Examiner.com // 22 mins ago
Examiner.com // 37 mins ago
Los Angeles Times // 59 mins ago
CBS2-KCAL // 1 hr 25 mins ago
Daily News // 1 hr 37 mins ago
KTLA.com // 1 hr 54 mins ago
Los Angeles Times // 1 hr 57 mins ago
ABC7.com // 2 hrs 13 mins ago
KTLA.com // 2 hrs 54 mins ago
ABC7.com // 3 hrs ago
 
   
Editorial: Police Academy cuts are unjustified
Article History
There are updates to this article.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - It is difficult, and generally a bad idea, to argue that although painful cutbacks must be made during a major budget deficit, one particular line item should be spared if at all possible. But that is exactly The Examiner’s recommendation about the current proposal to eliminate one of the San Francisco Police Academy’s five scheduled 2008 classes.

The process by which local officials tend to decide which expenditures could be slashed often involves dividing the potential cuts into several different levels of public importance. And it seems to us that graduating a maximum number of new police officers as rapidly as possible should be rated among the priorities least likely to face the ax.

As mayoral spokesman Nathan Ballard aptly put it, “We have a $338.4 million deficit, which requires that everything be considered for savings.” While this newspaper fully concurs that nothing in the budget should be exempt from potential excision, timely Police Academy classes are necessary for meeting The City’s mandated 1,971-officer staffing minimum. To keep the SFPD understaffed seems foolhardy at a time when homicides have surged to 10-year highs and as many as 600 veteran officers are likely to retire in the next five years.

Dropping one academy class would save $363,000, which obviously could somewhat help The City with the current budget crunch. But the fiscal counterargument, in favor of putting more officers onto the streets sooner instead of later, is that a fully staffed Police Department should reduce the need for 50 percent costlier overtime duty.

With a decade-high 98 homicides in 2007 and an even faster first-quarter pace of 33 killings this year, public safety demands that The City police function with sufficient street-ready officers to lower the carnage. Making a difference also requires a tactical refocus of concentrated patrol presence in the known highest-violence districts. Thankfully such a shift has begun to happen and public response to the newly increased police visibility has been strongly positive.

Before the bottom dropped out of the budget, Mayor Gavin Newsom was making good progress at increasing the police ranks. In 2005, while San Francisco spiked in homicides and violent crime, there was only one academy class of 51 recruits. But in 2006 there were 140 recruits in three classes, and last year six classes graduated 263 recruits. Hopefully some way can be found to maintain this positive trend.

When economic times get tough, it behooves local government to concentrate on maintaining basic services rather than the feel-good frills. And the need for safety of San Francisco residents in their homes and public spaces seems about as basic as it gets.


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

4:51 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 3, 2008 re: "Cell phone law worth pain"

Painful? Get Over Yourselves said:
Anyone who can't hang up their cellphone while driving is a complete and utter nimrod. I for one am very glad that this law has been enacted - now I want to see it enforced. So tired of almost getting hit by some idiot blathering on his/her phone and not paying the slightest attention to the road/street in front of them. Almost as bad: imbeciles in grocery stores who block aisles while arguing with their partners/kids about what to have for dinner. Always feel like knocking them down. When did cell phones become permanent appendages? I sure as hell don't want to hear half of the insipid conversations that stupid people have with one another.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

11:45 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008 re: "Jury right about school lottery"

Examiner Reader said:
Hi, this article reminded me of the controversy between parents and the school district back in the early 70's when I was bussed from Noe Valley to Star King in Potrero Hill, in an attempt to desegregate the many different ethnicities throughout the city. I'm a Sergeant First Class in The Army who hasn't lived in the city for over 19 years, but I still love to read the examiner on line and catch up on local news. Hope the city figures it out! Sincerely, Joe Gresham

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:31 AM MST on Sun., Jun. 29, 2008 re: "Mexican soldiers on American soil"

