By Erin Sherbert
By Howard Cole
By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
Huzzah, Good Sir!
So, who wrote the subheadline for the cover story "Hostile Takeover" (Sept. 30)?
Your attempt at wit didn't work too well. "Grabbeth" is an archaic way to write "grabs," so the sentence translates as: "And what the Exchange covets, Willie Brown's Redevelopment Agency will probably grabs away." Duh.
You must have an interesting production line, if this one managed to get past the writer, the copy editor, the managing editor, and the editor before finally reaching a reader. But hey, why let literacy get in the way of a good tag line? It's only a newspaper, after all.
Huzzah, Good Piggy!
Cheers to the sportsmen and cheers for the pig ("How to Stalk, Kill, and Cook a California Wild Pig," Sept. 2). It makes me angry to hear these patrons of the fast food chains grind away at cattlemen, sport fishermen, and outdoorsmen (Letters, Sept. 9, 16, and 23).
The wild pig is the leanest-tasting pork ever -- wonderful sausage. I can't forget the difference from fatty store-bought meats.
First-Rate Pig Hunting
We note with an unfortunate lack of surprise that your publication seems to have received a large percentage of negative letters concerning your article on wild pig hunting ("How to Stalk, Kill, and Cook a California Wild Pig"). We found the story to be a fresh twist on an unusual pursuit, and it is a sorry day when the mass of readers cannot distance themselves from their own personal bias long enough to recognize a piece of first-rate journalism.
We applaud your continuing efforts to uncover the more unusual and underground Bay Area activities, and for those easily offended readers with their fists in the air and their heads in the sand, we recommend you appease your fraying nervous systems and stick to the Chronicle for the results of last Friday's checkers tournament at the Shriner's Hall.
Concern for Mentally Ill
It is interesting that at the same time your paper was trashing mental health advocates for trying to get more city attention on housing options for the mentally ill, the Bay Guardian was praising us for our efforts to gain increased funding for mental health services ("Mental Blockheads," Cothran, Sept. 23).
My point to both the Planning Commission and Mr. Cothran was simple: The city and county needs to aggressively pursue opportunities to address the current housing crisis for San Franciscans with mental illness. I share Mr. Cothran's concern for the quality of care for people with mental illness. I urge him to raise his voice with ours in order to get the funding to provide appropriate care for this vastly underserved population.
Bill Hirsh, Executive Director
Mental Health Association of San Francisco
It is nice that your columnist considers the Johnsons "nice," though that is a rather poor description for people struggling heart and soul to care for folks much of society would rather wish away, while at the same time dealing with the adversity that comes with trying to do a good deed ("Mental Blockheads," Cothran).
It would have been nicer still if the column had reported on the many mental health professionals who do not need to "speculate" about the level of care at Johnson's, including the attending psychiatrist, both case managers, and the pharmacist, all of whom testified before the Planning Commission as to the high level of care.
The Johnsons provide clean housing, good food, and good care for $703 per month. Turn that number over in your mind for a second. Right now there are identified mentally ill persons who need to get into Johnson's. They should not be blocked by irresponsible, unfounded speculation as to the care inside the home, water-damaged paint on the outside (to be repainted) or not.
Attorney for Johnson's Guest Home
Is Bruno's Paying You People, or What?
We must commend Nestor Makhno's wheat-pasting campaign for pushing the debate on gentrification onto the pages of SF Weekly (Letters, Sept. 16, 23, and 30; Dog Bites, Sept. 2, 9, and 16) and the streets of the Mission. Both new arrivals and old-timers seem to be caught in a "It's too bad but I can't do anything about it, might as well go drink down at Bruno's" mentality.
What is being ignored is that it's going to take a lot more than screwing up a few sport utility vehicles to stop gentrification. In the 1970s the presence of thousands of Latino youth and lowrider car clubs out on cruise night scared the shit out of the gentry, and kept gentrification at bay. In the 1990s urban decay is in fashion and the Mission's rough edges are an actual incentive for many young pioneers to move in. Besides, the city passed laws against cruising and lowriding as a gift to the real estate industry. Monolingual cadres of midnight wheat-pasters may get the debate going, but we hope the boys won't be at home reading theory when the real battle begins.
Like Makhno, we have no problem with class struggle and no love for yuppies. Let's keep our eyes on the real villains here: the real estate industry and the politicians and bureaucrats who love it. Let's keep focused on where the real potential for saving the hood is: a politicized, action-oriented alliance of current Mission residents, willing to put political pressure on all fronts to make our entire city a yuppie-free zone.