vmarshall23
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/112066.Moments_of_Doubt_...
I had to automate my job when working full time in grad school, otherwise I never would have passed a class.
Since I entered the work force, most jobs have been some version of "automate some task for other people (customers) to exchange for pieces of paper representing effort($)" or "automate some internal task so company spends less $ paying meatware to do things saving effort($)". Rinse, and repeat until either:
a) company makes $$$$! b) company runs out of $
If you manage to automate all-the-things and haven't hit state a) or b) then you start flame wars on internal mailing lists about how the free company snacks suck or whatever. :-)
I, as a 20 year SF resident, would much prefer Aaron Peskin do something about the feces and hypodermic needles before he worries about cafeterias.
And addiction is a large component of homelessness, but if you're still addicted you're obviously not going to spend much time in a place where you have to go cold turkey to enter.
So, my ( probably naive ) suggestion would be to allow drugs and alcohol in the shelters, hopefully giving the residents long enough of a chance to receive some help. No it's just a revolving door that doesn't appear to be helping anyone.
Universal basic income too. :-)
I'd prefer some sort of solution that directly impacted your wallet if you didn't give a shit about what waste you produce. I'm not sure what that is, but a similar example would be "save water during a drought" or just "save water" PR campaigns. Don't waste everyone's time with a bunch of easily-ignored signs and commercials. Charge 5 bucks a gallon for water. When your sprinkler watering the sidewalk all night costs you 1500 dollars, you'll be sure not to do that twice.
And you save money on TV commercials and waste less trees making posters. :-)
But if you want a system that doesn't break down if someone throws a handful of batteries in the compost bin, then someone or something somewhere still has to sort the trash stream.
So, at best, you've used all the labor of everyone in SF to reduce the number of people/things/processes downstream to sort the trash properly.
So, yes, the ball is ultimately in the manufacturer's court for a lot of this, but home recycling is at best a terrible use of labor/time/money. Raise taxes to hire more sorting capability, because if it requires 100 more trained humans sorting somewhere downstream that's surely less than all-the-people-in-SF-a-few-minutes-everyday to do a less-than-perfect job.
Also, I think a lot of these laws also do another disservice in that they make people feel like they're doing something to help the situation which keeps them from actually solving the problem.
Like the new plastic straws ban to keep plastic out of the ocean. If the problem is "keep plastic out of the ocean", then solve "why does plastic get in the ocean" problem. Banning plastic straws might be part of the solution, but what seems to happen so often is that we make one of these "feel-good" laws that keeps a negligible amount of plastic out of the ocean, and I have to drink out of a shitty straw, and people think that someone we've made substantive progress to a real solution.
There's just so much "how does all this shit actually work" in there ....
Oh, and I'm using the word "album". That probably explains it all ... :-)