SF is better than you

The jury is out, San Francisco is better than you.

People, who live here, really do like it. I know what you’re saying. What makes this so special?

They found that Maya Fink, who grew up in Stockholm, Sweden, says things like the weather and the many opportunities for things to do make the city more enticing than, say Alameda, where she currently lives.

“The East Bay is limited, there isn’t much to do out there,” she said. “There’s just more to do out here in the city.” Well that very uninteresting. Great, all this fog and sunshine is probably worse than blizzards and ice.

SF State boasts all the time about how the University has the highest enrollment of out-of-country students; that the campus is internationally diverse. Even Fink commented on the city’s diversity.

“You don’t see this everywhere,” she said.

Are more people from other countries and parts of the nation inundating this city because of the weather? Or is it more than just that?

Could it be the progressive people’s republic that San Francisco offers? Everyone we interview said yes.

Another random sitting down trying to snack on some lunch complained about the homeless population in the city. So not all people like the city.

“I hate the homelessness in this city,” Akeem Little said. Who doesn’t like homelessness? Little did very little to expand on this belief, but he did mention that the city’s image depends on its population being off the streets. What interesting food for thought… He also impulsively proclaimed his love for Michael Jackson.

Arron Trank, who was handing out fliers for Jews For Jesus, grew up in Sacramento and now lives in San Francisco. He says it’s purely the weather that keeps him here. I want him to tell me this on a rainy day.

He says he enjoys going to Blue Bottle Coffee Co. in Hayes Valley. I’m sure Sacramento and the East Bay don’t have good coffee shops.

So what is it that’s keeping and enticing people to this wonderful western utopia? It’s climate, it’s atmosphere, and the fact that you can find a good cup of coffee – apparently.

Ramparts

The Bay Area needs to believe again. It needs to believe there is something that has their back.

Ramparts Magazine was the quintessential poor man’s magazine. When I say poor man, I’m ultimately referring to the underdog’s magazine – the left man’s magazine.

The publication was started in 1962 and rapped its cover just 13 years later. It saw the civil and social uprisings of the 1960’s along with the blood soaked war in Vietnam.

The direction of the magazine was simple: Write the facts, the facts that people should care about and know about, the facts that were true, and the facts that would make every American citizen want to question their country and their social surroundings.

Many of Ramparts’ editors and founders went on to create some of the most read publications in the United States, from Rolling Stone to Mother Jones.

These people, from Robert Sheer to Brit Hume, have become some of the biggest political mind-shapers of our time.

Where are the Ramparts’ of today? Is it the San Francisco Bay Guardian? Is it 7 X 7? Could it even be San Francisco Magazine? The answer is no.

You could go on journey of speculation as to why the Bay Area doesn’t have a modern-day equivalent, but the answer might be more simple than most would think – people aren’t as pissed off as they used to be.

What made Ramparts successful, were the times. Ultimately, in 1975, the magazine shut down – after most of the civil and social rights fights were declining due to winning the battle.

However, the Bay Area could use a magazine like Ramparts no matter what time it is. We need a Ramparts to publish letters by Al Qaeda, we need a Ramparts to be concerned about the health care bill, and we need a Ramparts to let us know it’s okay to question the things are skeptical about.

My life flashing before my eyes

I'm riding down the pavement with my eyes closed, and I'm about to die.

At first I wasn't sure what happened, and then I thought, “I'm about to fly off a bicycle into Muni tracks.”

I didn't have time to think about what was going on, I only knew that I wasn't wearing a helmet, and there was an oncoming trolley - not 400 feet away.

My right arm hit the asphalt first, followed by my legs and finally my head.

I can't feel my arm; I know I'm bleeding.

I lie there, completely vulnerable - and then the oncoming J-line street car comes to a screeching halt 20 feet from my head.

"Are you okay honey?" Yells the Muni operator who sticks her head out through the side window of her train.

"Yeah, I'm okay, I can't feel my arm, but I'll live." I respond in agony. I quickly pick myself up and head over to the nearest driveway, collapsing on my back.

The train speeds off while everyone on board looks at me with empathy because they see me, they see my bicycle, and they see the obvious pain I'm in.

