SF Mayor Says Time to Be 'Less Tolerant of All the Bull**** . . .

[Eupher]

. . . That Has Destroyed Our City'

Too little, too late?

I've never been to San Francisco, but I've surely read a lot of what the city features now, besides cablecars, Alcatraz, and Fisherman's Wharf. Homeless degenerates shitting in the streets, used drug needles, brazen shoplifting with no interference or attempt by anybody to stop it. IOW, a 3rd world hellhole.

PJ Media writer Matt Margolis wrote recently about how residents of San Francisco are waking up to the fact their city has been hijacked by radical leftists and are rapidly losing patience.

That’s bad news for local politicians. Less patient voters usually mean angry voters. And angry voters are more inclined to change the status quo than not.

The rest of the nation stood by in shock as organized gangs of dozens of shoplifters stripped high-end retail stores over the Thanksgiving weekend in the city. In truth, it’s a problem that has plagued the city ever since the voters made shoplifting legal for amounts under $950 in 2019.

But the organized retail theft, the drug markets operating in full view of citizens and the police, the public defecation and urination, the homeless problem — all these and more have finally stirred city leaders to act. Mayor London Breed actually expressed anger at what the city has become.

Associated Press:

Mayor London Breed said at a news conference attended by the police chief and other public safety personnel that she would introduce legislation to allow law enforcement real-time access to surveillance video in certain situations and to make it harder for people to sell stolen goods.

She also announced emergency intervention to improve safety in the Tenderloin, one of the poorest and most drug-infested neighborhoods in San Francisco, where parents have pleaded for protection from drug dealers and violent street behavior. The neighborhood contains several government buildings, including City Hall.

“What I’m proposing today, and what I will be proposing in the future will make a lot of people uncomfortable, and I don’t care,” said Breed. “We are past the point where what we see is even remotely acceptable.”

Got news for you, your honor. Many of your constituents passed that point years ago.

Breed also said it was time to start getting aggressive and “less tolerant of all the bull— that has destroyed our city.”

Why start now? How can sane, rational, civilized people put up with the unmitigated crap that residents have had to endure?

Criminal justice advocates in favor of less incarceration say the media has been drumming up fear in a city where overall crime rates have declined in recent years. Increased enforcement, they say, only ends up harming the most vulnerable, including Black and homeless residents, without improving public safety.

Similar debates are taking place across the country in liberal cities where the murder of George Floyd led to a surge of progressive activism that included calls to rethink the way cities deal with crime. Some cities where there were calls to defund the police, including Portland, Oregon, have moved in recent months to bolster police budgets.

The problem for the activists is that while some crime is decreasing, the kinds of crimes that are increasing are what urban crime experts say drastically affect the quality of life for city dwellers. Decriminalizing indecent exposure or public defecation may seem tolerant to some — but not if the homeless guy is exercising his newfound freedom on the walkway leading to your front door.

Similarly, inviting thieves to shoplift by promising not to prosecute them gives some people the idea that San Fransisco is an “open city” where anything goes as far as taking what doesn’t belong to you is concerned.

What is truly maddening about Breed’s desire to do something about the lawlessness is that she only decided to do something when the lawlessness threatened her political career. Residents should take that into account the next time they vote for mayor.

Highlighted text above nails it. Politicians like Breed (and there are plenty like her) only care when the gravy train stumbles and threatens to halt.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/12/15/san-francisco-mayor-says-its-time-to-be-less-tolerant-of-all-the-bull-that-has-destroyed-our-city-n1541779

[Texacon]

They should set up a committee to go to several major cities around the country that don't have those problems to see WHY they don't have the same problems, but there is a HUGE problem with that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-restricts-state-funded-travel-to-five-more-states-over-lgbtq-legislation/ar-AALyoKk


California restricts state-funded travel to five more states over LGBTQ legislation


California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) has announced that the state will be restricting state-funded travel to Arkansas, Florida, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia over the passage of legislation he said is discriminatory against LGBT Americans.

Bonta pointed to GOP-backed measures targeting transgender girls on female sports teams at schools that have advanced in the five states in recent months as reason for the ban on Monday.

Since 2016, California has prohibited state-funded travel to other states with laws considered discriminatory under legislation known as AB 1887. Bonta cited the law when announcing the new restrictions. "When states discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans, California law requires our office to take action," Bonta said in the statement on Monday, which also marked the anniversary of the start of the Stonewall riots.

<<<SNIP>>>

California now restricts travel to EIGHTEEN (18) states.  They can't use state funding to travel to 18 states.  Imagine being such a snowflake that you've basically cut yourself off from half of the states within our United States.

KC

[SVPete]

Saying the words "Less Tolerant of All the Bull****" is easy. In the real world, that would mean:

* Dumping DA Boudin (he is being recalled);

* Replacing him with a DA willing to sweat the "small stuff" that is burying SF (= prosecute smash-and-grab theft and assaults on residents by the Sacred Homeless and other PC demographic groups;

* Emasculating or dumping the city council members who attack the police for being too effective;

* Emasculating activists that champion people for their skin color or the Sacred Homeless;

* Give the Chief of Police an ultimatum to get thugs of whatever skin color or mental state off the streets or be replaced by someone who will.

Mayor Breed is facing the predictable consequences or 30-40 years of "leaders" kicking the can down the road, knowing they would be elsewhere when the can hit the inevitable wall. The can of worms has grown into a full-sized shipping container full of worms. I do not think Mayor London Breed has the political courage or persistence to fight SF's way to every one of those absolutely necessary goals.

[Eupher]

They should set up a committee to go to several major cities around the country that don't have those problems to see WHY they don't have the same problems, but there is a HUGE problem with that.


