World homeless day protest targets Castro landlord

|
(54)
PHOTO BY PETER MENCHINI

In a protest marking World Homeless Day, the squatter group Homes Not Jails briefly occupied a vacant building on Castro St. tonight. Twenty were arrested.

This is the third year that the group has staged a building occupation to draw attention to buildings that lie vacant while people live on the streets.This year’s demonstration began in Dolores Park, where a group of about 50 held a rally and concert. 

The group then marched up 18th street, chanting “house keys not handcuffs” and “housing is a human right.” 

When the protest arrived at the building, on the 500 block of Castro St., activists opened the building and entered it. From the roof, protesters dropped a banner reading “Gentrification equals assimilation.”

One man who entered the building had seen the march on 18th st. and joined along the way. “I don’t believe there should be this many abandoned houses,” said the man, who identified only as Scott. “I don’t mind being homeless, though,” he added. “I like sleeping under the stars.”

Police lined up across the street and closed Castro between 18th and 19th to traffic. After about 40 minutes, they charged the building. Those on the sidewalk were pushed aside, and those inside the building were arrested. According to SFPD spokesperson Michael Andraychak, there were 20 arrests.

After more than two hours, the police reopened the street.

During that time, Andraychak said, “Several people had run into an annex in the rear. Several had gone downstairs and broke into an adjoining restaurant.” Arrestees were also being searched and processed in the building.

The city’s most recent “Homeless Point-in-Time Count and Survey” finds that there were 6,455 homeless individuals and families living in San Francisco; Homes Not Jails estimates 11,000 homeless individuals. 

In either case, as members of the group often point out, the amount of vacant housing in the city is more than enough to shelter the whole homeless population. The 2011 census finds that San Francisco has 378,261 total housing units, and 9.4 percent, or about 35,000, are vacant.  

Homes Not Jails formed in 1992 to connect these homeless people to these vacant buildings. According to one organizer, the group is “made up of squatters who live in vacant places.”

He said that today’s largely symbolic housing occupation has a purpose. “It’s the experience people have when they come into a vacant, liberated space. There’s no other feeling like that. It’s transformative.”

Last year, the group targeted the Cathedral Hill Hotel , the site of a new hospital project still riled in controversy. They also less conspicuously occupied several other nearby buildings, include the Charlie Hotel. Some of these buildings are still active squats. 

Across the street, a large crowd gathered, watching the action. 

Some neighbors supported the protest. “I think it’s fantastic,” said Jesse Oliver Sanford, who lives two doors down from the building.

Sanford said the building’s long vacancy frustrated him, and the space should instead be used for something beneficial. “You could put a nonprofit soup kitchen there,” said Sanford. “I don’t understand why we’re not providing more services for queer youth. This building is twice the size of LYRIC and just a block away.”

“If the queer history here means anything, we need to have a place with a political base. That means low income and mixed income,” Sanford continued. Instead, he said, low income people are being squeezed out of the neighorhood.  “If you lose your lease, you lose all you have” he said, mentioning that a neighbor of his had recently had his rent increased by $1,000 per month.

The building that protesters occupied, comprised of a ground floor storefront and second floor apartments, has been vacant for more than five years.

The building's owner, Les Natali, owns several other properties in the Castro. The neighboring Patio Café, the restaurant that protesters allegedly entered, has been vacant for more than ten years. Natali also owns Toad Hall as well as Badlands, where he has come under fire for racist business practices. Natali used to own the Pendulum, "the Castro's only African American gay bar," before he closed it, sparking community outrage.

The buiding protesters occupied “used to be the Bakery Café,” remembered a neighbor who didn’t wish to be identified. “It was a great place to hang out and a major employer of young people. It would be great if it was a functioning business or some community benefit, and rent controlled housing on top.”

“This is at least getting a lot close to those real issues,” he said of the protest.

UPDATE: All 20 arrested are being held on charges of burglary, conspiracy and vandalism. Most have bails set at $325,000.

