Huummm. Me too. If folks do not want bohemian stuff as demonstrated by
where they chose to spend their dollars, if they want big box, then so
be it. Now, kindly cajoling is OK in favor of whatever cause you are for.
Marcy
What a cute little response from the tyrannical little man named
Chicken.
If he had it his way we would all be sitting at a re-education camp
digesting his wisdom at the point of a bayonet
I hope he gets lost on his way back from the weekend.
I'm sure the people who don't have good jobs with benefits because
of his
"activism" would gladly rub his face in the aforementioned muck.........
I'd help hold his nose under
> Since Chicken isn't an LPSF subscriber but cc'd the list, I'm
> posting his response here. I can't embrace action just for the sake
> of action, since much of what is "done" in the world is counter-
> productive and wrong even when intentions are none but the best. But
> as I said, I do empathize with the dilemma of how to make space for
> bohemian culture within a system that is hostile to it by nature and
> whose rules make advocating the initiation of force against others
> sometimes seem like the only path that remains open.
>
> In defense of talking about ideas, I believe that too is a
form of
> "doing," the pen being mightier than the sword and all that -- the
> right person hearing the right idea can make all the difference in
> the world. So when I see someone who has demonstrated some
> understanding, and is actively engaged in the political process, I'm
> not above trying to dare, shame, or cajole the person into engaging
> the system in as libertarian a manner as he can tolerate given the
> massive obstacles that obstruct the pursuit of anything like actual
> freedom. Hopefully I haven't offended by doing so.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
> "It's always the right time to do the right thing."
> -Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
> > From: Chicken John <chickenjohn@...>
> > Date: February 11, 2009 8:40:39 PM PST
> > To: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
> > Cc: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] The latest chain store fight
> >
> > Will you guys please make the world perfect so that my immaculate
> > ideals can be implimented? Can you do it by Friday, I'm going away
> > for the weekend.
> >
> > You would be a fool to not solve the problems that are in front of
> > you. This problem was in front of me. I solved it. Whoese liberty
> > was the question... ours? Thiers? Other business's? Who knows. AA
> > seemed like a good bad guy. That's the best I got. Let him who is
> > without bullshit sling the first lump of muck.
> >
> > In the end, it's about doing. Not doing for the right reasons at
> > the right time... just doing. If you rail against me for doing,
> > your likely a railer who would rail for not doing as easily. So I
> > do. I support those who do. I never said a bad thing about AA, just
> > that it wasn't a good fit. That was the best I could do. Maybe I
> > was wrong. But that's what felt right.
> >
> > It's a complicated wolrd. I can't imagine that my libertarian ideas
> > are anyting but a luxury betwixt me and my other friends to
> > ponticiacate about on our whim. But I have to live in a world where
> > libertarian ideas are in books that are not law books. So that is
> > the world I live in every day.
> >
> > If you would like to talk about possiblility, I'd likely agree with
> > every fiber of my being every word that came out of your mouth.
> >
> > But I didn't pay my property tax in December adn didn't pay my
> > mortgage in January.
> >
> > I'm doing the best I can which isn't very much right now.
> >
> > enjoy your debate of ideas.
> >
> > chicken
> >
> >
> >
> > Chicken John
> > Showman
> > San Francisco, California
> > 415-215-1632
> > chickenjohn@...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> It is a curious brand of libertarian compromise that
Chicken John
> >> chooses to engage in -- support violating American Apparel's
> >> rights, but make up for it by giving them free advertising. But I
> >> think I understand his dilemma. In a truly free market, large,
> >> organized companies like chains would have less of an advantage,
> >> because small, independent business owners wouldn't be saddled
> >> with the government rules, regulations, and mandates that are
> >> easier for large established firms with armies of lawyers and
> >> consultants to navigate, and all businesses would be much freer to
> >> unleash their creativity and try new things, meaning "formula"
> >> retail would likely be quickly left in the dust. If a relative
> >> lack of sterile, cookie-cutter businesses is one of the things
> >> that most appeals to you about a free society, and you see no
> >> ready way of getting there from here, jumping on the rights-
> >> violating bandwagon might feel like the only practical choice.
> >> It's disappointing he can't figure out a creative and entertaining
> >> way to support freedom without making any concessions to
> >> government land use regulations, but that of course is easier said
> >> than done.
