not ok. personally, it hurts my heart to see other people suffering at this level. we don't live in Calcutta. we live in one of the best cities of the world.
Maybe you don't see it so much because of where you live (you mentioned you don't live in the TL). I'm really happy for you that you found that cool book at a sidewalk sale. That is one of the great things about this city. I would submit though, that it is possible to have the level of neato, super cool freak out SF without residents (of all sorts) having to endure and participate in daily human suffering of the most basic needs.
And here we go with the history thing again. the TL has always been rough. but, my mom and her sisters used to hang out on Market Street and go to Woolworths for sodas. My 13 year old mom and her little sisters. And they weren't harassed by panhandlers or parolees. It was a busy crowded neighborhood, but it wasn't like it is today.
The TL has always been rough around the edges. Always catered to certain young men's appetities in several ways. But a shop keeper told me that the city comes by every day during the week to hose down the alley behind his store (just south of O'Farrell and Jones) with lysol. You know why? To prevent cholera. People piss and shit there so frequently that the city has decided that to not clean it is a public health hazard.
I think my city can do better than that. I think Chris can do better than that. I think right now he is so enamored with his own image that he's not doing much of anything other than grandstanding and pulling pranks to get publicity. It makes me sad, but I also understand it.
[history] San Francisco has always been a magnet for people looking for freedom, for acceptance and for ways to get in the public eye. we've had our share of outragous politicians and local characters. Emporer Norton comes to mind immediately - but so does Lily Coit and Harvey Milk. Jim Jones, Anton Lavey and Dan White. The great Diane Feinstein (and I remember the sad day when she took over the city for Mayor Moscone, although I was only a child). Chris Daly will probably go down as another one of those attention seeking, image primping politicians. I hope that he will go on to do great things - but I do not believe that he is the right man to help turn District 6 back into what it was - a place for families, for immigrants and for those who are working class (or who aspire to be). [/history]
Mindful,
My husband and I have lived in the same western South of Market apartment for ten years. We've lived together in the city, except for a two-year gap, since 1989. Over the ten years we've been on the same street, we've seen a huge influx of high-paid tech people, and we've been sad that many of them (not all) have taken a long time to adjust to their new neighborhood. I think it doesn't occur to them that we have grocery stores reachable on foot, for example, and so the nice little Harvest Market at 8th and Howard, which was clearly designed to serve the condo-yuppie market, is having a tough time because the yuppies just get in their cars and drive to Safeway. Weirdly, I think they even drive the very few blocks to Trader Joe's and Rainbow Grocery.
I first met Chris Daly in the early '90s, when I was a Hastings law student supervising Empty the Shelters volunteers at the General Assistance Advocacy Project, which is a drop-in welfare rights advocacy clinic. He's a smart guy and chose to put his abilities into advocating for homeless people and low-income renters when he could have made a lot more money in other lines of work. I have to respect him for that.
It happens that until recently I served on the GAAP board with Rob Black's wife, Lisa Williams, so I know she is aware of the harm Care Not Cash has done, especially to new applicants who have had to tough it out in unpleasant shelter conditions until rooms became available. She's a good decent person, so I'm baffled and sad that her husband is willing to accept support from the side of city politics that not only supports Care Not Cash but would really rather kick all poor people out of the city, period.
You write: "I would submit though, that it is possible to have the level of neato, super cool freak out SF without residents (of all sorts) having to endure and participate in daily human suffering of the most basic needs." And there we may agree. At least I certainly hope you mean that people who lack the most basic human necessities should not be scapegoated and treated as criminals because of what they don't have, but should receive public services to relieve their suffering.
For example, in all the interestingly Freudian "pee and poo" talk on this blog, I have yet to see any suggestion of where homeless people should deposit their waste. Nobody has argued that the city should install more public toilets, although it's an incredibly obvious need, for tourists and business visitors as well as poor people.
