sffliervoices.com

By Ron Henggeler

[As always, click on a thumbnail for a large image.]

Consider this:

If one goes to any state or national park in the USA (take Muir Woods as an example), one encounters friendly and informed park service personnel who are on site to give directions, give tours, answer questions, and even be handed a camera to snap photos of the visitors who want pictures to take home for remembrance.

For the 48 to 50 million dollars that it would cost to create a physical barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge, why not better spend money creating a new job description? During hours when the bridge is open to pedestrians, have two or three people, dressed in easily recognized uniforms, walking the walkway, being friendly and informed ambassadors for the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco. As part of their job, they would also be well-trained in spotting a potential suicide and well-versed in dealing with the possible crisis. I believe that if such personnel were on the bridge (and imagine… had been on the bridge for the past 10 or 20 years), and everyone knew that such personnel were present, potential suicides would have second thoughts about using the bridge as an easy access for their tragic way of ending their own life.

Suicide is a terrible event that cannot be taken back once it has occurred. The family and friends who lose a loved one to suicide never get over their horrible loss.

But building a suicide barrier is another type of terrible event that will not be able to be turned back once it’s up. The enormous “only in San Francisco” experience — that is, the experience of the amazing unfettered freedom of “walking the Golden Gate” —  is too much to lose. The sacrifice is too great. It too would be the unbearable loss of a loved one.

Find another way to solve this dilemma. Consider some friendly faces in uniforms who would be there to help everyone.

For more photos of the Golden Gate Bridge by Ron Henggeler, go to http://www.ronhenggeler.com.

Site Search Tags: politics, San Francisco, urban life

By Ron Henggeler

Locally, it’s known simply as “the tower.” San Francisco tour buses stop in the 900 block of Fulton so that tourists can get a good look. On the site for many years, it changes with every season. Here’s a look at the latest incarnation. [As always, click on a thumbnail for a large image.]

My tower in the front yard is a prayer tower of peace built to Saint Francis of Assisi, the namesake of San Francisco and the patron saint of animals.

In many cultures both present and ancient, it is believed that prayers are sent out with bells ringing or prayer flags flapping in the wind. The tower is covered with bells and sound-makers and the San Francisco flag flies at the very top. (There’s also a five foot diameter peace symbol woven into the fabric of the tower’s north face.) These wind-powered sounds are like different voices. . . delicate gentle voices that ring softly with the slightest breeze. . . a full chorus of voices that rise up with strong winds. . . and the loud deep-booming bass tones that occur only when a winter storm is blowing in from south. Humming birds dance in and out and around the tower taking nectar from the jasmine and morning glory blossoms that grace the tower’s face.

The tower is built entirely of found objects and discarded materials. I’ve given new life to things that were deemed useless. Many of them are San Francisco–historically significant. Like the phoenix on our city’s flag, rising up reborn from its own ashes, my tower has risen up and been born again from the “ashes” of discarded things that were thrown away as garbage. (The rebar frame of the tower is from the Fell Street freeway exit that was torn down after the Loma Prieta earthquake.)

The Magic Flute by Mozart, one of my favorite operas, was the initial inspiration for the tower’s construction. It came to me one day when I was wondering what to do with four old Volkswagen hubcaps. Turning the hubcap upside down, the VW initials in the center became AM. . . Amadeus Mozart. In a flash, in my mind, I saw Mozart, the opera, and the mental blueprint of a tower.  From that moment on, his spirit in that opera has followed me and guided me in its creation.

For more photos by Ron Henggeler, go to http://www.ronhenggeler.com.

Site Search Tags: San Francisco, the arts, urban life

By Sue Cauthen

The City’s attempts to modernize a branch library are shaking up North Beach. The seemingly innocent endeavor has all the earmarks of back-room dealing: secret meetings at the highest level, coercion of the uninitiated, naïve blundering. Its ripple effect touches every one of the 28 libraries in San Francisco. What started as an effort to deliver a cutting-edge library to the neighborhood has devolved into a boondoggle that could tie up library funding for years to come. The ultimate fall guys: library patrons and the taxpayers.

When it comes to North Beach, the press is full of the pious pronouncements of people who are more interested in advancing their personal agendas than providing the spacious 21st-century library that is the hallmark of SFPL’s ongoing branch renovation project. The goal of the project is an oasis of rational thought that, in this case, offers books and computers and a warm and welcoming place to enjoy them. But like many goals, this one was co-opted by political expediency.

