Newsom Mandates Healthy Eating in San Francisco

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom took another step toward a full nanny city on Wednesday when he issued an executive directive mandating healthy eating in San Francisco.  This, after he banned bottled water for city employees (which I agree with on fiscal grounds — bottled water costs money and honestly Hetch Hetchy water is excellent anyway), and ordered composting citywide.

Newsom on Wednesday issued an executive directive he hopes will dramatically change how San Franciscans eat.

All city departments have six months to conduct an audit of unused land – including empty lots, rooftops, windowsills and median strips – that could be turned into community gardens or farms that could benefit residents, either by working at them or purchasing the fresh produce. Food vendors that contract with the city must offer healthy and sustainable food. All vending machines on city property must also offer healthy options, and farmers’ markets must begin accepting food stamps, although some already do.

The mayor will send an ordinance to the Board of Supervisors within two months mandating that all food served in city jails, hospitals, homeless shelters and community centers be healthy.

And effective immediately, no more runs to the doughnut shop before meetings and conferences held by city workers. Instead, city employees must use guidelines created by the Health Department when ordering food for meetings.

Examples include cutting bagels into halves or quarters so people can take smaller portions and serving vegetables instead of potato chips.

“We have an eating and drinking problem in the United States of America,” Newsom said Wednesday. “It’s impacting our health, and it’s impacting our economy.”

Now honestly, this is an honorable initiative.  People do need to eat healthier.  Turning unused land into gardens is an excellent idea.  But just how far does government need to intrude on citizens’ lives by now mandating how and what people eat?  Obesity certainly is an issue in America (I struggle with my weight, too).  But mostly these are personal, lifestyle choices that people make, unless there is a health issue like a thyroid problem. 

California is already a nanny state of the worst kind (and this is coming from someone with genuinely progressive leanings).  The state mandates all kinds of things from limiting cell phone use in cars to proscribing smoking in a car with a child in it.  Again, some of these are excellent ideas.  But for a state that can’t even pass a budget, doesn’t it have better things to do than intrude on people’s choices?

Now, San Francisco wants to worry about how people eat.  President Obama has mentioned it as well, but you haven’t seen him issuing executive orders on this.  The United States is a republic founded on the basis of personal liberty.  We don’t need the government infringing upon that one little step at a time.  Pretty soon Big Brother will indeed be watching.

SF Chronicle May Fold

There was big news in San Francisco yesterday afternoon.  Hearst Corporation, which owns the San Francisco Chronicle (among 15 other newspapers), announced that it requires “deep” cuts at the Chronicle or it will seek a buyer, and — if a buyer cannot be found — close the Chronicle.  The Chronicle has been publishing in San Francisco since 1865.

The Hearst Corp. on Tuesday announced an effort to reverse the deepening operating losses of its San Francisco Chronicle by seeking near-term cost savings that would include “significant” cuts to both union and nonunion staff.

In a statement, Hearst said that if the savings cannot be accomplished “quickly,” the company will seek a buyer, and if none comes forward, it will close The Chronicle. The Chronicle lost more than $50 million in 2008 and is on a pace to lose more than that this year, Hearst said.

The newspaper business certainly is hurting.  As advertising revenue declines — as it is for all media — revenues will fall.  The article notes that it costs the Chronicle more than two times its subscription rate to publish and distribute the newspaper.  The rest, ostensibly, is to be made up by advertising revenues.

This situation — losing scads of money — is not confined to just the Chronicle.  The New York Times has had financial problems, as had The Washington Post (they reported huge losses today), and most other daily newspapers in this country.  It doesn’t help that many people are not buying the print edition of newspapers and are getting the same content online for free.  Why pay for what you can get for nothing, especially in these economic times?  I do it.

I love being able to read newspapers online.  I can read papers from several cities — San Francisco (the Chronicle), Washington (the Post, the Blade), New York (the Times), Los Angeles (the Times), Jerusalem (the Post) — you get the idea.  I think it helps me stay informed, reading several different news sources.  I quote liberally from them in my blog; and I benefit from their reporting.

Newspapers — like them or not — provide a valuable function in society, even in the instant news culture we live in now.  They are able to go more in-depth on stories than television and radio.  They play a vital societal role in holding government accountable (even if they do that imperfectly).

So what do they do?  Charge for website access in this web-must-be-free culture?  I’d be willing to pay a small amount for access (and quoting rights) to my favorite news sources.  Would you?  Would you, knowing that if you don’t, we’ll lose our big daily newspapers?  Does it matter to you?  It does to me.

I can’t imagine what it would be like without a major daily in each city.  (Sorry, SF Examiner lovers.  That paper is a rag.)  And that day may come very soon for San Francisco.

San Francisco – Sanctuary City

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for many people — LGBT, the free-spirited, and illegal immigrants.  Recently, San Francisco’s status as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants has come under fire for how illegal immigrant criminals — specifically juveniles — are handled.  The city has been sending some of the immigrants back to their home countries (at taxpayer expense, of course) and sending some to halfway houses in Southern California.  Mayor Newsom said yesterday, “I don’t have the authority here.  I have a bully pulpit.  The courts have authority here.”  A juvenile court judge disputes that.

Let’s talk for a second about “sanctuary cities.”  The United States professes to be a nation of laws.  Laws are being broken (granted, it’s a civil — not criminal — violation) and governments are aiding and abetting people in breaking the law.  San Francisco is only one of these cities — Washington, DC; New York, Los Angeles (see more here) are all sanctuary cities.  San Francisco has even begun issuing city ID cards to illegal immigrants.  How does this qualify as upholding the law?  Well, the obvious, correct and short answer is that it doesn’t.

But how can San Francisco justify sending people back at city taxpayer expense?  I truly don’t understand it.  It’s unethical, immoral and should be unlawful as well.  It’s a federal issue in any case.  Illegal immigrants should be turned over to the feds without question.  (UPDATE: Newsom has announced that this practice will end.  He’s apparently gotten a little heat.)

Illegal immigration is a huge problem.  Largely poor people (yes, I know I’m talking in large generalities here) are pouring across our southern border.  They aren’t educated, have few prospects other than menial work, and are a net drain on society.  They contribute to overcrowding of the jails, emergency rooms (many, especially in Los Angeles, have had to close), freeways, and schools.  That’s just the honest ones, the people who are coming to the United States — illegally — to try to make a better life for themselves and their families.  I applaud that.  Everyone wants a better life and wants their children to be better off than they were.  I want that for my son.

Then there is the criminal element.  There are gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals.  We (especially in California) shouldn’t have to deal with that and shouldn’t have to pay that bill.  And what about the security threat from terrorists?  It’s about the easiest thing in the world to cross into the United States from Canada or Mexico.

As I said above, immigration is a federal issue.  But the federal government has left the border unsecured.  A nation can’t be sovereign if it doesn’t enforce its borders.  So I say let the people who want to be here come.  But they must do it legally.  It’s only common sense and only fair to everyone else who has to get in line to come here.  I’m not advocating sending everyone back to their home countries.  That wouldn’t be right or practical.  But the borders have to be secured before any amnesty should be discussed.  And true immigration reform — reform that acknowledges the realities of the world — needs to be enacted.