This is a need that public services are necessary to meet. I know from unpleasant personal experience that no single private business or office can take down its "Restrooms for Customers Only" sign unilaterally -- it'll be overwhelmed. We faced this problem at GAAP beginning with our 1994 move to the current storefront location at Hyde and Golden Gate. We discovered there was a huge, huge demand for public bathrooms -- so huge that some years later, embarrassingly, we ourselves had to start a "restrooms for clients only" policy to keep from being overwhelmed by people who wanted the toilets, not the advocacy. I wished then, and still do, that the city would install proper public bathrooms all over the densely populated areas of town -- not those unsupervised, non-functional JC Decaux kiosks, and not just the public library bathrooms, which are nice but only open limited hours -- but proper old-fashioned public toliets like they have in Paris, open for long hours, with attendants to keep the places clean and discourage the use of stalls for unsavory purposes.
No, we don't have these things now, and Chris is an incumbent, but I don't hear anyone else calling for them either, and his is the only rhetoric I hear that calls for approaching very poor people as citizens and constituents with legitimate practical needs that should be addressed by their public servants.
(Chris Daly's) "a smart guy and chose to put his abilities into advocating for homeless people and low-income renters when he could have made a lot more money in other lines of work."
Uh -- does dropping out of Duke give you that many career choices? And he's not doing to bad for a college drop-out in his mid-30s on the taxpayer's dime: he gets paid $118,000 a year for his part-time job. I'm a few years older, and I earn about 1/6 that. Of course, I'm not a "public servant".
"It happens that until recently I served on the GAAP board with Rob Black's wife, Lisa Williams, so I know she is aware of the harm Care Not Cash has done, especially to new applicants who have had to tough it out in unpleasant shelter conditions until rooms became available. She's a good decent person, so I'm baffled and sad that her husband is willing to accept support from the side of city politics that not only supports Care Not Cash but would really rather kick all poor people out of the city, period."
I'm sorry, Martha, but this is bleeding-heart liberal boilerplate. Care, not Cash has placed how many people in permanent housing? Do you have a figure? Because if you don't, I do. And how many of those people would've been placed in permanent housing were it not for CnC?
It's a simple, sad fact that the cash disbursements that used to be the order of business in SF were far too often spent on drugs or booze, than on the necessities that they were supposed to be spent on. It's another fact that there's an infinite number of people who want to be taken care of. But no system yet devised has been able to sort out the truly needy AND helpless from the free-riders. CnC is one way to do it. The best way? Probably not. But San Franciscans deserve to get something for their hundreds of millions of their tax dollars spent every year on such services. Something better than the previous 20 years of failure.
Nobody's trying to "kick all poor people out of the city, period". That's just scaremongering. Remember: I'M poor. My landlord is quite happy with my tenancy, and no one else minds me being here either. Who some people wouldn't mind kicking out are the freeloaders, the losers, the bums. You may not like to acknowledge that they exist, but exist they do. And you may not like to admit it, but they have no right to break the law, as they do.
"For example, in all the interestingly Freudian "pee and poo" talk on this blog, I have yet to see any suggestion of where homeless people should deposit their waste. Nobody has argued that the city should install more public toilets, although it's an incredibly obvious need, for tourists and business visitors as well as poor people."
There's nothing Freudian about stepping in human excrement when you're leaving your apartment; it's merely a disgusting fact of life in the Tenderloin. Would I like to see more public bathrooms? You bet; I'd like to use 'em sometimes myself. Would I like to see those who use my sidewalk as their toilet instead walk the less than 2 blocks to the nearest $200,000 automated (and free) toilet, and use it? Sure! So why don't they? Answer: because they don't give a damn. Some of them piss on their own shoes; that's how little they care.
Toilets are different the world over. You mention those in Paris. Well, I doubt such toilets would work here, mainly because we don't many people who are willing to work as toilet attendents for a quarter per-person (or whatever we'd charge). There would be abuses, there would be strong-arm robberies of them, there would be drug use in them, prostitutes would turn tricks in them.
Public toilets in Japan are far better than those in Europe or Britain. They're invariably spotless, free and safe. Why so? Because the Japanese have a strong aversion to disgracing themselves. Most Japanese would rather die than rob a toilet attendant or do drugs in a stall or deface it. The real problem is partly that our facilities are inadequate, but just as significant of a problem is that too many of our "needy" happen to be untrustworthy and thoughtless of others. What do you do about those people?