"What just happened?" I keep asking myself while I lay in the driveway, and then I realize I could have died.

I remember talking to my father last month about bicycling, and in the middle of our conversation he made me promise him to wear a helmet – no matter what. I could hear the worry in his voice. My old man in his prime was an avid rider in the East Coast – he’s seen his fair share of head injuries from not wearing a helmet.

Head injuries account for more than 60 percent of bicycle related deaths in the United States, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute.

However, I was not destined that night to become another statistic. Perhaps because I hit my arm first, ultimately softening further impacts between my body and the ground, but I’m not a doctor.

As I lay on the driveway, I remember something about my front wheel getting caught between the pavement and the Muni rail. There just had to be a space between the two that is the exact same width as my front wheel.

The first drops of rain this season began to fall as I stared into the night sky. I was certain now that I hadn’t broken anything as I began to stiffly move my right arm – and then I became bathed in light by a sheriff’s patrol car.

“Are you okay? I completely saw what happened,” the officer yelled from his car.

“Yeah, I just need to breath, and I’ll be alright,” I said, more conscious than I’ve been since I fell.

He began to explain the numerous times he’s fallen as a kid growing up in the area because of getting his bicycle wheel caught on a Muni rail. We chatted for a bit; he made sure I wasn’t seriously injured and then swiftly advised me to get a helmet before patrolling along.

Why don’t I wear a helmet if I know what the consequences are? Is it because I don’t want to carry it around with me? Could it be because it looks stupid on me? Or is it because I feel like “it’s not going to happen to me?”

Whatever the reason, it’s trivial not to wear it, but I still don’t strap one on. I tend to think I don’t ride reckless and aggressively, but I don’t exactly come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

It’s about 3 in the morning by the time I start walking my bicycle home; luckily I live a couple blocks away. As I walk, I think about what could have happened if I had a serious head injury.

The words: hospital, vegetable, medical bills, and suffering come to mind. You could use statistics to prove anything, but how can wearing a helmet hurt your chances from staying off a gurney?

The safety institute says the direct costs if cyclists’ injuries due to not wearing helmets are estimated at $81 million a year with indirect costs totaling to about $2.3 billion annually.

I start thinking about my friends and family who would have to take care of me if I became a vegetable, the hospital bills and relentless sadness – just because I couldn’t be bothered with wearing a helmet.

It’s not something anyone should have to go through.

I walk through my door, lie down on my bed, and call the girl I like just because I want to hear her voice.

Photo: http://www.hsbcculturalexchange.com/fondation_hsbc_julia_fullerton-batten.php

Compost or Break the Law

There’s a new law in town, telling San Franciscans what to do with their compost – a law for which there is hardly any enforcement.

Last June, the Board of Supervisors in a 9-2 vote, approved Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for the country’s first mandatory composting and recycling law, which the city hopes will decrease greenhouse gas emissions and divert refuse from landfills in the coming years, according to Joanne Wong, residential zero waste associate with the Department of the Environment.

Beginning Oct. 21, all homes and businesses within San Francisco must have three separate bins for refuse: Black for trash, blue for recycling, and a new green bin for composting.

Failing to properly separate trash will result in several warnings, ultimately leading to potential fines of $1,000 in egregious cases, according to the environment department.

This really makes me think about the paper bag in my kitchen full of coffee grounds and partially eaten pizza – if it wasn’t there would I really have to pay a hefty price for it? Wong says otherwise.

Individual tenants will not be fined and only property managers and business owners will have to answer to the city’s monetary consequences for not composting their organic refuse, she said.

“If the fines don’t affect me, then I don’t care,” Zack Tell, an environmental studies major at SF State said. “I’d be willing to compost, but I won’t be willing to be fined for not doing it.”

The 21-year-old said if his landlord is responsible for non-composting fines, then they should incorporate a clause in the lease requiring him to compost, but until that happens, he feels noncommittal in adhering to the new ordinance.

I’m not so sure that everyone will follow his example, but I’m certainly going to continue to throw my food scraps in the compost regardless of the law’s ambiguity.

To even further their laxity of the law, the city currently has a hold on fining anyone until July 2011 in order to get people used to the change, according to the environment department.

