21–30 of 34 posts
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-Francisco-may-condem...
It’s not like Zuckerberg asked to have his name on the hospital, he donated a bunch of money and they named it after him. All this politics around a donation is ridiculous
But he did. According to the article, the hospital is contractually obligated to use the name for 50 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the hospital should release a statement supporting Zuckerberg and the donation? Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics.
I think there's a bit more nuance, and that the behaviour of tech leadership figures can appear strange and hokey from the outside too. Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Providing donations for healthcare services is admirable, and I don't see any issue with Zuckerberg doing that with his name attached. Req…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're free to give the money back. I mean I wouldn't take money from a murderer, or some other bad person.
It's also worth noting it's not the hospital itself actually objecting to anything, it's the San Francisco City Council. I'm not sure they actually have any power over it one way or the other.
If what I've read is accurate, his name is on the hospital at the insistence of hospital administrators. They were hoping it would encourage other, similar donations. It seems he made the mistake of letting hospital administrators have something they wanted on top of the mistake of donating a large amount of money towards public health care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. > Requiring your own name to appear on everything from street signs to labcoats for fifty years as part of the conditions of the donation, however, seems unusual at the least Maybe. I mean if I had a hospital renamed afte…
>>> e: Politics in San Francisco are out of control. In my estimation from afar it's like the liberal version of the colloquial Alabama conservative politics. >> j: Let's start by assuming that the city has a reason for their stance; as I assume you do for thinking that politics in the city is out of control. > e: Not really sure what you're trying to get at here. Just trying to encourage reasoning about viewpoints d…
Great. Thanks. Always a good thing for people to do and we need more of that. I wouldn’t say it’s warranted here, however, because I can see viewpoints and also think they are “out of control”. (Just a term of convenience so please don’t read too much into that specific way of phrasing things).
For example, I can see good intentions or the viewpoint behind letting people defecate and do heroin in the streets, and also come to view that letting people do so is still a crazy idea. (And I do, in fact I think it’s absolutely out of control).
Similarly, I can understand a small town in Alabama wanting to teach the Bible in their public schools because it’s their schools and they pay for them, but also find that utterly incompatible with my views.
Good ole’ Midwest. Right smack in the middle ;)
I object to the editorialized title. No one condemned him for giving the hospital a bunch of money. They condemned him for being Mark Zuckerberg (a human being who shouldn't have hospitals named after him on account of his being Mark Zuckerberg, so they say).
They're free to give the money back. I mean I wouldn't take money from a murderer, or some other bad person.
From the article: > “We’re of course thankful for the gift and we’re thankful for any gift to our most important institutions during this time,” said Matt Haney, another supervisor backing it. “But that doesn’t mean that we should for forever essentially have given away advertising rights on this most essential public institution.” Doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance
"we are thankful for the money you gave us in exchange for agreeing to naming rights. but it's unreasonable that we should have to give you the naming rights that we agreed to as a condition of taking your money" does that seem more or less unreasonable? because as far as i can tell, that's what happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he did. According to the article, the hospital is contractually obligated to use the name for 50 years.
Sorry you're wrong. Zuckerberg did not want his name on the hopstial. SF General pushed him to put his name front and center (ostensibly so other rich people would be "encouraged" to donate as well).
The linked article says removing the name would require returning the money per the terms of the contract and "the hospital agreed in 2015 when it accepted the $75 million that it would keep the Zuckerberg name for at least 50 years."
Another article [0] says "[...] Zuckerberg SF General Hospital, a name the Zuckerberg-Chans bought themselves in 2015 for $75 million."
[0] https://sfist.com/2020/07/24/more-supes-call-for-stripping-z...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry you're wrong. Zuckerberg did not want his name on the hopstial. SF General pushed him to put his name front and center (ostensibly so other rich people would be "encouraged" to donate as well).
You may well be correct, but I'm unable to find anything confirming it. Do you have a source? The linked article says removing the name would require returning the money per the terms of the contract and " the hospital agreed in 2015 when it accepted the $75 million that it would keep the Zuckerberg name for at least 50 years. " Another article [0] says "[...] Zuckerberg SF General Hospital, a name the Zuckerberg-Cha…
Anyway, here are two Bay Area journalists who discussed this a few years ago when this topic first came up: