San Francisco gets even greener 15

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 12:24 pm
   07 Mar 2008

   Yes, But Can You Get A Date?
   
   Being picked up by the cast of Jersey Boys is a fantasy for some.
   But most would rather try their luck with farm girls in Omaha.

   Permalink

2. 

   Jones Posted 2:05 am
   08 Mar 2008

   Wait a second...Most of those measures seem good, but there's one glaring overgloss: how does
   "support for a tidal-energy project in the San Francisco Bay, despite a recent study's conclusions that the project would be more expensive than it's worth"
   equate with
   "even greener"?
   Last I checked, "Green" doesn't mean "blind pursuit of purportedly environmental technologies, regardless of effect". The word for that is "greenwash".
   
   

   Permalink

3. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 2:17 am
   08 Mar 2008

   Misunderstand......Jones, when they say it's more expensive than it's worth, they're referin' to the economic costs, not the costs in terms of materials or environmental impact.
   Remember, wave tech is still really young, and most new tech when it's really young is expensive, 'specially in the research phase.  It has to go into mass production before it becomes economically viable.
   It's not "greenwash" it it costs more (economically), so long as it still as a positive impact on the environment.  I buy products sometimes that are more expensive than other brands, but I buy 'em because of their positive impact (like 7th Generation, for example), so just 'cause something costs more doesn't mean it's greenwash.  

   Permalink

4. 

   Vikingsson Posted 10:31 am
   08 Mar 2008

   yawn, but every little bit helps.Well good for San Fran.  Cities all over this fair land should be doing all of these things and a great deal more.  Fleets of all kinds can implement the right way to do things much easier and cheaper than us poor slobs with our little blue boxes and curly light bulbs.
   Politicians talk endlessly about doing the right thing but rarely ever do the right thing and show the rest of us how it can be done.  Every city should have for decades now been running on alternative fuels and practicing green tech.  By now we would have had mature technologies that we can all use and afford.
   Even though it should be our governments that are practicing and promoting true green tech they are also the wrong people to ask.  yes I'm beyond cynical.  but green away.

   Permalink

5. 

   KevinMichael Posted 11:41 am
   08 Mar 2008

   San Francisco -> Hobo HeavenThis has to be one of my least favorite cities. I would guess 1 in 5 residents is homeless. Perhaps Mayor Newsom can mandate all city vehicles run on hobo urine. Its a good thing they legislate the prohibition of plastic sacks. Nothing kills a city's image like plastic grocery sacks.  

   Permalink

6. 

   wiscidea Posted 3:49 am
   10 Mar 2008

   So...Why is it so expensive to live there? And is anything being done to ensure low-income people aren't driven out of the green haven of San Francisco? Or is green living only for the wealthy?

   Permalink

7. 

   nearing Posted 5:16 am
   10 Mar 2008

   can anyone tell mejust how much more expensive is it to live there?  Is there a place to see just what the 'mark-up' to living there is?

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 7:10 am
   10 Mar 2008

   So expensive......Well, fisrt off, it's in California, which is one of, if not the, most expensive state to live in to begin with.  Then there's the climate.  San Fran is still south 'nough to enjoy nearly year-round warmth that southern California has, yet it's unique geography and the fact it's right next to the coast and further north than san diego of L.A., that it gets high humidity and precipitation, and the temeperature isn't as extreme as it is further south.
   Then there's the great views, the history, and culture of the area.  Add in alotta niche demographics, and it becomes a very interesting melting pot of people.
   So basically it's part supply-demand, and part atmosphere that makes it so expensive.

   Permalink

9. 

   nearing Posted 7:45 am
   10 Mar 2008

   thanks for thatI have a chance to live in the North Bay area for a couple of years and just wondered how much (by a factor of x) should I multiply my living expenses (in Michigan now)

   Permalink

10. 

    Pangolin Posted 8:48 am
    10 Mar 2008

    Read it and weep.....Would you believe $995 to $1400 monthly for studio apartments?
    Look at the craigslist housing board.
    You don't buy housing in San Francisco, you inherit it. Prices are insane but you save money because you don't need a car; there's nowhere to park them anyway.
    I lived in San Francisco when I was a kid, both my parents worked in civil service for the city of San Francisco when Difi was a city councilwoman. It's not the same.
    It's a museum city now like Venice; there are very few families with children and lots of young, single people willing to pay the outrageous rents to be on top of the action.
    The reason it has so many homeless is that California doesn't take care of it's people any better than the rest of the US does. In the burbs they jail you for being homeless and SF doesn't do that. The homeless go to where they can get food and medical care just like any other refugees.
    In general I would say you can come visit California but please leave after a few weeks. We really don't need any more people here. Oh, it's probably Eliot Spitzers favorite city besides TJ.  The place is on hormonal overload. It's the fog or something.

    Permalink

11. 

    Wolverine Posted 6:10 am
    11 Mar 2008

    Gavin Newsom's "Greenness"The most significant thing any mayor could do to reduce environmental and ecological harm is to reduce driving, as the mayor of London has done.  Gavin Newsom has strongly opposed measures that would do this, such as limiting parking or taxing private motor vehicles in downtown.  He also strongly supports building homes for the rich, which adds to the traffic, because godforbid rich people should lower themselves to ride a bus or a train that does not have a first class section, and because they can afford off-street parking, which is very expensive here.
    The other big ecological issue here is a proliferation of dogs, which are run off leash in parks.  The large increase in dog numbers is due to the cost of housing, which encourages wealthier people to move here, and those people often have dogs.  (It's not that only wealthy people have dogs, but people with money are far more likely to have dogs than people without.)  These dogs chase, harass, and kill wildlife, dig holes, and urinate and defecate all over, but Newsom refuses to enforce the leash laws and actually advocates for more off leash areas when he should be reigning them in.  The wealthy dog problem has spurned a "dog walker" industry, where people "walk" as many as 10-15 dogs at once, often off leash.
    Conclusion:  Gavin Newsom is just a phony, yuppie-type environmentalist.  In addition to the problems noted above, his agencies have stalled the large solar project that San Francisco is supposed to implement and a bike project that would get people out of cars and onto bicycles.  He's just like Governor Schwarzenegger; they give the environment plenty of lip service, but when it comes to making the significant changes that require some sacrifice, they do nothing and often cause harm.

    Permalink

12. 

    barbara santoro Posted 2:26 am
    15 Apr 2008

    IF ONLY WE COULD AFFORD TO LIVE THERELife would be wonderful in a clean and green environment, like  San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newson is thankfully, reaching for. His high standard of "greening" that city is a beautiful model for us all.  But, given all that "green" and the fact that landscapers produce so much pollution using conventional mowers, why not follow the example of Chicago's Park South District and use our US PATENTED, clean, domestically available PROPANE powered mower?! The choice of many municipalities across the country is EnviroGard.  Not only clean, but economical, especially at the gas pumps! Its reduced maintenance and emissions of (~80%) makes it exceptionally appealing. Its time to look within our own backyards to help ourselves to a future. http://www.mow-green.com
    
         

    Permalink

13. 

    wiscidea Posted 2:46 am
    15 Apr 2008

    Better yet...Use solar-powered electric mowers.

    Permalink

14. 

    wiscidea Posted 2:47 am
    15 Apr 2008

    Better yet...Plant native vegetation that minimizes water use and does not require mowing.

    Permalink

15. 

    wiscidea Posted 2:49 am
    15 Apr 2008

    Better yet...Goats.
    Reconnect people with our fellow creatures, the natural world, et cetera, and demonstrate the benefits of low-tech solutions to our modern problems.

    Permalink