- CNC has gotten some people indoors quite nicely, but if you don't believe it has also caused harm, ask Lisa, or ask any of the staff at GAAP.
- I don't remember who gave me the idea for public toilets with attendants but I'm pretty sure it was someone volunteering around the Coalition on Homelessness, living on a very low income, who would very much have liked to hold such a job. The point of having attendants would be to discourage precisely the risks of prostitution, drug use and crime that you mention, all of which are serious problems around the automated, unattended, and frequently non-functional Decaux kiosks. As you will know if you've ever worked in a storefront drop-in situation, simply having someone watching is usually enough to shame people out of misbehavior. If not, there's such a thing as a police radio.
- You're still clinging to the impression that impoverished Americans have no sense of shame. That's unfair.
- The Tenderloin is a place where people with problems are concentrated because they're even less welcome in all the other SF neighborhoods. When you argue that people with problems shouldn't live in the Tenderloin either, you're basically saying there should be no place for them at all.
"CNC has gotten some people indoors quite nicely, but if you don't believe it has also caused harm, ask Lisa, or ask any of the staff at GAAP."
No program with this scope, and with the rather challenging people it aims to help, could be devoid of a few problems. But how much recidivism has there been, by disgruntled CnC recipients?
"I don't remember who gave me the idea for public toilets with attendants but I'm pretty sure it was someone volunteering around the Coalition on Homelessness, living on a very low income, who would very much have liked to hold such a job. The point of having attendants would be to discourage precisely the risks of prostitution, drug use and crime that you mention, all of which are serious problems around the automated, unattended, and frequently non-functional Decaux kiosks. As you will know if you've ever worked in a storefront drop-in situation, simply having someone watching is usually enough to shame people out of misbehavior. If not, there's such a thing as a police radio."
I know what the point of having attendents is. I just don't believe that there are attendents who could cope with the uglier side of some of the people who would use them.
"You're still clinging to the impression that impoverished Americans have no sense of shame. That's unfair."
No, you mistake me. The Japanese have far MORE fear of shame than do Americans. That doesn't mean that Americans are devoid of it. But take a look at my blog entry "Chris Daly pisses us off". Does that man look like he feels any shame about urinating openly, right across from the Police Station, and in full view of traffic? HE'S the sort of American I'm talking about.
"The Tenderloin is a place where people with problems are concentrated because they're even less welcome in all the other SF neighborhoods. When you argue that people with problems shouldn't live in the Tenderloin either, you're basically saying there should be no place for them at all."
Not exactly. I want to see people with problems that they aren't responsible for causing, and who are unable to be self-sufficient, receive all the help they need. I want to see people with problems that they aren't responsible for causing but who can be self-sufficient, receive a limited amount of help, and change their lives. And I want to see people with problems that they caused themselves get it through their heads that no one else has to put up with them or carry their weight.
That latter group isn't welcome in society, if they're unwilling to behave themselves or change.
"...And I want to see people with problems that they caused themselves get it through their heads that no one else has to put up with them or carry their weight.
That latter group isn't welcome in society, if they're unwilling to behave themselves or change."
In that case I shudder to ask where you think people you disapprove of should go or be put.
We live in a world of cause-effect relationships. If a man rapes a woman, or is a sexual preditor of children, and he's caught and justice prevails, he'll be put in prison for a long time. If a man robs someone at gunpoint and ends up shooting the other person, he'll be put in prison for a very long time. At their trials, the defendants sometimes have the opportunity to introduce evidence that shows that they were victims of abuse as children, but that doesn't affect their guilt in the crimes. These are cause-effect relationships that we all understand and accept.
Let me get hypothetical for a moment. Let's say that I'm different than I really am. Let's say that I wake up one morning and think "I'm tired of working just so I can pay the rent. I want someone else to take care of it." And so, I stop working and setting aside money for the rent. When my small savings runs out, I stop paying rent. Three months later, my landlord has me evicted for non-payment. I am now one of the "homeless".
