“Think barring your doors with 2x4s will keep your stuff safe in Oakland?”
Click to expand
Not exactly sure which “local newspaper” San Francisco Police Department Chief Greg Suhr is referencing today, so this bit from Chris Roberts posted yesterday in the San Francisco Examiner will have to suffice:
Looks like the ACLU report applies to the whole country, Vermont, Iowa, Illinois:
Anyway, here’s the response from Chief Suhr:
“SFPD Response to ACLU Arrest Racial Disparity Report.
In one of the local newspapers this morning, it was stated that African Americans are arrested at a far higher rate than whites, according to an ACLU report issued today. This is not so. The San Francisco Police Department does not racially profile. No one is arrested in sufficient numbers for marijuana possession here in San Francisco to substantiate such a claim. In fact, the article even states that there were only 11 people arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession in all of 2011, Chief Suhr’s first year as Chief.
To put this number in context, in 2011, the SFPD made over 23,000 arrests, of which 14,000 were classified as misdemeanors. Today, Chief Suhr reviewed all 11 misdemeanor marijuana arrest reports from 2011. All 11 misdemeanor marijuana charges were secondary to other charges, e.g., outstanding warrants, weapons possession, drunk in public, for which the person (four white males, three black males, two black females, one Hispanic male, and one white female) were arrested and booked.
It is evident that the misdemeanor marijuana arrests cited in the article were made using sound police procedure pertaining to criminal activity and not by racial profiling.
San Francisco Police Department
Does somebody want to look into these arrests, to see if the SFPD is using sound police procedure pertaining to criminal activity and not by using racial profiling?
Well, be my guest and let us know how it goes.
Until then, it looks like ACLU 0, Greg Suhr 1.
Physical graffiti, the worst kind:
Click to expand
(Or “Krave,” as you Yanks call it.)
And Big Cheez-Its, that’s also available at a steep discount on the corner of 7th and Market these days.
But, cheez it, the cops! See them?
Do they ever do anything down here?
Click to expand
Everybody wins when big corporations, like, I don’t know, Wal-Mart, take big tax deductions for donating food and when donees sell it to happy customers. Hurray!
Auweia – click to expand
…and here’s the vision for its future, below.
So, just as the horrible SFMTA recently conducted focus groups on the future of Polk, 6th Street is getting its turn.
I’ll tell you, if I were in charge of making 6th street safer, I don’t think I’d put “Slower Cars” at the top of the list.
How about “Less Untreated Mental Illness” instead?
Anyway, our blessed SFMTA will be hosting ”an interactive activation project on 6th Street (between Market and Stevenson)” on May 18th, 2013.
And Twitter will be there too, sort of.
In a better world, Twitter would participate because it wants to, not because it’s contractually obligated to do so.
(And Twitter would pay its fair share of taxes under the rules signed into law by that wild job-killing radical, Gavin Newsom, all the way back in 2004. Twitter, just give me your tax returns and I’ll figure how much more you should have paid and then you can write a check for the difference and send it in to the General Fund.)
NEWSFLASH: The people from the residential hotels you don’t like on 6th Street aren’t going anywhere.
Oh, and lots of people working at Twitter would still prefer to labor in northern San Mateo County, just saying.
Anyway, on with the show:
“Slower Cars. More sidewalk space. More mid-block crossings. Brighter lighting. Cleaner streets. These are among the ideas and desires recently expressed by the local community for a safer 6th Street.
Safer 6th Street is a collaboration between SFMTA, District 6 Supervisor’s Office, Twitter, Neighborland, SPUR, URBAN SPACEship and other community organizations to address the issue of safety in the 6th Street corridor, and gather further input from the local community as to what can be done to create a safer area for residents, workers and passersby alike.
There is an on-going community process to implement safety measures in the 6th Street corridor, including:
- Sixth Street Improvement Project led by SFMTA, for permanent traffic calming and pedestrian improvements in the corridor
- Supervisor Jane Kim’s District 6 Pedestrian Safety Workgroup, which has been advocating for traffic calming on Sixth Street for the past several years
- Activation projects led by the Mayor’s Office of Economic Workforce and Development
- The recent establishment of The Sixth Street Safety Hub, an SFPD sub-station
In alignment with this process, we ask – how can we, as a community, create a safer 6th Street?
On Saturday, May 18th, between 12-6pm we will be hosting an interactive activation project on 6th Street (between Market and Stevenson), to engage the community and gather ideas and feedback towards this question, with the aim of envisioning a vibrant area and helping to prioritize treatments to the 6th Street design.
Pick your medium – we’ll have a Neighborland board for you to freely write on, a Twitter photo booth, and a collaborative mural installed by ArtIsMobilus.
Until then, share your ideas and comment on others here or on Twitter using the hashtag #safer6th. Through a new integrated platform between Neighborland and Twitter, your tweets will display on the Question page. Any tweets that start with “I want …” and contain the hashtag will auto-magically become ideas on the Question page.
Come join and take part in creating action on the ground!”
[GRUB STREET SF has an explanation from the owner. Plus there's good news for Dogpatch! Sort of. Before 7:30 PM, anyway.]
Remember back in the day, back more than a half-decade when a joint like Amici’s East Coast Pizzeria could get away with a delivery map like this?
Check it, the Western A and the Potrero Hill PJs were carved out of the delivery areas and the gritty “Uptown” Tenderloin / Twitterloin / 6th Street / Flank area only enjoyed daytime delivery, thusly:
And then came this map, which is a little less racist:
And oh wait, this is the current map still.
(At least the southern part of Potrero Hill isn’t carved out so blatantly these days.)
Taxi drivers can’t legally refuse to take you to certain areas of San Francisco due to their concerns over personal safety. Non, non, non. That’s a crime called failure to convey that can land a cabbie in the hoosegow. Why are pizza drivers treated differently?
Because in 1996, Supervisor Willie Kennedy gave us a law, (one that became national news), but then it got watered down such that a “reasonable good faith belief” that a driver would be in danger in a particular nabe is now enough to allow the brazen publication of redlined pizza maps.
And check it, flower and newspaper delivery people are off the hook as well.
Note also that there doesn’t seem to be any designated punishment for a violation anyway. Oh well.
To review, cabbies are on the hook, delivery people not.
NB: Dominoes appears to use a different map, or maybe none at all, as it seems they’ll delivery just about anywhere in our seven square.
The More You Know…
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to any residential address within the City and County of San Francisco falling within that person’s or business entity’s normal service range. A person or business entity may not set its normal service range to exclude a neighborhood or location based upon the race, color, ancestry, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight or height, of the residents of that neighborhood or location. Where a person or business entity regularly advertises home delivery services to the entire City and County, that person or business entity’s “normal service range” shall be defined by the geographic boundaries of the City and County.
(b) For purposes of this Section, “home delivery services” shall mean the delivery of merchandise to residential addresses, when such services are regularly advertised or provided by any person or business entity.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, it shall not be unlawful for a person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to a residential address if (i) the occupants at that address have previously refused to pay in full for services provided to them by that person or business entity; or (ii) such refusal is necessary for the employer to comply with any applicable State or federal occupational safety and health requirements or existing union contract; or (iii) the person or business entity has a reasonable good faith belief that providing delivery services to that address would expose delivery personnel to an unreasonable risk of harm.
(Added by Ord. 217-96, App. 5/30/96; amended by Ord. 295-96, App. 7/17/96; Ord. 222-02, File No. 021462, App. 11/15/2002)