Examiner Reader said:
Thank you examiner for bringing this issue to light (Editorial: Mexican soldiers on American soil). The average American has no idea this is happening. The open borders crowd needs to come to terms with its complicity in these actions - when you scream for open borders and rights for illegal aliens you are supporting the invasion of the United States. The gang from which the killer of the Bologna family comes from is made up of mostly illegal aliens. One wonders how many dead Americans it will take for you to wake up and see the invasion for what it is. My guess: thousands.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:10 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008 re: "Muni timely with crash evidence"

Examiner Reader said:
MUNI's operations, more or less, remain problematic and unaccpetable approaching the two year anniversay of Mr. Ford's hiring. With an eye-witness to the aformentioned accident and on-board computers, it takes a week to make the determinations which were released on Tuesday? This isn't a Boeing 747 which went down unexpectedly and requires the plane be reconstructed to complete the investigation.

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:58 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008 re: "Needless violence plagues streets"

Examiner Reader said:
Didn't our mayor hire an expensive crime czar to do something about the murder rate in San Francisco?

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:11 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Cleared-case average unacceptable"

Ineffectual D.A., Police Chief, Mayor said:
The problem with San Francisco's spiralling crime rate is the fact that its D.A., Police Chief and Mayor are all completely incompetent and were chosen for their ethnicity/gender (in the case of Fong and Harris) and familial relations to SF's rich and powerful (Newsom) than their ability to lead. Witness Harris' decision to not seek the death penalty for the savage who murdered Office Espinoza, which completely and understandably alienated the rank and file of the SFPD. And Fong has not even completed the gun training required of all SFPD officers on an annual basis for several years. Newsom is a drug and alcohol addled boob whose dalliance with his campaign manager's wife cost the city a bundle. Is it any wonder that SF is in such desperate straits?

5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:34 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Cleared-case average unacceptable"

Examiner Reader said:
Mayor Newsom - if the city does not improve under my watch fire me - bye bye Mayor Newsom - what is that? not your fault - don't hold me to my words.......

6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:47 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Cleared-case average unacceptable"

L. Amiot said:
We we have people like Jake McGoldrick in a superivisory office calling for cancellation of police academy classes, it is harbinger of more bad things to come, for a long time. Voters put him there. We need quality leadership in public offices, not pathetic puffers, blowhards, and narcissists. Look at that Board with Daly, Mirkarimi, & McGoldrick. It is like some group of silly high school student body officials playing at being adult leaders of a great city. Voters get what you vote for. And that Police Commission is a carnival sideshow of carpetbaggers and conartists looking for a larger political career. Wake up my fellow San Franciscans, or watch our city fade away into an crime-filled, infamous socially/politically engineered insignificant slum.

4 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:49 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 23, 2008 re: "Academy classes should be spared"

Examiner Reader said:
Thank you for your Editorial supporting the continuation of the minimum staffing levels for the SFPD. I authored that legislation not because I believe in set asides, I do not, but rather because that was the number enshrined in the General Orders of the Police Department. The Police Department had established the requisite number of officers needed to provide adequate police protection to our city's inhabitants. The reason for putting it in the City Charter was because it had been neglected and ignored for over a decade. When given the opportunity the citizens passed it overwhelmingly. Those arguing for the repeal simply wish to ignore the publics expressed priority so they can spend more money on their priorities. Former Supervisor Bill Maher

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:18 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 20, 2008 re: "How to make city traffic worse"

Examiner Reader said:
The revised bike proposal really is a terrible idea. Thanks for calling out the laughable comparison to Idaho.

5 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:59 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 18, 2008 re: "Letters: June 19, 2008"

Mike said:
Barry Bradley, it's great to hear you're considering marrying your longtime love, your football. Just be aware of what you may have to go through before you can see your dreams legally come true. You'll have to convince the CA state legislature (twice), the CA Supreme Court, the governor, and the entire state electorate (twice) that your love is the real deal. It'll be quite a taxing and humiliating, but ultimately cathartic journey. I hope your football is worthy of the fight ahead. I know my partner of 11 years surely has been.

