San Fran Mayor Declares Wireless for All

arvind s. grover writes "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stated yesterday in his state of the city address that every San Francisco resident will have free wireless internet access. They don't seem to have much set up yet, and no proposal was laid out for the installation of access points in every nook and cranny of the city. I wonder what vendor is going to get that contract...You might be better off finding a wireless node using NodeDB or this oddly-titled site: cheesebikini."

How...?

[Poleris]

Is this mayor going to pay for this.

Good idea...but...

[deanj]

Good idea and San Francisco is a great place to visit, but shouldn't they do something to help the unemployed and homeless in that town? And when I say "help the homeless", I mean REALLY help them, like get them a place to live and a way to make a buck, not just handouts, which they've done in the past.

Re:How...?

[Dr. Evil]

No, the taxpayers will. The mayor's friends will get the contracts though.

Re:Good idea...but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think SF has a "workfare" program where if you show up at certain places in the morning (and you aren't drunk or high) you can get work for the morning sweeping and cleaning. Granted you aren't going to get paid much and really sucks but if you need a way to get on your feet it can be a start. Do that for a couple of mornings, rent a motel room for a week, get cleaned up, find a shitty fast food job, then just start building from there....easier said than done but at least it's a possibility.

Just one question

[AndroidCat]

How many spammers live in San Francisco? How many will move there?

Re:How...?

[(SM) Spacemonkey]

And pay the taxpayers shall. What could be the possible benefits to this? You need a computer to access the internet. I would awesome those who have a computer one are on average better off socio-economically than those who want one. This barrier to access (computer) itself prevents universal wireless from enhance equality, which is what I see as a major part of any governments role. Further many people (not just politicans) see this magic causal link between technology and better economy, educated populous, etc. However the internet is just a tool. It is as likely to be abused as it is to be used to help. A far better idea is to give ISPs incentives to lower their fees. Then again, only after you spend the money on education, health and a whole gamut of things more important than internet access.

Re:Looks like another tax hike ...

[ShieldW0lf]

Ah socialism, take from the upper middle class and give to the lower middle class

When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.

I'd say the ideal approach would be to have the city own the infrastructure and contract out the services, then make infrastructure maintenance and improvements a condition of the next round of contracts. That would ensure that the city maintains the ability to easily change companies and prevent them from ever being held over a barrel by their supplier.

um, it's not free as in beer nor as in speech

[humanerror]

We already have a decent, FREE, and fast wireless network in The City: SFLan.org [archive.org].

Do you really want to be bound by the government's TOS, for a service "sold" as free that you are in fact paying for, whether you use it or not?

Of course, using public money for questionable ends is nothing new... but dear Gavin already invests far too much of our money waging war on the poor (no, not on poverty... on the poor).

Re:How...?

[bigman2003]

And how many people who live in the city of San Francisco cannot afford a computer?

The median income [msn.com] is $74,000 per year.

San Francisco is a fairly expensive place to live, there are not a lot of poor people there. I'm sure they are only concerned with the people who actually have an address- not homeless people, who don't pay taxes, or vote.

Then again- cities spend a lot of money on streets, traffic lights, etc. And not everyone has a car...

There is no such thing as a free lunch

[toupsie]

1) Someone has to pay for it. It will be a freebie to certain voting blocks and a huge cost to others. If you are net tax contributor to the coffers of San Francisco, leave now!
2) This will be a freebie to the criminal elements of San Francisco and a huge cost to the law abiding, non-ubergeek. Consider yourself "pwned".
3) Expect this project to cost 10x what it is initially claimed. Gavin Newsom has a lot of paybacks for getting himself into power in San Francisco. Cost overruns will be massive.
4) This is best suited by corporation competition not government largess. Do we really want municipal Ma Bells all over the country?

If you want to do this on the cheap, make the homeless wear waypoint hats for their welfare checks. (insert joke about the waypoints keeping the government satellite signals out of their heads).

Re:Is this necessarily a good thing?

[gl4ss]

well.. when you make paying something like this 'mandatory' (by making it appear 'free', as in you're going to pay for it anyways) makes an incentive to start using it(because it's there anyways and you don't have a choice of paying for it or not, so you end up using it to boost up your biz or life.).

maybe his trying to boost up it knowhow on it and make the city more competitive against other cities for businesses too.

