S.F. braces for financial hit from war, protests (Couldn't Happen To a Nicer City!)

San Francisco Examiner ^ | February 28, 2003 | Adriel Hampton

[q_an_a]

It is the responsiblity of a democratic government to provide for the will of the people. If the people of SFO wish to use that money for peace marches and demonstrations instead of housing, city maintence or medical care then that should be their decision. The mayor should tell people of the cost of their actions and they should respond in a democratic manner.

The people who are sitting on their hands should be mande aware of the consequences of their actions as well.

[maica]

You wrote exactly what I was thinking.

The city officials should let all the SF taxpayers know the realities of 'protecting the rights of free speech.' Let the taxpayers decide how much 'tolerance' they are willing to underwrite.

Of course, it is much easier just to blame George Bush.

[Redleg Duke]

Bush is paying attention to his job, which is the defense of the nation, not supporting a dried up old whore of a city.

[I Am Not A Mod]

Free Republic Highlights 3/2/03

[ODDITHER]

but I don't see a bailout plan for the cities."
Gee, when did the feds become the piggy bank for cities that live beyond their means?
I am sure that San Francisco could save the equivelant to their deficit by suspending funding for "social" programs.
1. Stop giving benefits to the homosexual partners.
2. Stop funding homeless programs that don't work.
3. Suspend funding that is used to validate and prop up deviant behavior.

The amount that cities such as San Francisco spend to legitimize social deviant behavior has caused the deficit, not the war.

[OldPossum]

I wrote the author of this piece, asking what reason would the Bush Administration have for bailing out a city which delights in hosting anti-government war policies. Also, I said why would he want to help a city which is firmly in the hands of the Democrats?

I closed with the old saying: You made your bed. Lie in it.

[John Jorsett]

There you go. A daily pro-war protest that costs the city $120K would drain the city budget of $43,800,000 in a year. Maybe it would be possible to bankrupt them.

[verity]

"San Francisco Examiner" always reminds me of proctology. :~)

[barker]

..... but The City is currently absorbing an enormous cost with no help from the federal government

SF passed an anti-war resolution and now they want the same government they're protesting to help pay for the protests?

"On the day that they start dropping bombs, Powell and Market at 5 p.m. is going to be full of thousands and thousands of people who want direction,"

No problem. Just point them towards the bay.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Ping

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I agree. I hope they bankrupt this city, and I live here.

I have contingency plans. If they stop busses from running I'm walking to work, though it's far. It will take about 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours to get to work.

And I walk home from work every day anyways. So I can do it and pretty much avoid the steep hills on the way to work.

I also have a bicycle (currently with flat tires) that I can use, maybe I better get that to the bike shop and fixed so I can get around.

[SeenTheLight]

It really pisses me off that we taxpayers have to pay for the protesters vandalism, destruction, and acts of civil disobedience. Time to email the stupervisors, mayor, ect!

ANSWER should have to cover the costs. They can get the money from their buddies in N. Korea.

[Jimbaugh]

Can I send the protestors some gasoline? I just want to help them express themselves.