7 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:49 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 18, 2008 re: "Editorial: Re-elect Nancy Pelosi to Congress"

Jodi said:
Nancy Pelosi must be replaced. This is a woman that has done everything she could to insure the democratics lose this years general election for President. Nancy has been a great help to those that wish to set equal rights for women back 20 years. If you live in her district, please find out who is running against her and vote for them. Anyone would be better than Nancy for equal rights. Remember that if equal rights for women is set back, then equal rights for all others will soon follow. If you prefer to be overlooked in favor of lesser qualified people then vote for Nancy.........all others find anyone else to vote for and if there are no democrats running against her, then please vote Republican.......that's how bad a Rep. this woman is.......I would vote Republican before I would ever vote for Nancy Pelosi. Save this nation and our rights......vote OUT Nancy Pelosi

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:49 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 17, 2008 re: "Letters: June 17, 2008"

Examiner Reader said:
I find the whining over the JROTC to be amazing. The ridiculous self appointed progressives would rightly howl up a storm if the born againers tried to make their kids pray in school, but the imaginary god forbid if a kid and his/her parents decide to enroll in JROTC, that free choice drives San Francisco idiots mad.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:46 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 17, 2008 re: "The City’s bizarre ban of free choice"

Examiner Reader said:
EXCELLENT EDITORIAL. Thank you for making this simple truth evident. "Progressives" in San Francisco are against free speech, unless they agree with it. They act like the Taliban

10 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:33 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 14, 2008 re: "Feuding sinks quality-of-life court"

Examiner Reader said:
To the commentor Michael... District elections are to empower local neighborhoods... If you wish to seek someone in city government that represents the whole city then consult the Mayor Office. Consider in local government that the Board of Supervisors is what the House of Representatives are on the Federal level...Stop changing a system that our founding fathers created. A system of checks and balance... should have learned this concept in grammer school!

16 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:24 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 14, 2008 re: "Feuding sinks quality-of-life court"

Examiner Reader said:
Did the Tenderloin neighborhood ask for this court? No; Are there funds earmarked to fully pay for this new court? No; Is this idea for this new court conceived by the Mayor? No; Are Judges trying to purpose new solutions to a dysfunctional criminal justice system? Yes; Are downtown interests misrepresenting what this court idea is all about? Yes; Is there some confusion on what this new court will and will not do for the community? Yes; Is it actually a Tenderloin court? No... The boundaries for the new court also include Civic Center, Western Addition, Nob Hill, North Mission and South of Market neighborhoods. Let's start with seeking what the facts are and not adding more misinformation.

19 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:38 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 13, 2008 re: "Feuding sinks quality-of-life court"

Michael said:
Please, please, please, can we ditch district elections and return to citywide elections? Each highly paid supervisor should be held accountable to the whole city, not just a handful of zealots.

8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:21 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 13, 2008 re: "Feuding sinks quality-of-life court"

Examiner Reader said:
I'm guessing the decision not to fund the Community Justice Center has something to do with the sometimes adversarial relationship between the mayor and the board of supervisors. I've watched both parties in action and, despite what this article claims, as far I can tell, neither one is without sin in this situation.

8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:17 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 12, 2008 re: "Ending violence outside nightclubs"

Examiner Reader said:
The key is having police on the street around at closing time -- loitering fine or not. If the police were there now, you wouldn't see these incidents of violence. This law is just another that will be thrown on the heap of new offenses (such as smoking in public parks) that the police have NO intention of enforcing. Do we really need more unenforced laws?

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:58 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 11, 2008 re: "Cutting jobs from the top down"

On the Q.T. said:
Low Hanging Fruit Due to the present Budget Crisis, all the talk is about trimming the low hanging fruit. I've got fruit you could trip on and it won't be touched. Within the San Francisco Fire Department, there is the "Stress Unit." Two firefighters have full time jobs, counseling other firefighters who have a problem with drugs and/or alcohol. The cost to the City is about a quarter of a million dollars a year. However, the City already funds another Chemical Dependancy section for all City employees. The SFFD says that firefighters are "more comfortable" talking about their problems with fellow firefighters. Because that argument is specious and that there is already, in place, another counseling unit, one would think the "Stress Unit" would be on the chopping block. Simply send these two guys back to the firehouse. No, while other mental health workers in the City are laid off, the "Stress Unit" will remain because the strong have contracts-"Not my low hanging fruit."

