While people line up to complain about policies that they feel will undermine their dogs’ happiness and livability in the city, where is the outrage about policies, or a lack of policies, that make the city livable for women and families? With housing unaffordable for most, childcare unavailable and prohibitively expensive, schools unnavigable, and public transit unreliable and inefficient, it seems that arguments about the availability of dogs’ open space is perhaps a bit out of place. I do realize and respect that some people choose to have pets over children; however, it seems misguided to create and maintain a city that is more livable for dogs than it is for families.

San Francisco has turned into a city of landowners and serfs—those who can somehow afford to buy property here or have inherited it and those who come here as young people looking for the San Francisco of their parents’ memories or era. The latter group moves here, lives, shops, eats, and generally has a great time until deciding to buy a house or have a family or both. Then they are usually forced to move due to the lack of infrastructure that San Francisco has for families. Some are committed and try to stick it out and navigate the child unfriendly city, but many are forced to find livability elsewhere. Permanent and temporary San Franciscans may have and love their dogs, but will the dogs grow up to become tomorrow’s teachers, police officers, entrepreneurs, advocates, and activists who make this city great?

When a city is composed of people who don’t want to get too comfortable because eventually they’re going to have to leave when they want a family, that city turns into one where the livability of dogs is more important than the livability of families. Rather than spending so much time debating how to create livable space for dogs, perhaps we should spend time thinking about creating user-friendly space and policies for families. After all, how many times have you heard of a couple feeling forced to move out of San Francisco because they’re having a dog?

Dr. Amy Bacharach is a policy researcher and professor and a proud Richmond district resident. She is an Emerge California graduate and serves on the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee’s Policy Committee (SFWPC) and the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) as a policy advocate for issues dealing with girls and women. She is also part of the San Francisco Collaborative Against Human Trafficking (SFCAHT). Amy holds a Ph.D. in Forensic Psychology and a certificate in Organizational Development. She hopes that she will not be forced out of the city by policies that favor dogs over children.

I am referring to the Child Brides Escape Marriage, but Not Lashes article published on May 30^th, which detailed the discovery of two young girls who fled forced and abusive marriages to much older men. The girls were caught, sent back to the men, and publicly and unmercilessly flogged for daring to run away. Of course, this was under the watchful eye of the “self-appointed commander and morals enforcer in his district,” a man who seems to lack any of the morals that he wishes to enforce. According to the report, “the mullah . . . administers the punishment with a leather strap, which he appears to wield with as much force as possible . . . and strikes the girls so hard that at one point he appears to have hurt his wrist and hands the strap to another man.” Is this the leadership that we want to leave in Afghanistan? Is this the culture for which our soldiers are dying every day to protect? Would we be more outraged if this happened to a boy or man? How about an American? Why are the basic human rights of Afghan women and girls brushed aside in a fight for the very life of a country?

Regardless of whether anyone condones the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan, the fact is that we now have an opportunity to have an impact on the very people who need our help the most, the most vulnerable of the country’s population: girls and women. And although their rights are undoubtedly less restrictive than what they were under the Taliban, the May 30^th article clearly shows that girls and women are still treated with the misogynistic disdain that comes with extremist fundamentalism.

I am confident that the strides that are being made in education and self-sustainment will alleviate this problem eventually, and I am hopeful that General David Petraeus will pay closer attention to how district commanders treat their girls and women. I am also keenly aware that right now we have a moral obligation to discourage these fierce and violent acts against girls and women and to impose strict sanctions on district leaders who not only allow these acts to occur, but actually encourage and supervise them. If our goal is to transfer leadership and responsibility back to Afghan forces, shouldn’t we ensure that those forces aren’t as brutal as the forces we’re fighting?

We send a strong message to the world when we silently excuse violent acts against girls and women in a country for which we are fighting. It is bad enough that we passively ignore the abhorrent treatment of girls and women in countries that are supposed to be our allies, such as Saudi Arabia, but to remain passive in a fight in which we are actively involved is simply appalling.

In his statement of resignation, General McChrystal noted that he was committed to the Afghan people. Time will tell if he and other leaders include girls and women among the people to whom they are committed.

