Editor:
I am very disappointed that you chose to dismiss longtime columnist Julie Pitta. Julie wrote excellent informative columns about the issues affecting all San Franciscans. She must have been very good because she wrote for the RR for several years.
She was a breath of fresh air for those who read the RR – a progressive voice who wrote informed columns on affordable housing, how things work in the City, etc. I will miss her.
You owe her your thanks for the years of well-researched columns that you printed and that she wrote for free.
Good Luck finding someone willing to write for the RR after your abrupt dismissal of her.
Nancy H. DeStefanis
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
I will not miss her. She routinely called out perceived disruptive forces to the political process, except when it involved the Bike Coalition and its left hand, Walk SF, which collectively receive over $1 million in tax dollars annually, yet are probably San Francisco’s biggest lobbyists of all. That is an indefensible corruptive influence FINANCED by my tax dollars. Good riddance, Julie.
LikeLike
Folks who won’t use their real name in letters to editor don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
LikeLike
The not too subtle inference re the Bicycle Coalition is not really about Julie who, actually is fairly neutral about JFK Promenade, The GreatWalkway and Slow Streets. I think the writer is one of those who can’t get with the reality that the People want some car free spaces in San Francisco. So, Julie is just another Scapegoat.
LikeLike
Julie Pitta spoke the truth about the commentariati and the larger political forces that shape our city.
Moan about the Bike coalition if you want. I don’t like them either but as you mentioned, that’s just 1 million dollars. The various plutocrats who are massaging, promoting, and corrupting our public discourse and politics have hundreds of millions of dollars involved.
Keep in mind that hired dissemblers are everywhere. That’s why it’s hard to have an honest debate in the comment section. The people involved are more likely focusing on contrived shape-shifting tactics than actually having a real debate about choices and public policy. Public policy can’t be assembled upon a raft of gotcha-issues and hyperbole that has meandered from the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an era where people feel it is OK to cheat to win an election. Jason Kruta who went to elite merit-based Columbia University, stole signatures gathered by a loving father to recall 3 board members who were recalled by over 75% and one of whom was racist towards Asians, who nearly destroyed a high school that, because of merit admissions, was one of the top high schools in the US, and only got 20 hours community service. This woman took a sign down which was legally up, after the store owner gave approal. I had this happen to me in 2011 and would have citizen’s arrested someone had I seen it. It’s not OK to lie to win an election, or to take a sign down, or to steal ballot signatures. We have to make ethics and truth in debate the highest goal, not just winning. Win with integrity. Philhour has a right to run a campaign. Criminals aren’t getting arrested and are closing many stores, and Chan has opposed arresting fentanyl users and hasn’t fought to make sure more shoplifters are arrested. No matter Chan’s or Philhour’s views, they both have a right to put up signs. It is criminal when people take down signs or steal ballot signatures, and Julie Pitta should have had to spend a couple weeks in jail for what she did. It is immoral, dishonest and cruel to the person who volunteered to get the sign up. A good person would say you disagree and in America you have that right, and I will respond to your speech with more speech and debate you honestly and morally. A bad person takes down the sign, spreads lies, ignores inconvenient truth, censors opponents, steals ballot signatures, etc. She showed that she isn’t just trying to convince us her views are right, but is trying to prevent people who disagree with her from being heard. America won’t be a great country if acts like this go unpunished.
If she disagreed with Marjan, great, speak your mind. She tried to prevent people from learning about Marjan’s views. That’s un-American and shows a basic lack of moral values. Shoplifting, fentanyl sales, suppression of free speech, and yes, sign theft, should be punished to restore morals and order to San Francisco. What she did showed a basic lack of character. She should apologize personally to Marjan and ask for forgiveness. I’m not saying she shouldn’t be able to write again, but she should admit that America can’t survive if this kind of action is allowed and have to publicly apologize, tell her supporters that sign vandalism or theft is wrong, and as a punishment have to spend 20 hours going to stores in the Richmond and asking them if she can put up a Marjan sign. I’ve done it and it’s hard work. If she gets 100 in 20 hours, she honestly apologized. If she gets 10 she is dishonest and shouldn’t get her job back. This practice happens a lot and she owes Marjan big time. What she did is disgraceful and disgusting! I’m not saying criminals can’t change, but I’d like to see she recognizes the horror of her actions and understands, many immigrants to San Francisco, including my wife, know what it’s like to live somewhere where free speech isn’t allowed.