Comments

many thousands more homeless people will flock to SF? The best way to get a home is to get a job. While if you cannot afford SF prices, then move to Oakland or one of the many other towns in the east bay with much lower housing costs.

Oh, and this building wasn't "abandoned"; it was simply empty. No property owner is obligated to occupy a building he owns 100% of the time. I'm happy to see the cops acting firmly on such home invasions and, apparently, the crowd cheered the cops when they moved in - something you conveniently forgot to mention.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:10 am

here's an idea, how about all cities with these mass vacancy issues start opening up those buildings? Wouldn't that remove your whole oh no all the homeless will come to sf, irrational fear? I also like how you assume getting a job is easy while you're homeless, it's actually much harder than you think. Especially when your belongings are consistently taken by police, you can't get a decent nights sleep, the list of challenges goes on. Furthermore, your words express no compassion, or awareness of the struggles people are going through. Enjoy your warm bed tonight because millions of people in this country won't be able to.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

If there's one thing San Francisco doesn't lack it's "tolerance" for the homeless - who have an entire Non Profit Empire built around their needs and wants - complete with a whole subsection of city-paid "advocates" who spend their time bitching out SF homeowners and employed people for their lack of "understanding of the challenges of homelessness."

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

I was in the area of this protest for a brief time. I heard people talking about it saying it was OccupySF which obviously was not true. At one point I heard a chant of, "Let him go" 3-4 times, which I assumed was urging the cops to let a protester go. I couldn't tell what most people thought about it. In the conservative and gentrified Castro, I suspect most disapproved of it. I did notice that the protest interrupted people's gadget addiction at least temporarily. People were staring at this building rather than their screens for a change. Surely some must have had withdrawal symptoms.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:31 am

I forgot to say this:

Speaking of the conservative Castro, I was standing at the bus stop and this guy started talking with this female he didn't know. He sounded as if he was trying to pick her up sort of and then out of nowhere he said to her loudly, "and we have a sheriff who's a wife beater. Can you believe that in San Francisco?" She agreed with him and said that women don't matter. So those two were programmed with the right-wing's, "wife beater" lie.

Ugh. I was sorry to hear that in the Castro, but considering what the neighborhood has become, I wasn't surprised.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:48 am

hardly surprising that you might overhear that at a busstop, or anywhere else in the city for that matter. I've heard the same sentiment expressed several times in D5, for that matter.

More generally, gays in the Castro are politically moderate, and not particularly progressive. Many are home-owners and landlords, and have good jobs, so do not truck with the "tax,borrow and spend" wing of the left.

:As such, Scott Wiener is a very apt Supervisor for that district, which is also mine BTW.

Again, as the home ownership rate is high in the Castro, I wouldn't expect to see much local support for squatting. These Occupy (or whatever) people would be better off picking a low-rent part of the city like the Mission or Hunter's Point for these antics.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 6:21 am

1. The sheriff IS an admitted wife beater.

2. The Gay/LGBT movement has always had a strong affinity with feminism, so I'm not at all surprised that gay folks were up in arms about Mirkarimi. Good for him.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:14 am

1) Ross admitted to, and was convicted of, a DV-related crime

2) Ross said "I committed an act of violence against my wife" and apologized for that.

3) Ross is undergoing the exact same sentence as a DV perp gets, including the mandatory 52-week DV counseling.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:46 am

Since you keep on repeating the same half-truths (charitably speaking) I'll reply with something I've already been forced to point out:

Mason Mayer beat his girlfriend with both fists while straddling her on the ground. He bloodied both of her eyes, tore an eyelash, ripped an earring through her earlobe, banged her head against the marble floor he had her pinned on, and told her he would see her dead that night; saying that he'd drive her to the GG Bridge and that if she didn't jump of her own accord, that he would push her.

That vicious attack didn't end with Mayer's friend pulling her arm back and saying "no!" but went on until he was surprised by a visitor at his door.

Your mealy-mouthed rhetoric doesn't cloud the difference between Mayer's act and Mirkarimis, but DA Gascon settled for the exact same plea agreement and penalty in both cases.

The obvious interpretation is that if O.J. Simpson's case had transpired in San Francsico rather than in LA, DA Gascon would have gotten a conviction: for misdemeanor false imprisonment.

Yet Mason Mayer's deal getting himself a year of DV counseling and three years probation hasn't generated much opprobrium among the DV intelligencia. Might it be that they are most interested in pushing poor people and their progressive representatives in government around?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:27 am

But since Ross already admitted to it, it's moot anyway.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 9:18 am

Not to 4 of 11 supervisors, regrettably.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 5:18 am

Given that 60% is the definition of a landslide, politically, 70% is a stunning margin.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 5:54 am

I observe that it's just another example of reactionary mendacity: nothing remarkable.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 8:02 am

same thing - both meet the definition of a landslide when considered in electoral terms. On a straight vote, which is what Ross will face in a recall or re-election, he's toast.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 8:29 am

Appalling "right wing" lies. We know the truth: it was only a bruise!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:34 am

The left put these laws on the books and when one of their own gets caught up in these laws its right wing.

It is so comical that you call others "programmed."

Posted by matlock on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:05 pm

This tactic did not work very well when it was first introduced 20 years ago and has long since lost any traction it might have had. It is like an autonomic response from the hindbrain more than any action intended to change outcomes.

I do not support these actions because they do not work, I do not oppose them due to their direct action character, rather because they telegraph images of weakness and surrender to state power by an increasingly marginalized and diminished activist clique which further diminishes the power of a movement.

Progressives have lost traction amongst LGBT because progressives no longer speak to LGBT. Many housing activists detest LGBT as single income professional conservative gentrifiers of neighborhoods to be reserved exclusively for poor people of color seeking refuge from brutal regimes that the US supports.

There is thus no place for those deemed the oppressors, queers seeking refuge from remnant homophobia in the flyover, in their housing cosmology. When a community is deemed part of the problem and not part of the solution, they catch on quickly and disassociate themselves from activists who base their actions on that analysis.

Just because intentions are good does not mean that the actions are good. To paraphrase Marx which should appeal to this crowd, the purpose of philosophy is to change the world, not merely to describe it. So should the purpose of direct action be to change things.

There is no change like no change.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:19 am

voter initiative that proposes that any house left empty more than N years be taken over by the city and handed to homeless people. I predict it will fail.

But yes, gays are gentrifiers. Problem?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 9:21 am

Of course, all gays are highly educated, double income no kids conservative white professionals, all of us.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:05 am

those who live in the immediate area of Castro, where the average home costs around a million.

I didn't rule out the odd exception barely subsisting in the crappier parts of the Mission though, so I had you covered.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:12 am

Data are getting stale, but Gonzalez did beat Newsom by a wide margin in D8 by the so-called gentrifiers.

Judging by the number of way to skinny white mothers pushing strollers that one sees on the sidewalks, if there is a gay preponderance to the newcomers to the Castro, it is minimizing.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:27 am

live in the Castro and own a house there, so obviously someone from the Mission knows better . .

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:53 am

Elections results are not a matter of opinion.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 11:27 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

No supervisorial candidate was able to reach out to D8 in the same way that Gonzalez did. Eileen Hansen ran D6 campaigns in D8, and that did not work. Rafael Mandelman made a better appeal, but he ran against Darth Vader on steroids and viagra who was more or less paid by the City Attorney to run for Supervisor for 18 months on the clock.

There are still non-moderate, non-conservative appeals to be made successfully in D8.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 7:38 am

"There is thus no place for those deemed the oppressors, queers seeking refuge from remnant homophobia in the flyover, in their housing cosmology. When a community is deemed part of the problem and not part of the solution, they catch on quickly and disassociate themselves from activists who base their actions on that analysis."

Dead on.

And for somebody who was there last night, the neighborhood hated it. Shut down maybe 12-14 local businesses. Anybody who has ever operated a small business, particularly a food establishment, knows how critical losing one night can be.