California now restricts travel to EIGHTEEN (18) states.  They can't use state funding to travel to 18 states.  Imagine being such a snowflake that you've basically cut yourself off from half of the states within our United States.

KC

Interesting. This will mean possible ramifications (not necessarily a bad thing) for my employer. The California State Board of Pharmacy LOVES to come in and conduct white-glove inspections in our facilities. Generally, my employer has done very well in those inspections with no significant compliance issues, but they are FAR tougher than even FDA.

In fact, I'll even state that FDA has almost-but-not-quite abdicated its role in pharmaceutical and pharmacy compounding oversight when CSBOP comes rolling in. 

[Eupher]

Saying the words "Less Tolerant of All the Bull****" is easy. In the real world, that would mean:

* Dumping DA Boudin (he is being recalled);

* Replacing him with a DA willing to sweat the "small stuff" that is burying SF (= prosecute smash-and-grab theft and assaults on residents by the Sacred Homeless and other PC demographic groups;

* Emasculating or dumping the city council members who attack the police for being too effective;

* Emasculating activists that champion people for their skin color or the Sacred Homeless;

* Give the Chief of Police an ultimatum to get thugs of whatever skin color or mental state off the streets or be replaced by someone who will.

Mayor Breed is facing the predictable consequences or 30-40 years of "leaders" kicking the can down the road, knowing they would be elsewhere when the can hit the inevitable wall. The can of worms has grown into a full-sized shipping container full of worms. I do not think Mayor London Breed has the political courage or persistence to fight SF's way to every one of those absolutely necessary goals.

What's your take on DA Boudin's actual recall? I know there's a recall "on the way" but given what happened with Newsom, what do you think the outcome of Boudin's recall will be?

You're a resident of California -- of those items you listed, how many of them are fiscally or legally held up by state-wide California law? IOW, even if Breed wanted to clean the city up (I don't for a moment believe she does because that entails hard work and leadership), could she given the 30-40 years of complacency within the SF community? I'm thinking Willie Brown, Frank Jordan, Newsom, and the rest of the Dems who have poisoned that office.

[SVPete]

Few or none of those are directly inhibited by state law, beyond laws governing the election of city council members or Doh! Mayor. If the voters elect sane council members and DA while retaining Mayor Breed (or replacing her with someone saner), those are all not inhibited by CA law. The Chief of Police is appointed by the Mayor of SF.

In the real world, SF voters are not renowned for voting sane people into office. However, realities like the school district's shenanigans and rampant thefts and attacks on citizens (especially older Asian men and women) seem to be changing SF's political winds to some degree.

To what degree, I won't guess. SF is an hour's drive and at the opposite end of the galaxy from me.

[DLR Pyro]

. . . That Has Destroyed Our City'

Too little, too late?

I've never been to San Francisco, but I've surely read a lot of what the city features now, besides cablecars, Alcatraz, and Fisherman's Wharf.

san francisco is actually very beautiful city from a distance.  I lived in across the bay from the city in Richmond Marina in the early '90s and at night the city was beautiful all lit up along with the orange glow coming thru the ever present night fog from the Golden Gate bridge. 

My wife and I were married on the Treasure Island Naval base (not the Treasure Island in Vegas)which is mid span on the Bay Bridge and we have a beautiful portrait taken at night of us standing at the edge of the island with the city behind us which had all the buildings lit up for the Holidays (we were married in late November) and looking so festive and inviting.

Venturing into the city was a different story.  The beauty you see from a distance fades away and you are faced with the ugliness of a city that seemed in decay in the '90s.  It's so much worse now than it was 25 years ago thanks to decades of liberal "governance"

[Eupher]

I'll answer my own question about Boudin's recall and status of same.

Two efforts in San Francisco, California, to recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin were initiated in 2021. Petitioners in the second recall effort submitted enough valid signatures to put the recall on the ballot. The recall election is taking place on June 7, 2022.[1]

The first recall effort, organized under the group called The Committee Supporting the Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin, was approved for circulation on March 4, 2021.[2] Recall organizers had until August 11, 2021, to submit at least 51,325 valid signatures to put the recall election on the ballot.[3][4] There were about 49,600 signatures gathered at the time of the deadline.[5]
A second recall effort was started on April 28, 2021, by a group called the San Franciscans for Public Safety.[6] Organizers had until October 25, 2021, to gather the same number of signatures in order to move the recall forward.[7] There were about 83,000 signatures submitted at the time of the deadline.[8] Director of Elections John Arntz announced on November 9, 2021, that there were enough valid signatures to put the recall election on the ballot.[1]

https://ballotpedia.org/Chesa_Boudin_recall,_San_Francisco,_California_(2021-2022)

Interestingly:

Early this summer, the campaign to recall San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was lagging behind the anti-recall camp in its funding, according to Ethics Commission data.

On June 18, that changed dramatically.

Some $300,000 from a political action committee called Neighbors for a Better San Francisco dropped in a single day. From then on, the PAC dominated the recall campaign, making several more huge donations over the next few months. By the end of October, it had donated upwards of $1 million — almost two-thirds of total pro-recall donations.

State filing laws mean that anyone who gave money to the Neighbors PAC after June 31 won’t be disclosed until January, 2022, but prior filings reveal that it has been financed by a handful of extremely wealthy donors.

It would appear that even the rich denizens of SF are sick and tired of Chesa Boudin and want to get rid of him. Question is, why now? Why now when they've been perfectly content with the drugs, homelessness, and other detritus infesting their city over decades?

Is all that filth striking too close to their gated communities?

https://missionlocal.org/2021/12/explore-see-just-who-is-funding-the-boudin-recall/