By Erin Sherbert
By Howard Cole
By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
No Sympathy for the Devils
As if they don't feel bad enough already: Another story about a bunch of greedy people who got screwed by an unscrupulous friend ("ValleyBoy.Scam," Aug. 16). Waaahhhhhh. It's the American way, isn't it? You hoped for a huge payoff with no work and got burned. As for the parasites Chris Seguy and Kenn Sugiyama: Quit whining. You got a free ride, free drugs, and all you had to do was bend over once in a while for some guy you weren't attracted to. Get over it. Plenty of other prostitutes do the same thing for a lot less. The image of you two huddled in front of the fireplace made me laugh. The rats who stayed with the ship after it sank. No place to go? That's your own fault, not Kevin Yaeger's.
The funniest thing is that you let SF Weeklyphotograph and interview you. Now the entire Bay Area knows your business. Maybe you hope another sugar daddy will see you and snap you up. Hopefully this time you'll learn some skills so you have a fallback position when your looks go, or if you choose the wrong one again. Good luck.
Actually, Cabdrivers Are More Like Cats
They never come when you call: With regard to Matt Smith's article "Death and Taxis" (Aug. 16), the difficulty in getting taxicab service into the neighborhoods is no mystery at all.
Visualize a football stadium and let that represent the city of San Francisco. Put a food dish out there in the middle of the field and let that represent the downtown area. Put another food dish out there somewhere near the edge of the field and let that represent the airport.
Now, turn loose 2,000 puppy dogs. And let those 2,000 puppy dogs represent 2,000 independent taxi drivers, each free to do as he wishes. Where will they congregate? Around the food dishes, of course.
So long as the independent contractor environment continues, more taxis will just mean more taxis around the food dishes. In the eyes of an independent taxi driver, the downtown and airport areas are where the money is. The leasing environment is actually a disincentive for them to serve the neighborhoods.
Proposition M will serve no other purpose than to put more taxis out there on the streets, all into the areas of the food dishes. The neighborhoods cannot possibly be better served.
TAXI-L Founder and Moderator
And taxi commissioners are like sloths: Matt Smith's article was the most colorful writing I have seen in some time. There are taxi commissioners who genuinely are trying to improve service, improve working conditions for drivers, and provide opportunity. But taken as a whole, this commission has done almost nothing to improve service. Of the 100 permits they authorized last fall, only 20 have been issued. There have been no improvements in the dispatch systems. The bitter division between taxi companies and drivers that existed before the Taxi Task Force has resurfaced.
This Proposition M that the taxi companies are now pushing isthe "most obscure, confusing, and inconclusive measure on the November ballot." Barbara Kaufman, one of the supervisors who endorsed the proposal, gave this recommendation: "Is this going to solve the problem? I don't know." What's up with that?
I did object to the unnecessary knocks about taxi drivers. This idea that "by taxi-driver design, there are almost never enough taxis on the street to meet demand" is ludicrous. As a union organizer, I really do wish that cabbies had that kind of political influence. Our proposals for adding peak-time permits and citywide dispatch have been ignored. There has been no action improving working conditions or driver safety. Mr. Smith was closer to the mark when he stated that "political patronage, cronyism, and piles upon piles of campaign cash" had a role in taxi industry regulation.
Board Member, United Taxicab Workers
Note to Bill: The New Yorker Is $44.95 a Year
Food for thought: Please give restaurant critic Greg Hugunin time off to complete the novel he so obviously wants us to know he'd rather be writing. (Note to Greg: If I wanted to be subjected to self-indulgent prose by someone desperate to write the Restaurant Review That Really Makes You Think, I'd read The New Yorker).
The Last Word on Rent Control
Living in the real world: Peter Byrne puts together what seems to be a coherent, logical argument by quoting theories and history and ignoring what is happening in the world around us, in San Francisco, in the year 2000 ("The Case for Ending Rent Control," Aug. 9).
All arguments against rent control ignore the fact that we already have a very clear real-world example of what would happen without rent control. There is no rent control on commercial properties, but we are still losing our nonprofits, our arts foundations, and our small businesses at a very great rate, driven out by rents tripling, quadrupling, and quintupling. Rent control is the only thing protecting us from residential landlords being able to do to private individuals what the commercial landlords are doing to our small businesses.