garcongav.jpg
Gavin introduced us to our new Police Chief last week, and Streetsblog isn’t feeling terribly optimistic. George Gascón had the following to say when a reporter asked how he would promote pedestrian safety: “I believe as we continue moving forward with many of the reforms that have already started and we continue to enhance the quality of public safety in the city and working with all the stakeholders.”

That’s a hard series of words to follow, probably because when you put them all together they still don’t add up to a complete sentence. Is Sarah Palin whispering in his ear? If asked which precinct is his favorite, will he respond, “all of them”?

Compare this with Ingleside Station’s new captain, David Lazar, whose recent traffic sting targeting unsafe drivers resulted in 123 citations and 10 towed cars. Results!

Gascón’s pedestrian cluelessness notwithstanding, much of his track record will endear him to San Franciscans: back in Arizona, he opposed immigration raids, and butted heads with a creepy sheriff. That ought to win him some local friends.

But will those friends last? A poll conducted by an Arizona TV newspaper asked “What do you think about Mesa police Chief George Gascon leaving?” At the time of writing, 69% had voted for “Glad to see him go.” HARSH.

So far we have a handful of questions answered. But how does the man feel about pot clubs? Bath houses? Street food? And other marginally-legal staples of the SF scene? Let us know what you want us to ask him about, and we’ll try to track down some answers. And hopefully he’ll be feeling a little more sentencey.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Greg Dewar

    While I appreciate the sentiment of getting “everyone” involved in policy discussions and am glad to hear people say that, can we PLEASE pass a charter amendment banning the word “stakeholders” from public discourse?

    It has no intrinsic meaning after being mis-used by people who say one thing and do another, to the point that it is usually cover for doublespeak.

  • Greg Dewar

    While I appreciate the sentiment of getting “everyone” involved in policy discussions and am glad to hear people say that, can we PLEASE pass a charter amendment banning the word “stakeholders” from public discourse?

    It has no intrinsic meaning after being mis-used by people who say one thing and do another, to the point that it is usually cover for doublespeak.