North Beach library was due for a makeover under a $106 million general obligation (GO) bond issue back in 2003. But delays, indecision and bickering over a small three-sided parking lot across the street pushed North Beach to the end of the line and, whoops! the money ran out. However, thanks to San Franciscans’ love for their libraries, 74% of the electorate voted for revenue bonds last year to bail the library out. San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) got unlimited authority to sell bonds to finance new libraries and pay off the debt with money set-aside for library operations from the city’s general fund.

Master Planning for Dummies

Armed with more than $8 million for the job, the library began planning. At the same time, however, a lot of other groups got into the act. The park folks wanted to kick the library out of Joe Dimaggio and North Beach Playground, its home for half a century, and demolish the library, a prime example of 1950s architecture. The politicians wanted to find a use for the tiny (4,100 sq. ft) triangular parking lot taken (for $2.8 million) by eminent domain to become a mini-park. Nearby residents deplored a plan to close the heavily traveled stretch of Mason Street in front of the library, fearing 24/7 traffic jams and impaired access for security vehicles. Meanwhile, the park honchos had already spent more than $10 million to build a new clubhouse, pool and bocce ball court. There wasn’t much space left for a meaningful Master Plan when SFPL entered the picture. Small wonder that the library ended up the sacrifice pawn in an endgame that booted the library onto the tiny sliver of land across the street.

The Incredible Shrinking Library

The library had its own ideas: either expand the existing 5,500 sq. ft. building or move next door to a kiddie playground (the “tot lot”) due to be relocated anyway. At first it seemed that the Recreation and Park people went along with this plan. But suddenly the community meeting to discuss it was canceled. The knives were out for the library.

And, voila, a couple of months later, SFPL agreed to squeeze the new library onto the Triangle in what it called a “win-win” conclusion.

Not.

Instead, SFPL intends to cram services for adults, children and teens onto one floor, where it will also squeeze in the check-out desk, bathrooms and all the books. Did we mention that this plan means less space for bookshelves and fewer books? SFPL is planning a small, recessed second story but refuses to assign a librarian to the floor so it could be used to create more space for library services. It will be off limits most of the time.

Privately the city librarian agonized and consoled himself with the fact that there will be good libraries in other neighborhoods. Publicly he drank the Kool-Aid and moved swiftly to engineer assent from the Library Commission. That happened September 4. Rec Park’s commissioners are expected to follow suit September 18. And don’t forget that Rec Park paid $2.8 million to buy the tiny Triangle (that’s nearly $700 a square foot). It wants some return on its investment, hopefully from the library, which it also wants to pay for the demolition, cleanup and leveling the ground.

Check-Out or Checkmate?

But a long delay is expected. First there is an EIR for the library’s demolition, then another for the street closure and, finally, a shadow study. Meanwhile, says the library, costs are escalating at 8% a year. When it comes money management at SFPL, it’s déjà vu all over again. Expect the revenue bond money to shrink like the GO money did.

But SFPL’s revenue bonding authority gives the library the right to continue leaning on its set-aside money indefinitely. This means less money for books and open hours, clearly a lose-lose scenario for library patrons.

Economists were skeptical of the revenue bond “solution” from the git-go. Here’s their take: The library gets 2.5% of every $100 of property tax. This set-aside is intended to fund library operations: more books, more hours and the like. It has made SFPL one of the wealthiest departments in the city.

But the library ran short of money to rebuild its branches. So it decided to float revenue bonds and call the set-aside “revenue.” Incidentally, this gave SFPL a better chance on election day: revenue bonds need a simple majority to pass. General obligation bonds require two-thirds of the vote.

What it is essential to realize, say the money mavens, is that using the set-aside to pay off the revenue bonds actually taps into money from the general fund. If the library can use the set-aside to pay for bond issues, they argue, the set-aside is too high. They think SFPL used voodoo economics to woo the voters.

Bad Public Policy

Book lovers revel in the fact that SFPL has bounteous bucks and hope to see the results in better library service. But the plan to plunk the North Beach branch into a space that is the wrong shape and size for an efficient library means there likely will not be one in the home of the Beat Generation and City Lights Bookstore. And the neighborhood will be the poorer for it. The folks who put the current plan together should be ashamed of themselves!