> >>
> >> Love & Liberty,
> >> ((( starchild )))
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear Chris;
> >>>
> >>> For everyones benefit the following from the blog site AND THEN
> >>> followed by an article by CW Nevius about SF and its stupidity
> >>> regarding businesses. And by extenison competition and jobs and
> >>> dollars for SF.
> >>>
> >>> THE BLOG SITE:
> >>>
> >>> The third concerned skateboarding, and this is when I realized
> >>> (again) how much I like living in New Hampshire. Currently,
> >>> skateboarding on the streets or sidewalks is illegal in all of
> >>> Portsmouth. Nearly everyone realizes that this is stupid. A
> >>> proposed ordinance came out of the Traffic & Safety committee to
> >>> allow skateboarding throughout the city, except the Downtown
> >>> Business District. So far, so good. But somewhat to the Council's
> >>> own surprise and to the consternation of a large number of
> >>> people, the lifting of the ban came with a giant pile of
> >>> restrictions: helmets, kneepads, and elbow pads must be worn at
> >>> all times, and the wheels of the device must not leave the
> >>> ground. Person after person, from age 12 to 50s or 60s came up to
> >>> say the same thing: don't legislate away responsibility. Let
> >>> people take responsibility for their own actions. Let parents do
> >>> their job as parents and be responsible for their kids. Don't
> >>> give cops more grounds for selective enforcement and harassment
> >>> of youth. On, and on; I was so very pleased. The parallels were
> >>> made to New Hampshire's (current) lack of a seatbelt law for
> >>> adults in cars, and the lack of a requirement for motorcyclists
> >>> or bicyclists to wear helmets. Only two crotchety old men (one
> >>> self-described, the other self-evident) opposed lifting the ban
> >>> at all, on the grounds that Someone Could Get Hurt.
> >>>
> >>> What was really amazing here was that the City Council agreed!
> >>> They had not expected the restrictive language; the City Attorney
> >>> apparently put that in to protect the city from liability issues.
> >>> That's his job, but the Council sent it back to Traffic & Safety
> >>> (rather than attempting to revise it on the fly) to be redrafted
> >>> without the restrictions. The state motto was invoked several
> >>> times, and the Assistant Mayorand he may regret this, as I
> >>> intend to hold him to it in the futuresaid, "I'm a Live Free Or
> >>> Die guy." Councilor Dwyer continued to reinforce my perception
> >>> that she is the real-life version of Kyle's Mom from South Park;
> >>> she went on at some length about a reconsideration of the city's
> >>> entire alternative transportation infrastructure, the use of bike
> >>> lanes, safety rules for all human-powered transit, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mission residents reject American Apparel
> >>> C.W. Nevius
> >>>
> >>> Saturday, February 7, 2009
> >>>
> >>> Congratulations to the residents of Valencia Street. After a
> >>> rowdy and sometimes misleading campaign, they managed to stop
> >>> American Apparel - a socially conscious, popular, American-run
> >>> clothing store - from moving into one of the street's vacant
> >>> storefronts.
> >>>
> >>> The hoot, of course, is that many of the vociferous opponents of
> >>> the store admit that they buy and wear American Apparel clothing.
> >>> Some of them wore it to the City Planning Commission meeting to
> >>> argue against the store opening in their neighborhood.
> >>>
> >>> "Everyone I know is wearing an American Apparel T-shirt right
> >>> now," said Chicken John Rinaldi, one of the protest organizers.
> >>> "I wear one every day."
> >>>
> >>> It's another through-the-looking-glass moment in San Francisco.
> >>> They love the product but hate the store solely because there are
> >>> about 260 of them worldwide. That means it's a chain and
> >>> unwelcome under any circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> By a 7-0 vote - including staunch Republican Michael Antonini -
> >>> the Planning Commission refused to grant the company a
> >>> conditional use permit.
> >>>
> >>> This only reinforces San Francisco's reputation as America's
> >>> squeaky-wheel city. If you can get 200 people together and
> >>> persuade them to show up at a meeting and raise a fuss, you can
> >>> stop damn near anything in this town. At some point, someone is
> >>> going to have to stand up and say we've had enough of government
> >>> dominated by small groups of shouting people.
> >>>
> >>> I am not holding my breath.
> >>>
> >>> "I'm scratching my head on this one," said Steve Adams, president
> >>> of the Merchants of Upper Market and Castro. "There was all this
> >>> opposition to American Apparel, saying that you need to be
> >>> socially conscious. Well, they are. They pay their workers more,
> >>> they have a health plan and they opposed Prop. 8. I'm still
> >>> trying to figure this one out."
