|
|
|
|
|
 |
There should be an effort to encourage young designers to help improve certain areas of our city. There are many examples of places and things that an investment in good design could really improve, or make work better. The temporary police barriers on the Embarcadero near the ballpark separating the MUNI tracks and Hallidie Plaza are two examples of design opportunities. Just having a well-designed, beautiful solution, however, would be missing the opportunity to encourage young and talented designers in San Francisco to participate in the effort. There should be more design opportunities for young people in San Francisco. This will help young designers get started in their chosen career, and will help the city by improving the quality of life in the city.
Jason R.
- : 2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Fascinatingly vague suggestion! Keep up the good work. I was going to suggest the city buy things, but checkmate Jason R.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
What’s vague?
There could be competitions encouraging young designers to offer proposals to better city spaces.
This will help young designers get work built and recognition and help the city fix some problem areas.
What’s vague about that?
July 26th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Sorry. I was unclear why you were suggesting such stupid ideas. Hope that helps.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I would like to suggest that Ivan Watkins not be permitted to place comments as he seems to just want to throw stones at everyone’s ideas.
This is a good example. Jason R submits a worthwhile idea and watkins replies: “Sorry. I was unclear why you were suggesting such stupid ideas.”
Excuse me, but comments like this are rude and not productive.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:17 am
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the “Establishment Clause̶
or prohibit free exercise of religion (the “Free Exercise Clause”), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making (”legislative̶
authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment’s terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
The above is a fascinating recitation, but entirely irrelevant. This website is operated by Newsom’s campaign, and not by the state. They are private actors, and have not “assumed powers that are traditionally exclusively reserved to the state.” I’m glad you passed 9th grade civics class, though.
I therefore second Gretchen’s suggestion.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Juan - thank you for your kind words regarding the 9th grade.