Re:How...?

[(SM) Spacemonkey]

Then again- cities spend a lot of money on streets, traffic lights, etc. And not everyone has a car...

Traffic lights and such exist for safety as much as anything else. They also help people without cars, ever j-walked in peak hour? Perhaps internet give security for democracy by allowing free access to information. In that case I propose spending more money on libraries, with internet access. But I suppose libraries aren't sexy enough for a politican. Now wireless! That gets votes.

Free internet ????

[mritunjai]

Does everybody in SF already has free medical facilities ? Free shelter ?

Re:Is this necessarily a good thing?

[k98sven]

It's infrastructure. You could say the same thing about highways too.

It's very, very difficult to calculate the benefits of this, and really of any infrastructure investment.
(as far as I understand, there are no good models for this. Building roads is still mostly a political decision.)

But there are lots of things which conciveably balance the costs, most notably increased business productivity, competition and growth, and increased property value (which generates returns though property tax).

So, yeah, it's political.. but it doesn't automatically mean it's not economically justified. But whether it is or not is pure speculation. There's no way to tell in the short run.

Re:Looks like another tax hike ...

[bigman2003]

One thing that ticks me off- is the assumption that the government cannot spend any money for services tht will benefit a large portion of the population, until there are no poor/homeless people left.

City government's job is not to solely start at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and start moving everyone up. The citizens in the middle don't need to wait until everyone below them has been 'assisted'.

Parks cost a lot of money- most cities attempt to provide nice parks for their residents.

Unfortunately, having a park near your house is not always a good thing. These days, a lot of parks have been turned into de-facto homeless shelters. Every city has the 'homeless park' where nobody else (who actually paid the taxes to build the park) can go. If you live in Sacramento, go hang out at Ceasar Chavez park, on any day other than the free music days. You will be surrounded by homeless people, and all of their belongings.

In the town I live in (see my sig) we have a park like that. It is the park right near downtown- which is surrounded on 3 sides by residential neighborhoods. Who goes to the park- kids? families? No...guys sitting around drinking until the pass out or puke. Great- another park that can't be enjoyed by the general population.

I am NOT saying that we should not spend money to help these people. What I am saying, is that when city funds are used to pay for something else OTHER than social services, it's okay. We can spend money (taxpayer money, and most of the taxpayers are not getting drunk in the park) for something that will benefit the other 99% percent of the community.

Our city also has a large/nice homeless shelter - which for our population is a great base of assistance. But not everything we do needs to be for the assistance of the same group of people. The other 50,000 can benefit from their own taxes too.

Re:How...?

[bigman2003]

So city tax money can only be spent if it helps out the lowest common denominator? What about the other 99.99% of the residents (those paying taxes)?

Umm "free" , i dont think so

[nurb432]

There is nothing that the government does/offers that is 'free'.

You have paid for service via your tax dollars..

And until politicians stop treating our money as such, the waste and over taxation will continue.

Re:How...?

[autarkeia]

San Francisco has a ridiculously high poor and homeless population. It's truly obscene. However, you can bet money that the mayor is thinking much more about the poor and the homeless and the agencies that support them than he is about rich Pacific Heights Ladies Who Lunch. Google for "Gavin Newsom" and see what the guy stands for, and what's he's done for San Francisco. He's pretty cool.

The median income is so high because there are so many people here with so much money. "Poor" people here make more money than "poor" people in other areas, though, largely due to higher-than-federal minimum wage laws. Still, there are huge swaths of San Francisco that are "poor," and the mayor has focused a large part of his administration on serving the poor and the homeless.

Re:Good idea...but...

[e40]

Federal social services have been cut, steadily, since the early 80's, started by Reagan. In the 80's there was a flood of homeless into the street from mental institutions. Anyone in Berkeley in the 80's could tell that most of the people on the street were plain nuts and needed full-time help.

Berkeley and SF are tolerant places. The cops don't throw them in jail (or beat them and tell them to get out of town). Many places across the US are very intolerant of homeless people, and will run them out of town.

