By Anna Pulley
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Erin Sherbert
By Rachel Swan
By Joe Eskenazi
By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
Thank you for printing "Conscientious Injectors" (June 28). It was an excellent and needed article. The people participating in the needle-exchange programs are truly beautiful. Their willingness to help a group that is about the most downtrodden and forgotten in America can be likened to Mother Teresa's mission to help the poorest of the poor. When the "war on drugs" types obsess over the "kind of message" such programs put out, let us reply that the message is that promoting people's health and well-being is more important than controlling people's behavior.
The notion that people opposed to naming the street Cesar Chavez are "traditionalists" does not stand up to the facts (Bay View, "Street Fight," June 28). There was no opposition to renaming Navy Street to 27th Street. So opposing the renaming of Army to Cesar Chavez is nothing more than racism pure and simple.
At first, I applauded the name change from Army to Cesar Chavez. But two factors led me to sign the petition (Bay View, "Street Fight," June 28) to restore the name to Army Street.
First, the mere fact that thousands are signing this petition is evidence that the Board of Supervisors didn't do its homework on this. While I know there are several versions of every story, I am concerned by the number of people who have reported rude behavior by the staffs of a couple of supervisors toward those who called to complain. There will never be anywhere near 100 percent support for any position the board takes, and sometimes it should take positions that a majority may not support (i.e., boycotting grapes or South Africa), but renaming a street after anyone does not rise to that moral standard.
Second, as someone who is deeply involved in San Francisco history (I do a storytelling titled "The Life Story of San Francisco" at the Museum of the City of San Francisco), I have come to realize that street names play a prominent role in the collective community memory of the free-spirited, open-minded, opportunity-driven San Francisco that attracted most of us here in the first place. Therefore, to change a street name should require a higher standard, and should be avoided except under very unusual circumstances. In North Beach, changing alley names to Kerouac, Ferlinghetti, et al., was based on a direct relationship of these writers and poets to the places where they lived and worked. Army Street and Cesar Chavez have no such relationship.
I understand that South Van Ness was an option at the time. Wouldn't that street accomplish the goal? And there are many other options to honor Chavez, such as Dolores Park (here we retain the street name Dolores, and we have the mission.)
Slap Shots' piece on the guy who gets money with a story about being a basketball player who needs to buy food for his little girl ("The Bum's Rush," June 28) struck a chord. I gave money to the same guy when I first came to San Francisco for a short visit five years ago. He had almost exactly the same story. I was told that he'd been doing it for a long time before that -- maybe a few years. I remember the incident very clearly. That guy is so good he could even sell American cars to the Japanese. I regarded it as one of the touristic highlights of my visit.
Cops Are GOPs
The best reason for not requiring that the police and firefighters live in San Francisco (Bay View, "Fire Trek," June 21) is that we do not have a large reactionary voting bloc, of which the police and firefighters are, by definition, a large part.
From the Big House to Our House
Larry Bush's piece on the Bernal Dwellings Housing Development (Paper Trails, "Dance a Little Dance With Me," June 21) relies on character assassination and speculation at the expense of any detailed reporting in discrediting Malik Rahim and, by extension, the Bernal Dwellings Tenant Association in their efforts to purchase Bernal Dwellings.
Bush simply defines Rahim as an ex-con in the opening sentence, and apparently feels he need therefore offer no actual evidence in suggesting that Rahim's and the Tenant Association's efforts to buy Bernal Dwellings must be motivated by a desire to make a profit. This assertion is not supported by anything other than a quote from an anonymous Housing Authority official, which Bush seems to accept at face value, overlooking the fact that the Housing Authority may have a conflicting interest in the property.
Rahim and the Tenant Association may instead want to purchase Bernal Dwellings to gain control over the place where they live, and to address problems that the Housing Authority failed to correct, such as poor maintenance, inadequate community services, and drug dealing. The Housing Authority's plans to reduce the number of units in the course of rehabilitation mentioned by Bush might also motivate tenants, some of whom would obviously have to move if the demolition and new construction were carried out in line with the authority's plan.
It also seems possible that Housing Authority officials are seeking to discredit the actions of Rahim and the tenants for reasons other than their benevolent concern for residents, such as a desire to retain control of Bernal Dwellings and the money allocated for the property, which helps to ensure their salaries. They may also have an interest in the property value of the land where Bernal Dwellings is located.
None of these possibilities is taken up by Bush. Instead, he offers only one narrow point of view about Rahim, the Tenant Association, and who is acting in the best interest of the residents at Bernal Dwellings, and he does so without much factual evidence to make his case. Perhaps in the future a more complex and open-minded analysis of public-housing issues might be offered.
National People's Campaign
The Plot Sickens
I had the pleasure of viewing Wayne Wang's new film, Smoke, at the San Francisco International Film Festival, and after reading Paul Reidinger's review ("Into the Haze," June 14), I must admit that I'm relieved that I had already seen it.
Reidinger did not so much write a review of the film as he did an elementary plot synopsis. I'm not even sure if he did see the film, or if in a deadline haste simply asked one of his classmates what he had missed. I can't quite decide what irritates me more -- a preview trailer that shows too much of a movie, or a critic who gives a book report.
My condolences are with the people who hadn't seen the film and inadvertently read Reidinger's article. Wang's film does not hinge on plot alone, but anyone reading Reidinger might naturally assume that it does. He has spoiled some of the film's tiny pleasures by regurgitating too much storyline and too little of the cinematic experience. And for those of us who have already seen the film, Reidinger ranks with the best of those writers who have that amazing ability to turn a work of art into another Cliffs Notes experience.
"Conscientious Injectors" (June 28) misidentified the denomination of Glide Memorial United Methodist Church.