10 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:12 AM MST on Mon., Jun. 9, 2008 re: "Big unions should help S.F., too"

Examiner Reader said:
Despite what the mayor might say, you will know if the job cutbacks at city hall are actually implemented by how loud the union(s) complain. If you don't hear any complaining or the complaining dies off quickly, its unlikely anyone actually lost their position.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:35 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 7, 2008 re: "It’s time to afflict the comfortable"

GRAVITY WELL said:
May we presume that Ken Scudder's endorsement of the Rev.Wright's rhetoric includes the disinformation and clearly divisive quotes about the US Government creating and using AIDS as a tool to destroy the black community? I doubt that such is useful in bringing us together.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:13 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 7, 2008 re: "It’s time to afflict the comfortable"

Examiner Reader said:
I think for GLBT, they'd better find some online community or something like that, to come out first, where they may feel support, happy, free. Actually, they are usually under great pressure. If they don't find some place to release themselves, they may live very hard. I think the one BiLoves is a good place for them. After that, I think they may choose some ppl who they believe very well to come out. Like this, step by step.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:11 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008 re: "Budget’s hard choices no surprise"

Gretchen said:
We have eleven Supervisors - way too many for a city the size of SF. I remember when they worked part time and made $20K a year. Now they make what? Close to $100K? And they now have assistants as well. It's time - past time - to rethink the role and structure of the Board of Supervisors. I recommend that there be a maximum of seven Supervisors and that they be broken into two groups - four Supervisors that are from districts and three supervisors that are elected at large and represent the whole city. Reducing the number of Supervisors from eleven to seven would eliminate four positions and eliminate the expense of their salaries, would eliminate their staff, would eliminate the cost of their offices and infrastructure. Easily a $1,000,000 savings per year.

13 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:42 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 5, 2008 re: "Ripping EdFund’s golden parachute"

Examiner Reader said:
As to EDFund it sounds like the piggies are feeding at the public trough - oink, oink.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:43 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 3, 2008 re: "Pass Prop. G; kill Prop. F poison pill"

Examiner Reader said:
Yes on F, support the neighborhood. Either way, the clean up part should be started immediately!

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:35 AM MST on Sat., May. 31, 2008 re: "Big unions should help S.F., too"

On the Q.T. said:
I don't think unions should give suckers a second break. The politicians are the suckers for the largesse they have given to the big unions currying political favor. The taxpayers are suckers for not recognizing that their tax dollars are spent in building political careers in San Francisco. Stay strong Unions. You have what you wanted and we the taxpayers have what we deserve.

8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:44 AM MST on Sat., May. 31, 2008 re: "Big unions should help S.F., too"

L. Amiot said:
This budget crisis clearly illustrates that young Mr Newsom has failed to plan. He is scrambling to get Unions to give back what he Should Have Seen was going to be needed when the negociations were underway. This deficit didn't just pop up at this late date. He is a leadership failure with great hair and gift of speaking. Running the City is a bit more than operating a wine bar and asking Dad for some help when you spend too much one month. Now to correct the deficit, all City workers are going to have to belt tighten. Some top advisor and brass hat jobs need to be eliminated. The revenue money is there. Newsom has misspent it due to poor leadership and poor vision as an elected official.

9 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:08 AM MST on Fri., May. 30, 2008 re: "City’s top 7 should forego extra pay"

Examiner Reader said:
ahhhh...lets throw in the Board of Supervisors too.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:01 AM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008 re: "Port of S.F. plan may survive regulatory riptides"

Examiner Reader said:
Everytime a developer walks away from a development at the Embarcadero, I consider it a plus for the residents of San Francisco. As if there's a lack of retail/entertainment around the Embarcadero is not enough and Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 39 isn't, more ore less, obnoxious. they'd like to sweep it all the way around to the Southbeach area. Ugggh.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:19 PM MST on Sat., May. 24, 2008 re: "Nation for state Senate District 3"

Examiner Reader said:
LOOK OUT San Francisco! Here comes magnificent Joe Nation and he's got a PhD from Rand Corp. (Is that even a school? Who cares.) Thank God he's going to get the rents up and he's got a plan for global warming: it's going to get a lot worse while he futzes around with still another currency: carbon trading, the Republican buzz for no government oversight of pollution. Not much for the landscape but good for business. He's into privatizing whatever possible, like Mt. Tam's water. What does your candidate know of San Francisco? Never lived there and still doesn't. After reading your editorial I can only wonder, why didn't The Examiner endorse the obvious candidate, Mark Leno. Probably nothing personal. Nation has money all over him. Leno needed a loan. Sometimes it's beneficial for the press to endorse its income.