Posted by Lurker on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:25 am

but if the mob starts breaking into million dollar buildings in vibrant neighborhoods, and forcing legit, honest businesses to close, then you better believe that there will be a backlash.

Occupy got crushed in SF because it had no critical mass. We have too much to lose here, not like Oakland.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:55 am

"Occupy got crushed in SF because it had no critical mass."

Occupy got crushed NATIONALLY, not just in SF. It's a bit difficult to function when the cops are cracking skulls and beating people up and the "movement" is in jail. And Oakland is no less important than SF.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

when your movements make up is Haight St meth types.

It's also difficult to function when you have zero connection with actual working people.

It's also difficult to function when your message is a mess of tired cannards.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

which was the real reason it failed. As soon as the weather got cold and wet, they all went home to their mom and pop.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 3:14 am

"Anybody who has ever operated a small business, particularly a food establishment, knows how critical losing one night can be."

That speaks to the dead economy far more than the people you're hating on and using as your scape-goat....especially when most of the "food establishments" in the Castro aren't worth eating in. The neighborhood is not known for its restaurants. It's mainly known today for hate (hating on the homeless, hating on the naked guys as two examples).

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

Apparently we're mad at restaurants now. And it's somehow their fault for... existing I guess?

And the Castro is now known for "hate". Ooookkkkkk. I suppose Bayview is known for white power, and the Marina is known for Eskimos. Or whatever other crazy shit you're on.

Honestly, you guys ever wonder why your message just doesn't seem to resonate? Why you're always losing? Why you're becoming more and more of a non-factor every year? Becase you sound fucking nuts. You do.

Posted by Scram on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

You responded to my post with that drivel and wrote about "you guys" insinuating I was one of the protesters. I wasn't a protester. I was only passing through and wrote about what I saw. It's best to read posts before responding to them.

You wrote:

"Becase [sic] you sound fucking nuts. You do. "

Do you ever read your own posts? You should.

It looks like Troll Central™ of the 1% had to dig all the way to the bottom of the cesspool to find this breed of looney batch of right-wing trolls. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

The Castro...

You said...

"It's mainly known today for hate (hating on the homeless, hating on the naked guys as two examples). "

Posted by matlock on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

".especially when most of the "food establishments" in the Castro aren't worth eating in. The neighborhood is not known for its restaurants."

Someone reviewed a restaurant that opened recently in the Castro and this is the last sentence of their review (I deleted the name of the place deliberately):

"_______ has a nice enough atmosphere, and will fit very nicely into the predictably marginal "food court" assortment that has blossomed in the Castro."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 3:43 am

if you don't happen to like the food there? Where is that in the Occupy/HNJ/progressive manifesto?

So what was the excuse when Valencia St. was trashed by a similar group of people a few months ago? Then the point made was that these were "good" restaurants frequented by the 1%/yuppies/bankers etc. etc.

Are these squatters also food critics?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 5:13 am

Well what idiot would open a business in a neighborhood historically known for activism if they are opposed to activism? And then when there is activism, they hate on it. Don't you just hate it when these pretentious snots come into our neighborhood and pay millions of dollars for old, worn-down homes and then they complain about what the neighborhood is and begin to start changing it to what they -- came-- from: conservative.

Psssssssst: If you don't like the people who are here (including the homeless, naked guys, activists, skateboarders, gay people and others) then don't move here and move back to where you came from. You and that conservative Scott Wiener might ft in well in Oklahoma or Texas.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

How many of those protestors were residents of the Castro? Hint - just about none.

Listen, fucktard - it's not your neighborhood because you're *BROKE*. You can't afford it, so you come, complain, break some shit, smell bad, and wonder why nobody is responding to your message. And fyi - you sound like an idiot lumping "gay people" in with "skateboarders" and "homeless people". LOL..

Posted by Lurker on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

Hate is hate no matter whom you're hating on: gay people, skateboards, homeless people, street people and others. People are people or did you forget that, "fucktard" (that's a hate word, BTW, but I'm using it only because that's the type of language you seem to understand, "fucktard.") The concept of "People are people" is taught in first grade.