The intrigue, wrong-headedness and just plain cynicism that characterizes the debate over the site for the North Beach library is a textbook example of the need for strong citywide groups that can stand up to City Hall. They come in various shapes and sizes, but groups as diverse as San Francisco Tomorrow, SPUR, the Sierra Club and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods have the smarts, the clout and the perseverance to make things happen. They offer a haven for the politically inclined, eager to see good government triumph over bad. For it is only through an active and unified force that the politicians and their sycophants are forced into the spotlight and held accountable for their behind-the-scenes skullduggery.

When bad public policy emerges, the strengths of good-government groups surface. And they trump the cynical and desperate politicians. They trump the idea that ordinary people have no role to play in the political process. Despite what the politicians and the bureaucrats say, everyday people have the power to build something extraordinary when they come together. In union, they can change the course of history.

Sue Cauthen is chair of the Board of Supervisors Library Citizens Advisory Committee.

Site Search Tags: politics, San Francisco, urban life

By Sharon Lauder

The city of Houston has joined a number of other U.S. cities in trying to impose a uniform standard for the newsracks on its streets. Each city has its own requirements, reflecting its own unique culture. In the case of Houston, newspaper publishers must furnish their own newsracks — metal, painted fir green, embedded in a 3-inch-high concrete base. They are assessed a general permit fee of $300, plus $5 per newsrack. The city is beginning to implement the ordinance,  with all publishers expected to comply completely by January 1, 2009.

The Houston & Heights Tribune is a bi-monthly paper with a readership of about 100,000 people. In existence since 1986, the paper is distributed to 250 locations, mainly in plastic newsracks. Under the ordinance, the existing newsracks will head to the city dump, to be replaced by dark green metal ones at the paper’s expense. The Tribune’s publisher, Sharon Lauder, has fought the proposal from the beginning, and the paper’s website includes a protest http://www.houstontribune.com/Newsrack%20resolution.pdf for readers to print out and mail to the Houston City Council. She made the following speech to the City Council on April 1, 2008. [The cartoons are reprinted with the permission of the Houston Tribune. As always, click on a thumbnail image to see it more clearly.]

I am Sharon Lauder, publisher of the Houston & Heights Tribune, and I am against the newsrack ordinance.

I am here to plead with you to reconsider this ordinance and to remind you that we as a country are in a recession. The old saying “Waste not, want not” is important. The smaller publications already have plastic newsboxes that are suitable for distribution. And metal rusts!!

This ordinance will go into effect on April 11 despite many publishers’ speaking out against it at city hall. The ordinance has already depleted our community newspapers and left the corporate giants in downtown Houston along with a few other publications. It requires all newsboxes to be metal & all the same color, with a 95-pound cement base underneath, and soon this requirement will be citywide.

As you may suspect, an ordinance that targets a narrow segment of the media is constitutionally invalid, as was set out in the case of Pitt News v. Pappert in an opinion written by now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito. The practical effect of this ordinance is to make it impossible for small free papers to distribute using newsracks. Even if on its face the ordinance does not appear discriminatory, as Judge Alito points out in his opinion in Pitt News, the practical effect of a statute can also be unconstitutional. Aside from that, does the City of Houston really want to eliminate the diversity that the small publication segment of the print media brings to this city?

There’s a reason that this statute is probably unconstitutional: It is un-American and against our traditions of free speech and respect for opinions from all segments of our society.

The Nashville mayor vetoed that city’s newsrack ordinance.

Los Angeles gave newspaper publishers seven years to adhere to its newsrack ordinance and “grandfathered” in all newsboxes.

San Luis Obispo newspapers won a lawsuit against the city, and the courts affirmed that the freedom to distribute information is as essential as the freedom to publish it. The California appellate court found the newspaper and publishers’ suit met three requirements. First, the ruling “preserved an important right for the public, which is embedded in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: the right of free expression of new ideas.” Second, the ruling grants a significant benefit to the general public by “preserving their right to be informed of different points of view through desirable, inexpensive forums at all times of the day.” And finally, the court ruled that the public benefits outweigh the benefits for the publications because a large percent of their distribution was in the newsracks.