LikeLike
Is it ingenious or disingenuous to write largess and make hay out of a minor offense — that said person acknowledges was inappropriate. If someone tears a sign off of a public space, that is not an illegal offense. If someone tears a sign off of a private space, that could be a misdemeanor, but would not be a felony because said signage is not likely to cost more than $100.
I personally don’t condone pulling down signs. BUT as you YOURSELF say, the store owner in charge of their private property, gave permission. So grandstanding about free-speech and what not while bringing to our attention something obscure that happened at Columbia is an interesting way to make your long-winded screed. This is akin to me throwing a baseball at a straw dog and you want to bring up stealing automobiles. Get some perspective and stay in the context of matter please my man.
You are right about there being a “time” when voting shenanigans occurred in our American History. Employees at factories used to be marched to the polling where they put colored cards in ballot boxed to prove that they voted “the right way”. Vast sums of money paid “floaters” all throughout the post civil war era during the Grant administration, so much so that there was a split in the Republican Party (look up Carl Schultz) because of it.
But I guess your choice of historical analogy got you to say this:
“stole signatures gathered by a loving father to recall 3 board members who were recalled by over 75% and one of whom was racist towards Asians, who nearly destroyed a high school that, because of merit admissions, was one of the top high schools in the US, and only got 20 hours community service”
Okay, but we are NOT talking about stealing signatures here. You are. That is what people call a red herring argument. Whatever Pitta foolishly did does not rise to the level of hyperbolic venting about stealing votes and voter fraud. So what is your point? Are we dissembling, hyper-ventilating, or … What?
I’m glad that you and your wife know what it’s like to live in places that don’t really have “free speech”. But this isn’t really about free speech. Marjan has plenty of signs and advocates and adverts and tons of money pumping out her message. One sign pulled off of one window that was a private space is nowhere close not having free speech.
And you should know that too, being immigrants.
LikeLike
it would have been preferable if Justin had cut to the chase and wrote that he is not a fan of Connie, “Chan has opposed arresting…..” I get it he is upset over Julie’s misstep. I would like to have read Justin expending his frustration on Garry Tan. He, who wishes death on elected Progressives. That’s the real abuse of, and threat to, Democracy
LikeLike
Julie was far from neutral. She was highly opinionated and witnessed her attacking people on Nextdoor many times. NOT sad to see her move on
LikeLike
Is this a joke? She’s a columnist-of course she has opinions!!!!
But as I said, folks shouldn’t take people seriously who won’t use their real name.
Nancy H. DeStefanis
LikeLiked by 1 person
An abrupt dismissal that was also very well-deserved. Accountability matters, and perhaps Julie’s inability to regulate her emotions in this instance are a sign of a larger issue – seeking to silence opposing viewpoints by any means necessary.
Certainly Julia’s recent series of columns in this paper attacking Marjan (one of which was titled Billion Dollar Baby — really??) and the supposedly evil billionaires who want to take over our city were of a piece with this same divisiveness and obfuscation of actual issues for voters to decide on.
Julie’s new Phoenix project is aimed at bringing to light supposedly nefarious behind the scenes influence in local politics. That is certainly her right, and good luck to her. But we won’t forget or be distracted from the political vandalism we have witnessed before our very eyes, and what it symbolizes.
LikeLike
Billionaires and exceptionally wealthy people fund political action groups that spend money on dishonest flyers in voter mailboxes and fund untruthful advertisements to sway voters to vote for candidates that the billionaires support. Billionaires pay people who get appointed to District Attorney more than $130,000 shuffled through shell companies, and then said District Attorney dissembles. When someone works as a political consultant, the go between the exceptionally wealthy and the politicians they fund, that person is part and parcel of fulfilling the interests of the exceptionally wealthy.
You don’t have to call these real events evil. I just call it the truth.
You also don’t have use hyperbolic language like “supposedly evil billionaires that want to take over our city” without yourself being divisive and using obfuscation over the very real political forces that shape politics. Unless you are just providing cover for such very real political forces, appealing to a specific audience, perhaps even catering to their prejudices.
LikeLike