"How many of those protestors were residents of the Castro? Hint - just about none."

I don't know and neither do you. One would have to ask each one of them where they live. But what does that have to do with anything? In this country, one is not required to be a resident of a certain area in order to protest in that area, "fucktard."

There are only about 6 restaurants in that block (if one can really call them a "restaurant"). That block was the only block closed, mostly due to an oversaturation of police vehicles and police. They needed all of that for a small protest? If anyone wanted to get to one of the 6 restaurants in that block, all they had to do was to walk up or down the street/sidewalk about 1/2 block either direction. Is that too much for you and others, "fucktard?"

And when does owning property give you more (U.S. Constitutional) rights than anyone else, "fucktard?" The arrogance and willful-ignorance of many snooty (NIMBY) homeowners is astounding, "fucktard."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

for *everybody*.

And that everybody includes potential allies or at least people sympathetic to the cause. I've lived in the Castro for 22 years, I don't need a 19 year old part time student from City College to tell me what it's about. Your "protest" was such a failure it actually made Les Natali - legendary neighborhood asshole - come across as a victim of mindless vandalism. Think about that.

Posted by guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

You guys are totally missing the point, or are too privileged to understand or even care. There are 35k vacant homes in SF while 11k people are homeless. This is a symptom of a Capitalist system that puts profit over people. Property 'rights' allows those born with access to education & resources to exploit those born without that acess. That's why we have gross economic inequality. What these brave activists do is put their lives on the line so poor, disenfranchised people can have homes...as well as put the issues of homelessness, poverty & capitalist oppression in the public consciousness. They are heroes.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

Homeless, disenfranchised, profits, buzzword, zzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

All anybody saw was some smelly white hippies breaking into yet *another* building and causing some property damage. Somewhere between boring and annoying, but mostly just forgetful. You suck, lol.

Posted by guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

I get the point that capitalism is bad. What I don't get is why you keep with this messaging, this approach, these tactics, which have failed.
Meanwhile, capitalism has advanced at the expense of unrich San Franciscans in part Because activists have not adapted with new, effective approaches and have not offered up any EFFECTIVE resistance.

It is not like most people are stupid or clueless and don't get inequality. Many see themselves at risk of falling off of the cliff and don't see anything in progressive politics for them. But since they are not the "oppressed" they don't make through qualification in the Oppression Olympics.

Nobody cares about your messianic masochistic liberal guilt tripping of people trying to coerce them to support your vision of change under penalty of excoriation. And I think that you all identify too much with the "most vulnerable" because you are afraid of walking in power, afraid of winning, in love with losing.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

"Because activists have not adapted with new, effective approaches and have not offered up any EFFECTIVE resistance."

It's a little difficult to do that in a police state. What are your tactics? What have you done for "new, effective approaches for EFFECTIVE resistance?" Arm-chair protesting?

Considering most of the sheep are corporatized (by the corporate media) and addicted to gadgets and don't even look at people on the streets because they're addicted to looking at their screen and fucking with that all waking hours, unless an ad for "new effective approaches for EFFECTIVE resistance" pops up on one's gadget screen and it's connected with a party somewhere to get drunk, the corporatized sheep couldn't care less about anyone's protests. Until they find themselves in a situation where they want to protest, then it's different. Their protest is different.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

I'd given the ten out of the past twelve years of my life to working within the system to effect progressive land use change. We'd had some successes, the SF Community Land Trust. But all in all, the professional progressives who are dependent on cash flow from the Mayor enforced developer demands to not have to pay any more for the privilege of tripling their money.

If we live in an increasing police state, then direct assault on property in the middle of the day is probably not the best way forward. I am not sure that direct action of this type functions anymore.

There are direct action techniques that could work, but they would involve anonymous secrecy and not allow martyrs see and be seen being radical which is more than half of the point here. Given that these techniques no longer move the policy agenda, they are reduced to autonomic reflex where "heroes" get to be "seen" being "radical" martyrs.