“The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all. It is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience and in consonance with peace and good order, but it must not, in the guise of regulation be abridged or denied” (United States Supreme Court, Hague v. C.I.O., 1939). The Houston newsrack ordinance has abridged and denied the smaller publications their right to be on city sidewalks by making it cost prohibitive.

This newsrack ordinance is going to “impede the free flow of ideas and the ability of alternative voices to be heard within our community!” And if you drive around downtown, you’ll see that it already has. Many smaller publications have pulled out of downtown. Three African-American newspapers are no longer on the downtown city sidewalks, and Leisure Learning and many other minority-owned and women-owned newspapers are gone.

Most of the smaller publications have spent thousands of dollars on their existing plastic newspaper boxes, and now the city of Houston has said no to plastic and yes to metal. This ordinance prevents freedom of the press:  if a publisher does not have the right to distribute, then the right to publish has been violated.  The First Amendment has been totally disregarded with this newsrack ordinance.

There are many reasons to repeal this ordinance. Here are 12:

1. The Houston Police Department told me that the metal newsboxes are being used by thieves to throw into a car windshield to break and enter. And now with the 95 pounds of added weight, they will cause much more damage to a citizen’s car.

2.  Metal newsboxes can and have been stolen to sell at scrap-metal yards. There is even a special HPD task force for metal thieves because of the large amount of metal stolen in Houston.

3. Communities depend on the smaller publications to get out the news vital to their communities.

4. The economic losses to the small businesses that rely on the low cost ad space offered by smaller publications will be at risk.

5. Free publications do not need metal boxes. Coin-operated newspaper boxes need metal newsboxes.

6. Plastic boxes do not rust. Houston is known for humidity and rust.

7. All boxes can be weighted down inside the box. A cement base is a trip hazard for citizens.

8. Small publications depend on the newsracks for over 80% of their distribution.

9. Freedom of the press is at risk with this newsrack ordinance.

10. I have never had a complaint in 22 years in business regarding my newspaper box being blown into the air and hurting someone. I have made sure my outdoor boxes were clean and secured down with a chain and a lock. But that can be easily changed by adding sand or a cement block inside to stabilize the box.

11. More time is needed to implement any ordinance and it needs to be fair for all publications. There were only a small number of publishers invited to attend the newsrack ordinance hearing. Therefore the newsrack ordinance did not do its due diligence.

12. Houston is the four largest city. Major changes cannot happen overnight, and they should be for the benefit and welfare of all. When the city of Houston confiscates the newsboxes, what special dump will there be for plastic newsboxes that were intended to be used for newspapers??

Site Search Tags: freedom of the press, urban life

Nancy Muldoon

The critics of casual Fridays said this would happen.

First it was casual office attire. Then inappropriate conversation followed closely behind those jeans and flip-flops.

I am amazed and appalled at what my co-workers feel is okay to talk about in the workplace. Most of us have worked with annoying, overly chatty people who never seem to shut up. It can be a nightmare when you have to share a small office with them and listen to every minute detail of their personal lives, whether you want to hear it or not.

As America becomes increasingly casual, it seems that there are very few subjects which are off limits in the workplace.

I may be opinionated, but I do not share the intimate details of my life with my co-workers. Nor do I feel the need to shout. Those who insist on talking at full volume are just as obnoxious as those who want to tell all.

In our oh-so-casual culture, we treat everywhere we go as an extension of our living room, or worse. People who share the details of their sex lives, or their drinking benders, or their daughter’s recent sexual assault, are treating their co-workers like willing participants in a group therapy session, which would be fine if we were in one. Unfortunately, the people who are guilty of such behavior are almost never in therapy, individual, group, or otherwise.

The way Americans communicate in and out of the workplace has changed over the last twenty years. Is technology to blame? Or is it the breakdown of values and standards in our culture? With the infiltration of cell phones, text messaging, and voice mail, we are far less communicative than we think. It’s ironic that having an actual conversation with someone over coffee is often perceived as a self-indulgent luxury.

People who insist on talking about their latest sexual escapades in public insist that they are exercising their freedom of speech. So do people who feel the need to call their significant other to discuss whether they should purchase red or green grapes. I say, if you need to consult someone on what to buy in a supermarket, perhaps you shouldn’t be in charge of the household shopping.

I know I can’t be the only one who feels this way.

Site Search Tags: urban life