Editorial

San Francisco is arguably one of the most beautiful cities in the United States. Cable cars, the Golden Gate Bridge, Chinatown, Fisherman's Wharf and the bay are all iconic landmarks. It is an interesting town with a diverse culture, excellent restaurants and an inviting climate.

But its mayor and board of supervisors remind us of a dear old daffy aunt, prone to make the most outlandish pronouncements while mismanaging or completely ignoring her own affairs.

It was former Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval who said the United States shouldn't have a military, and should depend on local police and fire departments to provide national defense. In 2006 the board voted not to accept the Navy's gift of the USS Iowa, a World War II battleship, as a floating tourist attraction to protest federal laws barring homosexuals from military service.

The board never tires of telling residents what's good for them and what's not. Plastic shopping bags are bad, and so are plastic water and soda bottles. The supervisors like to lecture and legislate on all things green and sustainable. That's why we weren't really surprised when the board voted unanimously this month to adopt a resolution proclaiming "meatless Mondays," an effort to promote vegetarian diets.

The non-binding resolution urges restaurants, grocery stores and schools to offer "a greater variety of plant-based options" to improve people's health and educate them about climate change. The measure was proposed by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, a vegetarian. There is nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet, for those who want to follow one. The production of vegetables puts money in the pockets of farmers, as does the production of livestock. That's a good thing. But we think consumers are smart enough to choose what they want to eat, and why they want to eat it, without the help of the Board of Supervisors.

We also take exception to the United Nations study data the board used to support its claims about the impacts of livestock production on climate change. Researchers at the University of California-Davis have issued a rebuttal to that study, making use of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that agriculture as a whole emits only 5.8 percent of greenhouse gases in the United States.

Both national and state livestock organizations have been critical of the resolution. We would expect nothing less. Ranchers and producers rightfully see it as an assault on their livelihoods.

We suspect the people of San Francisco won't be swayed by the resolution. There is no shortage of vegetarians or meat eaters in that town. In both camps there are many who agree that the board has failed in its mission to "meet the needs of the people of the city and county of San Francisco."

Because while the supervisors expend their time on efforts to guide residents along the proper path of enlightenment, they fail to find solutions to real problems that face residents and visitors alike each day. The city's finances are a shambles, with the budget projected to dip $483 million into the red. San Francisco beats the national averages in per capita murders, robberies, burglaries and thefts. The city has housing that is among the most expensive in the country, and probably not coincidentally also has the highest per capita homelessness rate in the nation.

The resolution and its fallout make for interesting copy, but we don't think it matters much in the scheme of things. Because like that dear old daffy aunt, who takes the city of San Francisco seriously?