> >>>
> >>> Opponents see it all in black and white. At Thursday night's
> >>> Planning Commission meeting, public comment on American Apparel
> >>> ran for about three hours. They railed against retail chain
> >>> stores as if they were polyester golf pants. One called it "the
> >>> beginning of the end of Valencia Street," and another warned
> >>> ominously of allowing "these parasitic entities to come in."
> >>>
> >>> And you thought it was just a T-shirt store with tacky ad
campaigns.
> >>>
> >>> Many opponents offered up the same argument: that the minute
> >>> American Apparel moved in, local businesses would be forced to
> >>> close and a flood of chain stores would swamp the neighborhood.
> >>>
> >>> Uh, actually, that's not right.
> >>>
> >>> In 2006, voters passed Proposition G, which states that before a
> >>> chain store can move into a neighborhood, it is required to apply
> >>> for a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission.
> >>>
> >>> "A lot of energy went into this," said Supervisor Bevan Dufty,
> >>> who opposed American Apparel. "But I think the 7-0 vote shows
> >>> that this tool works."
> >>>
> >>> I don't have any quibble with requiring American Apparel to seek
> >>> out a special permit. My complaint is that Prop. G is being used
> >>> as a bludgeon instead of a scalpel. If a socially conscious chain
> >>> store whose clothes are already wildly popular in a neighborhood
> >>> wanted to move in, you would think that would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Now, if it were a Wal-Mart or, as Adams says, something that was
> >>> already well represented, it should be turned down. It's happened
> >>> elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> "One thing we said no to was a porn supermarket," he said.
> >>> "C'mon, it's the Castro. We've already got enough of them."
> >>>
> >>> Admittedly, American Apparel totally blew its rollout in the
> >>> neighborhood. More than one civic leader warned the company that
> >>> it needed to do an enormous amount of community outreach, with
> >>> Dufty leading the way. Instead, company officials basically
> >>> announced they were moving in and left the neighbors to deal with
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>> "I met with them and gave them 10 things I thought they should
> >>> do," Dufty said. "The reality is they have done none of those
> >>> things."
> >>>
> >>> In contrast, take the case of Levi's, which wanted to open an
> >>> outlet on Castro Street. Working through Dufty, the company met
> >>> with merchants, explained their plans and even pointed out that
> >>> they wouldn't undercut competitors - products sold in the Levi's
> >>> store cost as much as $10 more than in mom-and-pop stores.
> >>>
> >>> The result? Levi's conditional use permit passed - there was not
> >>> a single dissenting vote.
> >>>
> >>> So, if American Apparel had done all that, would it now be
> >>> setting up shop on Valencia? Probably not. Valencia is one
> >>> politically active street.
> >>>
> >>> "The deal is, we are not going to allow a chain store to come in
> >>> here," Rinaldi said. "Never. No way. End of story."
> >>>
> >>> Even if the store makes perfect sense?
> >>>
> >>> I guess that's what you get when you leave city policy to a guy
> >>> who calls himself "Chicken."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> >>> Hostis res Publica
> >>> Morte ai Tiranni
> >>> Dum Spiro, Pugno
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Christopher R. Maden <crism@...>
> >>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:16:51 PM
> >>> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Right coast vs. wrong coast
> >>>
> >>> Ron Getty wrote:
> >>> > We all know what happens when people head Back East and forget
> >>> their
> >>> > Far Far Far Wild West - Law Of the West - Frontier Justice
Roots.
> >>> >
> >>> > They become part of the Leiberman - Kennedy - Clinton Troika and
> >>> > liberalism prevails. Them Nor'Easters are Hell on Libertarian
> >>> > liberties. 
> >>>
> >>> I challenge you to read my latest blog post[1] about a
skateboarding
> >>> ordinance hearing (scroll down, paragraph 9) and consider how
> >>> that would
> >>> have gone in San Francisco. (-:
> >>>
> >>> ~Chris
> >>>
> >>> [1] <URL: http://nhseacoastliberty.wordpress.com/ >
> >>> --
> >>> Chris Maden, text nerd <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
> >>> "All I ask of living is to have no chains on me,
> >>> And all I ask of dying is to go naturally." Laura Nyro
> >>> GnuPG Fingerprint: C6E4 E2A9 C9F8 71AC 9724 CAA3 19F8 6677
0077 C319