Now, I know for a fact that things could be worse. If I get a space in a shelter, then my day can go like this: leave the shelter at 6am, hang around on the streets for a few hours, until the tourists come out. If I look presentable enough, I might try to con some of them out of a few bucks each, with a sob story about needing to get back home. If not, the old cup-jingle or selling "Street Sheet" will bring in a few bucks for donuts and smokes. Catch the bus up to the Haight, buy or bum a joint, hang out in the park. Get some lunch from Food Not Bombs, if they're in the park; if not, then the Community Kitchen on Waller. Make my way down to the library for a couple of hours; use their internet terminals. Hang out for a while at UN Plaza, or go toss a football around in the square between the library and the Museum. Head over to St. Anthony's, then back in the shelter by 7.
If the shelters are full or the weather is mild, there are plenty of places I can sleep and not be too uncomfortable. If I need to relieve myself, the world is my toilet. If I need anything health-wise, I have the H-A Free Clinic, or SF General, on the City's dime. And maybe I can get one of those new housing units that Supervisor Daly is pushing for -- you never know.
Now you have to admit -- that's not such a bad life. It's far better than the lives of most people in undeveloped nations, where people can starve to death for lack of food, or freeze to death in the cold. San Francisco is mild and has lots of resources available, and the people are tolerant and generous. It's even better than the lives of people in most "second-world" nations like Russia, where it's bitterly cold, the infrastructure is crumbling and the few tourists won't give you a dime.
Now I have two questions for you:
1. Do you truly believe that there are NO "homeless" people in San Francisco who are so because of their unwillingness to be responsible and self-sufficient?
If you are willing to admit that there are some "opportunist homeless" or some who are irresponsble or simply made bad decisions and want others to "save them from themselves", then that brings us to the other question:
2. What (if any) responsibility do the San Franciscans who *are* responsible and self-sufficient have to carry the extra burden of such people?
No one can be forced to work, no one can be made to support themselves. But in the same respect, there isn't any mechanism with which to sort out those who can't survive without help from those who have made foolish decisions or simply don't want to try.
Do those people have the "right" to be homeless here in San Francisco? I don't think so. Do I have the "right" to sleep on the floor of Supervisor Daly's office at night? Do I have the "right" to build a cottage in the middle of Presidio Terrace? Not according to the law, and if I tried it, I'd likely find myself in jail. So why is it that people think that they or others have a "right" to sleep or hang out indefinitely on other pieces of public property? The usual excuse is that housing is too expensive or scarce here. But that's been the case for decades, and more than half of all homeless people in SF today weren't here 7 years ago; they came here from elsewhere. Why? For the great housing opportunities? Nope. Because of San Francisco's reputation as an ideal crash pad.
As I've said, I am all for helping the OTHER homeless people -- those San Franciscans who formerly had homes and lost them for reasons not of their own doing, are truly unable to take care of themselves and have nowhere else to go. For those people, my heart goes out. But those just aren't the homeless people I seem to encounter.
What do I think should be done with those opportunistic or irresponsible homeless? For starters, I don't think that they should be coddled, humored or enabled. I think that they should be required to abide by the laws on the books about loitering, public urination and defecation, panhandling and swindling. If they break those laws, they should be prosecuted and fined and/or jailed. If they break them often enough, they should be deported to their place of residence before they came to San Franciso.
Martha wrote:
Over the ten years we've been on the same street, we've seen a huge influx of high-paid tech people, and we've been sad that many of them (not all) have taken a long time to adjust to their new neighborhood. I think it doesn't occur to them that we have grocery stores reachable on foot, for example...
I agree with you there. I got rid of my car a few years ago because I wasn't using it and it got broken into several times (even my stock speakers were stolen). I am of the mind that there are certain types of people who live here in SF and don't appreciate its walk-ability. Living here is difficult and inconvenient at times. It takes dedication and desire.
However, any desirable city has a high transient population. These people make up an important part of the city's profile, but you can usually tell who is not going to last (people who complain about lots of parking tickets are usually not long for this town).
He's (Chris Daly) a smart guy and chose to put his abilities into advocating for homeless people and low-income renters when he could have made a lot more money in other lines of work. I have to respect him for that.
