oops: natemillerules att gmail dott com

Hola. Thank you for the update on this nonsense of sit-lie. Excellent news! Finally.

So where is that piece of work (and that's being most kind) Arthur Evans who has saturated the Internet with propaganda on this topic? (9 pages of Google entries featuring "Arthur Evans" the last time I checked). Oh, who the hell cares where he is!

And to Andy Blue: Muchisimas Gracias.

unless it goes onto the ballot, the supes will never pass a law that would upset the subjective rights and liberties left.

If it goes on the ballot I will be interested to see the Guradian's rants about voting people's rights away, after the Guardian being for prop H, which would have had the cops taking guns from law abiding citizens.

Hola. Some ignoramus on another blog was dumping on the homeless, calling them every despicable name they could think of and showed a very cold and callous approach to other human beings who aren't exactly like them as far as their financial situation is concerned. Their comment reminded me of the garbage one reads on SFHate (also known as SFGate/The Chronicle) in that backwater cesspool comment section they have there. Some of the most willfully ignorant people you'll find anywhere are there.

The homeless problem in this nation is a federal level problem and it needs to be addressed at the federal level. We seem to have billions to pump into wars/occupations/droning Pakistan and killing innocent people there and for the neocon Project For the New American Century agenda (which Bush3 is continuing) and to rebuild other people's nations after this despicable and barbaric, pro-war, corporate-fascism R and D government destroyed those nations (with their "yay" votes), but we don't have money for our own people here in the States. There is only so much that any city or town can do about the homeless problem. Millions and millions of jobs have been shipped from this nation to China and India and those jobs are not going to come back, home foreclosures are soaring and are affecting even wealthy people. Just last week I read an article from a credible source saying expect more elderly (the article also referred to "baby-boomers") homeless people to end up on the streets in coming years.

So I found the comment on that other blog very smug and arrogant as the person looked down (to make themselves feel superior?) on the homeless. It was as if the person had had a lobotomy....not any care or concern for anyone but their own goddamned scum of the Earth self. We certainly do have a lot of trash in our society and I'm not talking about the homeless whatsoever.

I did not respond to that person on the other blog because I suspected they were a troll and were putting out their rabid bait to get a rise and reaction from someone so the troll could get $$$$ for being hateful towards the homeless. Don't feed the trolls is what I say.

Immediately after I wrote my last comment where I spoke about foreclosures soaring, I saw this article (below). I used to watch this show, but I haven't watched it for a number of years. I stopped watching it because I got turned off by all the god stuff and plastic "patriotism" the producers starting adding to the show for ratings purposes (I assume).

Speaking of foreclosures:

Harsh Reality for 'Extreme Makeover' Homes in Foreclosure
By Liana Maeby | Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 1:41 PM

Reality TV is the latest victim of the national mortgage crisis that has affected so many Americans over the past two years. Many of the houses featured in "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" are facing foreclosure, and instead of sitting by and waiting while more families lose their dream homes, a Wall Street Journal report says producers of the show have decided to scale back.

A rep for the show denied that it was the issue of foreclosure, specifically, that led to the decision to downgrade their approach, and credited it instead to general shifts in the economy.

"'Extreme Makeover: Home Edition' has always strived along with our volunteer builders to create not only 'extreme' homes, but homes that work for the owners for years to come," the spokesperson said. "As always, we are striving to build greener, more affordable and environmentally responsible homes, and redoubling those efforts for years to come."

The long-running, tear-jerking show boasts a tried-and-true formula: Producers track down families who have undergone extreme hardship and send a team of designers to give their homes expensive and lavish makeovers.

Over the course of seven seasons, the redo's have become increasingly opulent, with amenities like swimming pools, home theaters, carousels, and bowling alleys popping up on a regular basis. Problem is, these extravagances usually come with significantly higher utility bills and mortgages, which many homeowners are struggling to pay.

The first home to officially foreclose belonged to Idaho resident Eric Hebert, who was featured on the show after he adopted his deceased sister's 11-year-old twins. Herbert admits to having taken out too large a loan on the home under the assumption that he'd be receiving a larger income than he was able to secure.

"A lot of people think when you get the house you get the mortgage," "Extreme Makeover" contestant Brian Wofford told San Diego's 10News. "Well, you don't." Wofford, a widowed father of eight, has been fighting to modify his home loan for two years after his mortgage adjusted to an unmanageable rate.

In addition to the Heberts and the Woffords, as many as four other families are in foreclosure territory. The Harpers of Georgia were given a 5,300-square-foot castle-like house five years ago, but the failure of their construction business forced them to put their home up as collateral. They've filed for bankruptcy and are facing imminent foreclosure. The Okvaths of Arizona and the Byers of Oregon are also in deep financial trouble and may be forced to give up their digs.

Expensive, ostentatious houses in otherwise rough neighborhoods tend to be a tough sell, which is why so many "Extreme Makeover" homes are at risk of foreclosure. But producers of the show have wised up to the times, pledging to keep the makeovers under a manageable threshold.

Swimming pools are no longer the norm — and when they are still included, they're built more economically with the intention of reducing water costs. Lavish landscaping has been tossed out in favor of natural, environmental design, and the overall square footage of the homes — averaging 2,800 to 3,000 square feet — is going down.

In his article at the top of this thread, Steven T. Jones says that supporters of the sit-lie law "have seen their prospects of success steadily dwindle in the last week."

As one example, he points to opponents' culminating rally in the Castro. It consisted of about a dozen people, after organizers had announced they had received over a thousand RSVPs.

As a supporter of the law, I sincerely hope that opponents continue to believe in their own rhetoric - just like the People's Front of Judea in the flick "The Life of Brian."

Both "Fog City Journal" and "Bay Area Reporter" had pics of the culminating Castro rally against the sit-lie law. Their pics show about a dozen people or so.

Let’s say the pics missed some folks. Even so, there were certainly far less than the 1,000 boasted by organizers.

You can’t build a successful political campaign on self-delusion.

I'm not a fan of more laws like this but it will be another case where a city wide election sticks it to the city's dreamers, just like the JROTC thing, which I was for.

The insular mono culture of some in this city that think a protest of a couple dozen professional protesters is swinging the tide one way or another is a hoot.

After years of; do nothing DA's and the free and easy bong culture in some areas of the city... the real people of the city, meaning the actual citizens not the self appointed will be deciding this. The self appointed will be screaming about how dumb and duped the citizens are, because "sidewalks are for people."

Although I'm opposed to the law I will laugh and laugh as the usual suspects will hoot and holler about the actual citizens voting.

71% of 500 people (that's only 355) told the Chamber of Commerce they would support a law that would prohibit individuals from harassing pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Only a desperate old migratory attention addict would try to mislead people into confusing a biased poll of only 500 people with all of "the voters" in San Francisco.

Over a thousand San Francisco Voters demonstrated their opposition to the ridiculous No Sitting On The Sidewalk Law (you can go to jail just for sitting in front of your own home) on March 27th.
That’s more than a thousand people taking action (as well as enjoying themselves, their neighborhoods, and the company of their neighbors and tourists), as opposed to 355 people answering the phone when the agenda driven Chamber of Commerce called.
And it means that 3 times as many voters are opposed to the No Sitting On The Sidewalk Law as those who said they would support it, if it prohibited harassment of pedestrians.
Not surprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce neglected to inform the 355 voters that existing law already prohibits this.