The argument that paper bags are single use is a fallacy. Paper bags are not only more likely than plastic bags to be re-used but are also more likely to be recycled. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about 20% of paper bags are recycled compared to less than 1% of plastic bags. How often do you see thousands of paper bags littering entire cities and oceans like plastic bags do? Paper bags are also commonly re-used for people’s personal household use as well as for recycle and compost bins (which are already required in San Francisco). Perhaps a better bill would incorporate mandatory recycling and composting similar to what San Francisco already has in place. Encouraging people to use reusable bags is something for which we should all strive. Californians will not and should not tolerate a financial  punishment for failing to adhere, though. Even in bright green Seattle, a law to impose a bag fee was overwhelmingly rejected at the polls. The last thing that California needs is another expensive ballot measure.

Another fallacy is the idea that merchants will stick with a 5 cents charge for paper bags when they have the ability to charge more. Even if paper bags do not exceed 5 cents, however, this extra cost adds up. Perhaps most of us think it’s fine to pay a few nickels when we forget to bring our own bags to the store, but for those 4.8 million people (about 14% of our state, according to the US Census) who live in poverty and the millions more who are a paycheck away from poverty, a few nickels mean a lot.

We share the same goals—to eliminate plastic bags and to encourage reusable bags. In the world of behavior modification, however, punishment will never be as adequate as incentive and reinforcement. A tax or fee is the wrong way to change people’s behavior. Carrots are stronger than sticks. We should all strongly support a ban on plastic bags for all of the reasons that AB 1998 supporters state. But adding a fee to paper bags, however small that fee may be, is a short-sighted and backward move that should be removed immediately so that this bill can be one that we’re all proud to support. I applaud Assemblywoman Brownley’s goals and actions; however, if the bill is not amended to remove the fee for paper bags, I challenge each senator to cast the unpopular vote, but the correct vote: No.

San Francisco

Outside of San Francisco

My passion is policy research on various social justice issues, particularly women’s and children’s rights and human trafficking. In addition to my research, I’m an adjunct professor at Argosy University, a policy guru, and a political activist.

Originally from Philadelphia, I’ve lived in Mulhouse, France, and Mexico City and enjoy traveling around the world to learn how culture affects women’s and children’s human rights (well, and to have good food and wine).

I hold a Ph.D. in Forensic Psychology and a certificate in Organizational Development. Ultimately, I am hoping to start a social justice-oriented policy research center and travel the world to research, analyze, and disseminate evidence to support or debunk legislation and policies. Before doing that, though, I am hoping to take my passion for policy and public service to the next level by running for office in San Francisco.

I am very active in progressive politics, including the fabulous Emerge program, and want to continue my advocacy and governance work throughout my career. In my free time, I research cupcake baking (and by research, I of course mean experiment with recipe concoctions and bake and eat lots of cupcakes).

This blog is to post my two cents about various issues going on in San Francisco, California, across the US, and around the world. I look forward to ranting and to hearing your comments about my rants, um, I mean opinions.

Since the last round of fare increases and service cuts, many people are waiting fifteen to twenty minutes for a bus during the rush hours, when common sense would dictate that service be increased. With busses filling up only partway through the route, drivers discontinue stopping to pick up passengers, leaving people stranded. In addition, drivers have simply decided that a random stop is the last and that everyone must exit the bus. Some drivers find other excuses to stop their buses. One driver ended the route suddenly and kicked everyone off when a parent wouldn’t fold up her stroller. Other lines are just as bad. In a city that is a mere 49 square miles, it takes nearly two hours to go 4 miles, traveling between destinations that mapquest estimates to be a 13-minute drive. And all of this assumes that the driver hasn’t closed the door on your face when you run up to it. One person I spoke with became so tired of waiting up to 40 minutes for a bus on a regular basis that she started driving to work, shaving off more than half of her commute time.

Realizing that many people do not have this option to drive, MUNI must ensure that San Franciscans can commute in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner. At a time when most people have taken a cut in pay or benefits in some form, San Franciscans have little sympathy for employees of an agency that guarantees pay raises each year for providing such poor service. Under the current city charter provision, transit worker salaries are set by averaging the two highest paying transit agencies in the country. At a recent budget town hall meeting, SFMTA illustrated with a graph how approximately two thirds of the SFMTA budget—$484 million—goes toward salaries and benefits. We can all agree that everyone should be paid a living wage; however, at a time when everyone is taking a cut, we expect our transit workers to do the same.