The weather is good most of the year (not too cold, little rain).

Put all these factors together, and you get a recipe for attracting homeless people from all over the country.

It's not an SF problem, it's a US problem. The US should do something about this.

Re:Good idea...but...

[ergo98]

The best way to help the least fortunate is often by increasing the size of the economic pie - basically by making the middle class richer by encouraging economic commerce and innovation (cue naïve sarcastic remarks about Reagan's trickle down economics. Note, however, that I'm talking about the middle class rather than the rich. Furthermore, I am not speaking about tax cuts, but rather programs or initiatives that expand the economy, such as encouraging technological growth). Perhaps the premise behind free wireless is that it will lead to a slew of new programs and services in the San Francisco area that will lead to a lot of taxable commerce - tax revenue that can then be used to provide mental health support for some of the homeless. The most effective route to a goal isn't always the most direct.

BTW: An enjoyable read for the armchair economist is the very enlightening The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created [amazon.com]. It basically covers why some countries achieved such prosperity (hint - it isn't that they stole it from the poor countries).

Re:Good idea...but...

[cdrguru]

We emptied the mental institutions because there was a general concensus at the time that these people were being abused by being kept in an institution. It was much cheaper to keep them locked away somewhere than it was to dump them out on the street and then try to clean up the mess. But, the decision was made that somehow it was unfair to these people to lock them away.

Now, mental institutions have never been one of my favorite places to visit, and especially not as an inmate. However, did we really do these people a service? I think not. However, this was absolutely not a case of "shrinking social programs" - this was all about liberating the mentally ill. Look where it got us.

Re:How...?

[magarity]

San Francisco has a ridiculously high poor and homeless population. It's truly obscene

Transient homeless migrate to whereever they get the most handouts. It's a real problem here in Denver as well. They know that a lot of people in this area give handouts so they flock here. Same with SFO. See your own last sentence:

the mayor has focused a large part of his administration on serving the poor and the homeless

Let me guess: this a focus on shelters and free meals? I bet if it was a serious transition to work program, they'd flee to other parts.

Wow!

[nicktripp]

Something tells me that monitoring the Internet activities of the citizens of San Fransisco is about to get a lot easier. Who needs Echelon when the government can route all traffic through it's own system by giving away the access for free?

Any Private Industry worth a damn. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

such as represented by Microsoft, Boeing or any lobe of the telecomunications and broadcasting industry, is quickly recognized as having social leverage, and is thus co-opted by the government.

When the day comes for an uprising, you won't be able to trust your phone or your computer or your local air carrier to help you out.

The idea of Capitalism being an instrument of freedom is an illusion sold to stupid people.

By the way, you should learn how to spell. It makes you sound as half-assed as your ideas.

-FL

Re:How...?

[dfn_deux]

San Francisco is a fairly expensive place to live, there are not a lot of poor people there. I'm sure they are only concerned with the people who actually have an address- not homeless people, who don't pay taxes, or vote.

This is a ridiculous statement from someone who has obviously not been to San Francisco. SF has some of the largest housing projects in the state. Also, it has rent control laws from the 60's which means that many of the people who live in the number streets south of Golden Gate park are not the upper middle class families that you imagine. This initiative is just a gross mismanagment of public funds. If the city really wanted to do something that benefitted more people they could just remove the tax burden that will be used to fund this mandate which would also have the secondary effect of not putting commercial WIFI busineses out on their collective ass. Maybe SF should spend this money on upgrading their sewage and water facilities, some of which have been in operation since the before the last century, or maybe lowering the cost of the Muni bus and light rail system so that the public transportation becomes an affordable alternative to vehicle ownership, or maybe they could instead use this money to build more free public parking in a city where the monthly cost for a covered spot is over $500 in many areas.
Governments should not be in the business of competing with private enterprise, especially when the arena in which they choose to compete is not directly benefitting all the tax payers which will foot the bill. I'm sure the people who live in Hunter's Point or The Tenderloin would agree that this money would be better spent on Police, Fire, and other critical infrastructure in a city where shootings, fires, etc.. are a regular part of daily life.