Also, the new ordinance does not allocate any money for new trash inspectors to keep an eye on who’s composting and who isn’t, according to the department.

However, there have been green-friendly people fighting for an initiative such as this one for years.

“He’s making the right decision to fine people,” Emily Naud, the student center sustainable initiatives coordinator at SF State said of Mayor Newsom’s proposal. “People won’t do it on their own.”

I do it on my own and so do a lot of other people in this city. Creating an illegitimate punishment for people who don’t compost might deter them even more, ultimately making this new recycling law counterintuitive.

Wong hopes the new composting ordinance will cut about two-thirds of the roughly 600,000 tons of waste the city sends to landfills annually.

“People are still affected by [not composting], but they don’t realize that they are,” Naud said of the attitude many have towards not caring about composting if the fines don’t directly affect them.

A poll on http://sfgate.com displays that 42 percent of voters believe the composting law is too “Big Brother” for San Francisco, while 33 percent believe it will be one more law that won’t be enforced.

“I see how people can think it’s Big Brother-ish, but Americans produce so much waste.” Naud said. “I don’t feel sorry for anyone about it.”

San Franciscans are notorious for their love of boasting their progressive lifestyles, but living up to one’s own convictions is another matter entirely. It’s somewhat ironic that the city has adopted a law, which requires people to be environmentally savvy, yet hold off on their enforcement.

If 33 percent of poll voters assume this will be one more law not enforced, perhaps the law will get the attention it needs – people raising eyebrows toward the city, and others questioning what they put into their trashcan. Either way, people will think about the situation, whether or not they’re forced.

Photo: Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Johnny Ironic

John Diaz, the current Op-Ed page editor for the San Francisco Chronicle, was anything less than a glimpse into a future that I won't have.

His accomplishments already seem daunting to me in ways I couldn't even possibly begin to imagine. Becoming the page editor for the opinion section of a widely-circulated news publication - in the bay area. Kudos John.

However, from his speech to my opinion writing class at SF State, I couldn't help but feel displaced.

John comes from a world that doesn't exist anymore, or that is rapidly dying. It's no secret that the spider legs of the printed news industry have coiled into its body, awaiting a hopefully painless death and that a new wave of journalists are spawning - each with their own agendas and numerous masterful skills to better equip them in a cut-throat media world. However, John spoke from this old world, a world where being a successful journalist was attainable.

Even John would admit to the change in the news industry, but I feel as if when he was describing his editorial meeting with Mayor Gavin Newsom, positions like his will cease to exist or more egregiously, be cut out.

It's nice to see successful journalists doing and living the way we young reporters would like to envision the watchdog world to be, but what we really need to see is what is to come. I want to see a journalists who is freelance, working for nothing, starving, who does photography, headlining, artwork, and production all on his own - I want to see something real and believable.

I personally have ambitions of writing for a large syndicated news publication like the NY Times or the LA Times, or even the Washington Post, but the reality is I will only be able to see the aging souls who worked for these publications back during the golden days of journalism, before the internet, before all knowledge, legitimate or not, was sprayed like a blanket for which the world's secular population was cuddled under.

There is no questions, John Diaz knows what he's talking about, he knows how to talk to aspiring journalists and give them traditional knowledge on how to be successful in the news industry - a gift that should be shared, and that I am grateful for having access to.

However, the irony of the situation is the John Diaz's of the news world in the future won't be working for a printed publication, they will be working independently, and fighting the competition for accuracy and strength in their work.

Golden Gate [X]press : DeAvila reopens with Cantonese program

Golden Gate [X]press : DeAvila reopens with Cantonese program

Shared via AddThis

Large Housing Landlord can't Refund Security Deposits

One of the largest residential landlords in San Francisco allegedly "hid" millions in rental security deposits - potentially affecting thousands of tenants, according to lawsuits.

Tenants, claiming security deposits were not returned, filed a class action lawsuit this past month against CitiApartments and their related companies.

"They've blatantly violated the law," Brian Devine, an attorney who is representing former tenants, said of CitiApartments. "They really don't have a defense."

Last Friday, CitiApartments and 78 individual defendants failed to formally answer questions posed by the class action suit, which Devine says he hoped would provide answers for his clients.