And although we pay transit drivers a professional salary, they are not required to act professionally. In addition to overzealously bypassing stops and ending routes arbitrarily, MUNI drivers continue to have a problem with absenteeism, in some cases simply not showing up with no warning. In each of these instances, someone else has to cover, receiving overtime even if he or she has not yet worked 40 hours that week. This increases our costs and ensures that we will all have to wait longer for our buses to arrive, regardless of what the NextMUNI indicator reads at the stop.

I’m hopeful that the ballot measure requiring transit operator wages to be settled through collective bargaining will pass and will help ease the crisis our city is facing. Regardless of the ballot measure, though, SFMTA must come up with ways to decrease the $484 million that is swallowing the budget, and they must do it without further demonizing and punishing people who choose to drive rather than rely on an unreliable transit system, particularly those who are “weekend-only” drivers. Extending parking meters to evenings and Sundays is a short-sighted, knee-jerk response to the problem. It will also cause a revolt that will make Oaklanders, whose revolt took only 3 months to reverse a similar order, look tame. One logical solution is to hire part-time drivers and allow part-time drivers to cover for full-time drivers who do not show up for work. This can reduce the primary source of expenditures. A solution to address inefficiency would be to create more limited lines that stop at every second or third stop, and to eliminate bus stops that are too close to each other. Several bus lines have a stop on every corner or every other corner. A solution for unprofessional behavior is simply to educate the drivers. As one example, many drivers seem to be unaware of how the new translink pass works and berate riders for using it.

Certainly there are more logical, common sense solutions than are listed here that do not involve increasing fares, cutting service, or extending parking meters. Just as certainly there are transit drivers who are kind, thoughtful, and considerate; I’ve encountered many of these people. A functioning system is one that rewards these workers while disciplining those who do not provide sufficient customer service, including merely showing up to work. It is one that provides reliable, efficient service at a reasonable cost. If every other major city in the world can do this, why can’t San Francisco?

——————————————————————————————————

Dr. Amy Bacharach is a policy researcher, proud Richmond district resident, and regular rider of the 5, 31, and 38. She serves on the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee (SFWPC), advocating for policies to keep women and families in San Francisco, and is in the 2010 class of Emerge California. Amy holds a Ph.D. in Forensic Psychology and a certificate in Organizational Development. This piece was partly inspired by Thea Selby, a fellow Emerge member who can often be seen promoting her Lower Haight neighborhood sporting her orange MUNI hat.

But what if there was a solution that allowed offenders to be held accountable, addressed public safety, and kept nonviolent offenders out of prison? And what if this solution actually saved the state—you and me and every taxpayer you know—money?

Fortunately, we do have a solution available to us right now: Collaborative courts, particularly drug courts, mental health courts, and reentry courts. Unfortunately, collaborative courts are not being utilized in many counties and legislators are making knee-jerk funding cuts to them.

Collaborative courts address the underlying issue of why people commit crimes rather than simply sentence those people to prison and hope for the best when they are released. Without addressing the reasons people commit crimes to begin with, research shows that there is little chance of rehabilitation and high chances of recidivism. Collaborative courts use a team approach to combine judicial supervision with social and treatment services so that offenders can become productive citizens. The team typically consists of the judge, the attorneys, the probation department, and law enforcement, and sometimes includes service providers. For example, in a drug court, an offender who has committed a nonviolent drug offense would, in lieu of prison, commit to a 12- to 18-month program during which he regularly attends a drug treatment program, submits to drug testing, and appears before a judge for review. A mental health court operates in the same way, replacing drug treatment with intensive mental health treatment and appropriate medication.

Although these courts sometimes cost more to run on the front end, all signs point to their ability to decrease court and prison costs over time. Several comprehensive evaluations have found that collaborative courts, particularly drug courts, reduce criminal behavior and recidivism, including from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, the National Drug Court Institute Review, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Other positive consequences of drug courts specifically include a significant decrease in the number of babies born already addicted to drugs. The decrease in repeat criminal behavior, the accountability the offenders must make to be in the programs, the positive contributions to the community that collaborative court program graduates make, and substantial cost savings to the courts and prison system all point to a solution to several problems that we continue to ignore. With this solution is indeed right under our noses, why would our legislators cut funding to it?