Of course, the radical activists hold most all San Franciscans in utter contempt such that building grassroots democratic organizing is out of the question as most San Franciscans would do the "wrong thing."

You all claim to be so much more enlightened than most everyone else, probably smarter too. Use that insight and brilliance to figure out something new. Occupy was supposed to do that, but the failed housing movement grafted its stink of death onto OSF and contributed to its marginalization from the left, doing half of the cop's work by hijacking popular populist politics for narrow radical ends, not gains.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 5:44 am

a relatively small number of people to seek to achieve the change they want over the wishes of the majority by so-called "direct action". You certainly wouldn't like it if a small right-wing cabal did that.

So I am very dubious of any tactics that a splinter group engages in for their own ends. If they cannpt convince and persuade the majority of people that what they seek is right and good, then why should we tolerate them trying for ram such change down our throats?

Democracy has it's flaws but it's still the best way to achieve change. Getting yourself arrested for breaking windows because you think housing should be cheaper isn't going to work, as this little sortie proves yet again. Even all the hullabloo over Occupy fizzled into nothing as soon as it got cold and wet. Protesters are soft these days.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 6:03 am

Almost by definition, direct action is only successful when there is a broad base of public support behind it, public support that is frozen out of the rigged political system. We have played by the rules, won more elections that we've contested than we've lost, yet the magnitude of the forces arrayed against San Franciscans dominates what the nonprofits and unions plus the unorganized San Franciscans are able to put up against it.

It is bedtime for democracy in the US, at every level no matter how we vote, no matter what promises are made, the only direction this car can turn is to the right, the only thing that elections determine is how fast and sharp that right turn will be.

So long as progressives are relegated to the minoritarian precincts of labor, nonprofits and outcomes-agnostic martyrs like HNJ, we will continue to be in political free fall. I sound like an old testament prophet here, but grassroots organizing outside of the traditional comfort zone is the only way to begin to turn the tide. The anti Prop B campaign is one example of how to begin to do this.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 6:26 am

"freefall". I conclude from that they/you have faield to convince or persuade the silent majority of the merits of the case for liberal politics, and therefore that you should simply accept that is the way that things are.

You appear to conclude something different i.e. that if you fail to convince the public, then you should take "direct action". It sounds like you just cannot bear the lose the debate.

There are changes that I'd like to see too but the difference between you and me is that I'm not going to commit crimes just because I'm not getting my way.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 7:00 am

I disagree. At the national level, at least, the public was convinced that the wars should end, the bank bailouts should stop, gitmo should be closed, torture should be forbidden and punished and there should be some sort of public option for health care finance. The Democrats ran on this platform and won historic majorities.

Paul Ryan was right about one thing last night. The Democrats held Congress with historic majorities and the White House, yet when in power, differed only on the margins from the Republicans.

When there is consensus between Occupy and the Tea Party, not to mention the middle between the two, on the wars and bank bailouts, and all we get is more of the same, then I think it is pretty clear that voting alone absent organizing is not going to cut it.

It is not like there was some sort of lurch to the right in 2010. No, enough of those who voted Democrat in '06 and '08 were not going to go back for more abuse after getting screwed by Obamacare that was in effect The Health Insurer and Big Pharma Corporate Welfare Act of 2010 according to the Heritage Foundation.

Voters are smart, they respond to progressive or liberal appeals when properly presented and abandon those appeals when they are fraudulent. That is why Ed Lee's approval ratings are below 50% today.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 7:27 am

reduced to breaking into the odd building here and there, and getting arrested on felony counts.

Just because you think you are right, doesn't mean you are right, let alone justified in committing crimes on that basis.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 7:52 am

Also from this author

  • Homeless for the holidays

    Changing demographics in the Bayview complicate city efforts to open a shelter there

  • Betting on Graton

    Newest casino targeting Bay Area residents promises to share the wealth with workers and people of color

  • Women complain about F.X. Crowley's union

    NLRB filings, lawsuit charge discrimination while supervisorial candidate was running Local 16