10 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:28 PM MST on Wed., May. 21, 2008 re: "Prop. B halts runaway health debt"

Examiner Reader said:
Sf is gonna pay for this. They have trouble recruiting now, with their substandard retirement package. This measure also takes away all reciprocity so it chains works to SF for their entire career. Outta be illegal to do that.

12 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:45 PM MST on Wed., May. 21, 2008 re: "Prop. B halts runaway health debt"

Gretchen said:
I worked for 36 years at a major SF corporation before I retired a couple years ago. For the past decade or more the company gradually reduced our benefit packages. Whereas we once had guaranteed medical coverage for life as retirees, my retiree medical coverage costs me $325 a month and ends when I reach 65 and am eligible for medicare. Back in 1984 our defined benefits package was converted to defined contributions - that means that we do not recieve a pention based on our salary, but instead we have 401K and Cash balance plans. Fortunately I contributed heavily into my 401K plan so I'm doing quite well, but I am responsible for my retirement income, not the company where I worked for 36 years or the taxpayers. Unions and civil service groups seem to be way too slow to keep up with the rest of the work force when it comes to retiree benefits. Prob B doesn't go far enough, but at least it is in the right direction. Vote Yes on Prop B.

13 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:32 PM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008 re: "Pass Prop. G; kill Prop. F poison pill"

Examiner Reader said:
If 40% affordable housing was doable for the Fort Ord redevelopment project why isn't 50% doable in San Francisco, since the land only cost Lennar $1 to purchase and they have 100% of the development rights?

15 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:35 AM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008 re: "Pass Prop. G; kill Prop. F poison pill"

Examiner Reader said:
I do not believe Mayor Newsom has found a Lennar Corp. project he does not like. The mayor continues to clearly densify the city under a "transit first" policy, while our transit systems continue to limp along. I suggest we keep this is mind and vote accordingly.

14 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:43 AM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008 re: "Pass Prop. G; kill Prop. F poison pill"

Examiner Reader said:
Prop G has had no such public hearings. That is a lie. It was written on the back of a cocktail napkin and put on the ballot with paid signatures. Prop F was written by the community and put on the ballot with volunteer labor. This is the first time that San Franciscans will vote on an affordable housing measure with no tax dollar price tag attached. We've supported bonds by 2/3 - 1 vote, more or less. I'd imagine that with no tax price tag attached, and Lennar typically overplaying their hand with too much money, we might see Prop F pass with 70% of the vote.

13 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:10 AM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008 re: "Pass Prop. G; kill Prop. F poison pill"

Examiner Reader said:
It is too bad that our mayor backs the Lennar private development of the waterfront. The navy site has not been cleared of toxic waste, and new development by Lennar promises lots of new jewel box condos, right next to $34 million dollars of new voter funded landscaping. Lennar's waterfront project got included in the SFR+P Bond measure that was passed, and they want MORE. Does another SF neighborhood kick out the residents so that more well heeled urbane citizens can move in? I say no. Support Chris Daly's bid to let Hunters Point folks keep their neighborhood, with or without Lennar. And, by the way, who do you think will fund the over $1.5 billion infrastructure that will be needed by Lennar? I'm guessing we will. How about giving that $34 million of bond money back to SF Rec + Park to fix existing structures and keep the skeleton crew they now have? Mayor Newsom, how about all that concern you have for San Francisco families? Is it how to get their homes? Privatize SF?

16 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:14 PM MST on Mon., May. 19, 2008 re: "The City’s students need Prop. A"

Examiner Reader said:
Vote No on Prop A and start taking the money from the poverty pimps please.