Look, you're smart. I'm pretty smart. Mr. Tendernob seems smart - smart people are not a rarity here (thank god). I think that $120k is a pretty decent salary to be pulling down. I actually graduated from college with a bachelors. I had student loans to pay off, my education was not financed by my parents. I did not have the luxury of taking on a job that allowed me to continue my student activism AND live in SF. Still, Chris makes more than twice what I make. I have first hand appreciation of the trials of scraping by. I still scrape by - even though I make less than the median wage for SF, I managed to buy a condo a few years ago in the neighborhood that I love (downtown, TL) and every month is a struggle to balance wants vs. needs.
You want my opinion about that? We need more middle income housing. Chris says he cares a lot about low-income and indigent residents. We all do, and this city's awesome social services help make it great. However, the city needs more people in the middle like me. And when I have approached Chris via email with livability issues like the incessant sirens from Station 3, the lack of police response to the same 6 drug dealers standing on the same corner every day, I am not even acknowledged. These are issues that impact everyone in this neighborhood, regardless of income.
His refusal to recognize the lower middle income people like myself because we make "too much" is as offensive to me as someone who doesn't recognize me because I don't make enough. There is no difference.
I'm baffled and sad that her husband is willing to accept support from the side of city politics that not only supports Care Not Cash but would really rather kick all poor people out of the city, period.
Ok, care not cash. I've known several people (even dated a couple) who were on the previous version of General Assistance. One was a heroin addict who used his GA money to support his habit while he flopped with friends and aquaintances. He was a decent guy, and really tried hard sometimes, but I could see how giving him cash was really simply enabling him. He also had been in and out of jail for anger issues (domestic violence) and petty burgleries. What is really needed are rehab programs that allow people in when they show up. I'm not aware of any cities that offer this service (even in Amsterdam), but that would be the ideal situation.
I'm not sure the ultimate ideal of Care not Cash is to rid the city of poor people. That would be pretty much impossible. But I do think that giving addicts cash is enabling their behavior. I think if you asked most of the members of their families they would agree.
The problem will always continue until we find a way to help people who want it and stop enabling people who don't. It's complex, and it requires a more thoughtful solution than handing out checks every two weeks.
At least I certainly hope you mean that people who lack the most basic human necessities should not be scapegoated and treated as criminals because of what they don't have, but should receive public services to relieve their suffering.
Is it possible for you to admit that we are both opposed to human suffering? It's pretty offensive for you to say that, simply because I do not support Chris Daly, that I think poverty, addiction, and general suffering is ok. I believe that you do not think it is ok, although I think we have very different views of how to effectively approach it.
For example, people sleeping on the street bothers me not because I don't like to see them (although I don't), but because it is an indicator of someone who has given up, lost hope, is wallowing in their suffering and feels they have no other choice. Have you ever been that deep into any addiction that you just don't care any more? That you just hope for death? People who do such things do not do so because they think it's a fine idea or that they are entitled to do so (unless they also have some sort of mental disability), they do so because there is no other choice. That is a failure of our social system. By allowing people to behave in this manner, we are not being kind. We are showing an apalling lack of concern for our fellow human beings. We should not make it easier for people to pass out on the streets - that is not an appropriate response.
For example, in all the interestingly Freudian "pee and poo" talk on this blog, I have yet to see any suggestion of where homeless people should deposit their waste.
Not so sure it's always Freudian to talk about pee and poop. Sometimes, as he liked to say, a cigar is just a cigar. We all pee and poop and we've all suffered from the lack of convenient facilities - especially when out and about here in the city. This problem is a catch-22 as you yourself described.
The need for public facilities is so great that any one organization offering them is fairly quickly overwhelmed - not only with legitimate users, but with those looking to use them to clean up, to shoot up, or to sleep in peace. Again, this is an indication of the failure of our social system, but if we had a city where fewer people took advantage of communal restrooms for non-intended uses, there would be more available for everyone. I agree with you that those JC Decaux toilets suck. They are better than nothing, but only very slightly.
People who choose to eliminate on the street are much like those who pass out on the sidewalk. It is an indicator of desperation, of truly having no other choice or being so detached from the rest of the human race as to need immediate intervention. By looking the other way, we deny these people their humanity and their basic dignity. We can continue to shrug and avert our eyes or we can be proactive and try to make changes.
Post a Comment
<< Home