The average security deposit is between $1,800 and $2,500. About 5,500 units remain in control of CitiApartments and their companies spread throughout San Francisco says Devine, which means more than $10 million in deposits owed to San Francisco tenants have disappeared.

Joy Anderson went into the offices of CitiApartments with her 8-year-old son and demanded her rental deposit back after weeks of unanswered calls - she and her son were escorted out of the building, according to the complaint filed on her behalf.

"I was counting on that money," Anderson said of her $1,800 deposit that was not returned to her until months after she moved out of her San Francisco apartment at 300 Buchanan Street. "To a single mother, that amount of money is very significant."

Anderson picketed CitiApartments' headquarters on Market Street last month directly after she received her deposit check to warn other tenants of the company's capriciousness.

CitiApartments and their partnered companies, comprising of the Lembi Group, Skyline Reality, Trophy Properties, and Ritz Apartments, have a combined mass of properties in San Francisco that was estimated of last year to include 307 buildings, according to Devine.

"We're not sure how widespread this practice has been and what the inner-relationship of these companies is like," Devine says of what he calls CitiApartments' "limited liability companies" that each have an ownership over a housing property in San Francisco.

"It appears to be a shell scheme to hide money," he said. "The money could be swaying back to the Lembi family, who owns CitiApartments, or to buy more buildings."

CitiApartments and the Lembi Group refused to comment after numerous calls and emails for this story. However, they formally filed their denial of the initial complaint of unreturned rental deposits last Friday, according to Devine.

"We're trying to have the complaint dismissed," Daniel Stern, an attorney representing Trophy Properties, said.

Stern says his clients were not involved in non-refunded security deposits. However, Trophy Properties was named in the class action suit filed on behalf of the tenants who haven't received their deposits.

In all, 51 properties were foreclosed by the Union Bank of Switzerland and more than 60 extra buildings are currently under foreclosure proceedings, according to filings from the San Francisco Superior Court.

A separate lawsuit made by the Laramar Group, who acquisitioned the 51 buildings from the Lembi Group, alleges as to why CitiApartments and their associated companies didn't pay up, according Steve Boyack, vice president of asset management for the Laramar Group.

"The Lembi Group did not have any money left," Boyack said.

"The prior management apparently commingled security deposits with other funds in their operating accounts," the lawsuit says. "[The Lembi Group] used those security deposit funds to pay monies owed."

Boyack says the Lembi Group, when it transferred properties to Laramar, failed to give security deposits for the 1,100 housing units spread over those 51 buildings.

Devine says many tenants have received rental deposit checks from CitiApartments that have bounced.

"It looks like a messy situation," he says describing CitiApartments' lack of responsibility. "It's just the tip of the iceberg."

Devine's law firm, Seeger Salvas LLP, is currently representing only two tenants. However, he says dozens of people, ranging from college students to the elderly, have contacted him regarding unreturned deposits.

The outcome of this situation might not appear as bleak as it sounds. Some tenants have already gotten their deposits back.

"Residents should not be concerned about receiving their security deposits," Boyack declares of those tenants who are worrying.

UBS whom reclaimed the foreclosed properties from CitiApartments have set aside a fund for its residents who did not receive their deposits, he said.

The people who kept calling CitiApartments asking for their deposits back and those who knocked on doors eventually received their money, but Devine attests that this is a very small percentage of the potentially thousands of tenants who are possibly affected.

California civil code section 1950.5 states tenants are entitled to damages and refunds worth three times the amount of the original deposit if it's withheld for more that 21 days by a landlord acting in bad faith.

The law mandates [CitiApartments] to pay back the tenants before it can pay back its creditors says Devine on the legal priority the rental company is facing.

San Francisco Tenants Union Director Ted Gullickson says some current tenants might want to think about not paying their last month's rent in lieu of not receiving their deposit money.

Current tenants can look at the list of all 138 properties under CitiApartments' control at the Seeger Salvas LLP class action lawsuit website: http://apartmentlawsuit.com/properties.

Devine says he is not sure how long the litigation will take, but that the case is strong against CitiApartments and their companies.

"They've still got rent money coming in - it's going somewhere," he says.