12 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:24 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "SoMa’s risky $34 million windfall"

Examiner Reader said:
Ha! Good Luck controlling this money. I fear most of it will go to poverty pimps like Randy Shaw. they use money to maintain homelessness. Mr. Shaw and others have become very wealthy off this industry. Watch for Daly to get a job as a $250K/year consultant to one of Mr. Shaw's 'non profits' after he is termed out.

12 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:20 PM MST on Wed., May. 14, 2008 re: "SoMa’s risky $34 million windfall"

Examiner Reader said:
There is an community oversight board for the SOMA Stabilization Fund. That board is administered by Gavin Newsom's Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development. Does the Examiner have a problem with Gavin Newsom's administration overseeing these dollars, is there a fear that Newsom might fund Daly's base?

11 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:55 AM MST on Mon., May. 12, 2008 re: "Congestion-based toll a sound idea"

Examiner Reader said:
YES YES!! Finally someone gets it! We all need to understand our role as motorists to improve congestion. Carpooling or changing what time we drive is what we can do! I can't believe how people/media are knee-jerking against congestion tolling-- do they really want 12-lane freeways everywhere instead?!

10 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:01 AM MST on Tue., May. 6, 2008 re: "Care Not Cash on road to success"

Examiner Reader said:
Most homeless in the City are from outside the City originally. SF cannot be expected to take care of the Bay region's homeless. How about a regional approach, a fair share approach. Now we have a homeless industry that has made this a political cause pits one faction against the other. Almost everyone has compassion for people less fortunate, but when politicians use the homeless to further their careers, its not right. Daly says he has the answer to the homeless, to provide housing, period. Well there will never be enough housing for all the homeless drift to the City, never has and never will be. In the mean time a whole homeless industry (not infrastructure) has been setup which huge overhead cost added to each unit of housing.

10 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:33 PM MST on Sun., May. 4, 2008 re: "Care Not Cash on road to success"

MadManMarlon. said:
I have said this a gazillion times, once during the "Forgotten People's Rally in 2005 with my poem, "Care Not Cash/Trash" and I will thus say it again for the ignorant and incompetent: How in the sheer blue bloody hell does a wealthy person and any wealthy person tell a poor person not to "Care Not Cash?!" Can you tell yourselves that? Does that explain why so many of you are forever aimed at being cheap? Jeez, people making sick! Of course Gavin Newscum's cronies are going to state those "audit and statistic numbers to keep critics like me off their rant raving radar.It's War on the Poor as usual. It wouldn't surprise me if these simpletons introduced a video game for the PS3 or XBox360 as an equivalency to the "Grand Theft Auto" series. A video game created by them on how to score points on destroying poor people's lives in cities alot worse than "Liberty City" to save the "wealth of the world." Join Gavin Newscum and his special quality of life crimes as they rid the S.F's

11 agree | 18 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:06 PM MST on Fri., May. 2, 2008 re: "Care Not Cash on road to success"

Examiner Reader said:
Newsom's appointee as controller, Ben Rosenfield, says Newsom's "Care Not Cash" program is working - - now there's a surprise. Are we suppose to believe this is an apolitical, dispassionate, 3rd-party assessement of the program?

13 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:22 AM MST on Fri., May. 2, 2008 re: "Care Not Cash on road to success"

L. Amiot said:
"Newsom also alleged that the perceived problem of San Francisco homelessness is more “visual” than real, because the majority of panhandlers on the street are not homeless." IS HE FOR REAL? The "visual" number of panhandlers and bums on our city's streets has never been higher in my lifetime. His claims are utter baloney. The streets were cleaner when we enforced vagrancy laws and held public enibriates for court. Let's help people be responible for their own behavior and encourage them to make better choices with their lives. These political patchwork giveaways, like Newsoms, strips people of their pride and dignity and ambition to help themselves. There should be no reward for apathy, sloth or disolution. The growing number of bums in town tells me that many do not want to work and sacrifice to make a better life for themselves, but they certainly will take a tax payers' handout, in any form, from an incompetent narcissistic politician. Bring back old style enforcement. It worked

15 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or