How the pandemic disrupts SF

Things that change in crisis often stay changed

Somebody mentioned this the other day and I keep thinking about it.

The idea is that during any national or international crisis/catastrophe, we are forced to make changes to our daily life. And then, over time, those changes become part of our daily life.

Take 9/11. Before the terrorist attack, we never thought about taking off our shoes to get on an airplanes. Now we plan ahead and wear a pair of socks that don’t have any holes.

Airport security became became a time-consuming fact of life. And, more subtly, post 9/11, we became much more conscious of the security of our national border. Immigration became a hot button issue — and in some cases a right wing dog whistle.

So, naturally, the question is: How will this pandemic change San Francisco? Now and for the future?

Frankly, some of the data is pretty grim. Take this report from the Wharton Business School about the devastating 2008 economic recession:

“One in five employees lost their jobs at the beginning of the Great Recession. Many of those people never recovered; they never got real work again.”

Yikes. This at a time when estimates for unemployment range as high at one in four.

On the other hand, no one knows what is going to happen. And there is a chance that there may be some positives too. As a San Franciscan said to me recently, after weeks of virtual Zoom meetings, “Why was I traveling so much? We can do this remotely.”

So we’re about to go on a tangent about what the pandemic might mean to San Francisco. Hopefully, it won’t have you yelling at your laptop. And if it doesn’t, why not subscribe? Can’t beat the price — free.

So San Francisco . . . a few thoughts and wild guesses:

Will Zoom become the new BART? When the city is opened up again, and workers need to come into town, I think there are three transportation possibilities.

The hope: commuters accept the fact that, with COVID-19 precautions, public transportation is safe. They go back to riding BART, Muni and other public options.

The reality: People were already unhappy with the gritty conditions on BART. The fact that they might not just find the car unsanitary, but a possible virus carrier, is going to make people very wary.

The concern: Still needing a way to commute, workers eschew public transportation and drive into the city.

The reality: Gridlock. Downtown was already all but undriveable before the virus. This would be chaos.

The innovation: For all the jokes about Zoom meetings, they have become pretty commonplace, haven’t they?

The reality: A work from home option is essential during the pandemic. Maybe it will last, at least part time?

Is Doordash the new neighborhood restaurant? By now everyone has gotten the memo. It isn’t about when the restaurants open. It is about whether customers will come to the restaurant.

The hope: Cafes and restaurants open and people, who have been longing for a night out, show up to fuel a restaurant comeback.

The reality: In most areas that have opened up, customers have not responded enthusiastically. What’s more, practicing social disciplining means capacity may be at 40-50 percent. It is hard to think it is good news to see business cut in half.

The innovation: During the pandemic restaurants are pushing take out. Food service delivery options, Caviar, Doordash etc. are booming. Can restaurants sell enough catered meals to make it?

The reality: Many restaurants were actually increasing take out options before the virus. This may only speed up the process. It can work, but pricing has to be fixed. Some food delivery services have been charging up to 30 percent to deliver. That won’t work.

Are we going to turn into the city from Bladerunner? All right, this is the most depressing option. And it has the advantage of being pretty far fetched. But still.

The concern: If restaurants struggle (see above) they tend to go out of business quickly. We’ve seen that in the last few weeks, where popular places don’t just take a break, they close permanently.

Small mom-and-pop businesses are all extremely vulnerable. You could lose that little Indian place on the corner or the neighborhood kids’ clothing shop.

A lot of those small, charming cafes and stores — little cultural centers — will be gone.

And when they are gone, what’s the appeal to living in an urban center? This rush back to the cities by empty nesters, millennials and young families is predicated on being in the center of a thriving, trendy, bustling downtown. What if it isn’t thriving, trendy or bustling?

Will the urban move-back settlers leave? And what is left if they do?

The reality: Leave San Francisco? Are you nuts?

Dog day afternoons: Enough gloom and doom. Let’s go with a happier trend. During the pandemic people have been adopting pets at a remarkable rate. This Wired story says adoption sites have simply run out of pets.

According to Human Society of American president Kitty (a bit on the nose for my taste) Block, rates for taking a pet home as a foster rescue are up 90 percent in some cities. Riverside County and Chicago Animal care, two examples cited in the story, have posted notices that they are completely out of animals.

The reality: In these troubled times, adopting a pet is an investment. You might regret getting a new puppy on the spur of the moment. It’s is likely to be a long term, 10-14 year commitment.

The hope: It isn’t unrealistic though. Pets can be a source of support in times like this, as well as in everyday life. Here’s hoping, if you adopt, you get a loving, happy pet who looks at you like you are the most important person in the world. Especially if you have food.

I don’t know about you, but after I read about the latest Trump outrage for the sixth or seventh time, I’m looking for something new. And you know what? I bet your friends are too. Hey, maybe you could send them this newsletter? After all, it’s free.

Mom’s, sports, Mother’s Day and failing to catch an easy pop up.

Last week was a tough one in the columnist business. A concept I had for my Sunday Santa Rosa Press Democrat column fell through. For once the idea well had run dry. I couldn’t think of what to write.

Which is when my wife said, “You know Sunday is Mother’s Day.”

Of course she was right, and I ended up writing this. It is a little different for a sports column, but you can get your daily dose of X’s and O’s on other days.

I mention Tiger Woods and his extremely competitive mother, moms of athletes and — I realized after I wrote it — a little about what a complicated relationship I had with my mother and sports.

Love you mom. We miss you.

Lowering the voting age. Good intentions but …

I see in the Examiner that the Board of Supervisors is making another run at lowering the voting age to 16 in San Francisco. The story gives much deserved shout outs to youth groups, like the Youth Commission, who are actively and passionately involved in the political process.

Those groups also cite the “March for Our Lives” movement against gun violence and efforts to call attention to world wide climate change.

The idea is that lowering the voting age would reward these youth activists and inspire even more teens to get involved.

Which would be fine, if that was what happened. Unfortunately, like it or not, youth voting has consistently been long on the promise and short on the delivery.

And that’s not just me. Listen to Bernie Sanders after high expectations of a youth wave fell short this year on Super Tuesday:

“We’re making some progress but historically everybody knows that young people do not vote in the kind of numbers that older people vote. I think that will change in the general election. But to be honest with you, we have not done as well in bringing young people into the process. It is not easy."

The key phrase there is “historically.” As this New York Daily News story points out:

“The United States has the lowest rate of youth voter turnout in the world. In both U.S. presidential and midterm elections, older voters turn out at twice the rate of young people.”

Even in 2018, when a big young voter turnout was predicted, the Daily News says seven out of every 10 young voter sat the election out.

I understand that the premise is that if you keep lowering the voting age, young voters will change the world.

I’d just like to see them vote first.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Suggestions and comments accepted cheerfully. Criticism, not so much. Twitter: @cwnevius