Look what I found on Craigslist! The article is asking for contributors to write for this website: "With the transformational socialist San Carlos Transit Village Housing Projects set to break ground in San Carlos and begin the process of annhiliating [sic] what is left of San Mateo County Peninsula suburbs, and with virtually zeros [sic] resistance to such projects; with an at best complacent and at worse nonexistent and archaic print and television media; the time is ripe for some radically fresh ideas... Like those pertaining to liberty, private property, and inalienable individual rights. See http://sclpf.org for a sampling of the type of writing we are seeking to expose this frightening pack 'n stack communist compound/housing movement."
Somebody please write articles and cartoons making fun of these fools because I simply just don’t have the time!
As of 22 June 2014, the website last saw an article on the first of November 2013, so clearly they need (or more likely he needs) more writers. The link to “attack zones,” amongst others, had not been activated yet. These guys are gonna take the power back from nonexistent bay area socialists, minorities, young people, and people slightly richer and more privileged than themselves.
Let’s examine their “libertarian” (read: stupid) rhetoric in the Craigslist ad as well as in the article on their site to which the article refers:
The proclamation “…the transformational socialist San Carlos Transit Village Housing Projects set to break ground in San Carlos [will] begin the process of annihilating what is left of San Mateo County Peninsula suburbs…” is connected to problems of “liberty [and] private property.”
OK ready? Watch:
1. They’re mad that a developer bought the Malibu Gran Prix, a presumably suburban entertainment complex, and shut it down. Even though a developer bought where the authors live now, threw out its Ohlone and other inhabitants, and put houses on top of it. So if a developer with tons of money buys a property, it’s somehow more nefarious or unfair than the authors’ ability to buy suburban housing and disenfranchise all the working people who can’t afford a suburban house.
2. They’re mad that suburbs are threatened (WOW, I’m stumped). If we follow their logic, suburbs are the living emblem of individual property rights and liberty in these people’s lives. Alright dudes.
3. They think, therefore, that an “agenda 21 style land grab” is necessary to build dense housing near transportation hubs (which would be terrible! Why would you do that???).
4. And of most dire insult: the authors ended the blog entry with “Criminals and vandals ransack property almost immediately upon closure.” So San Mateo (a famous local heartland of racist/classist systemic planning with a reputation going back at least to the 1950s) apparently is a suburban fortress for the white and wealthy but somehow has ransackers and vandals living somewhere who easily can jump out and ruin closed properties. Do they do it after they end their shifts at Starbucks and McDonalds or what? Libertarians, have you ever asked yourself where this may come from?
So where were you guys when the only affordable neighborhood of downtown San Jose was knocked down and buried under 280? Or when San Francisco’s living history was erased to make room for employees of Yahoo and Twitter?
Further, the site claims that San Carlos, a town of 28,000 wealthy classists and barely 100 years old, has a “traditional identity.” Let’s open a restaurant for this! We can serve El Camino Trash Burgers and discuss the illustrious history of highway 101 and its may dramatic expansions.