I arrived on Tuesday with my three children, ages 16,14, and 11. We were staying at the Argonaut down at the Wharf. I know that the locals shudder at the thought of the Wharf, but we wanted to be tourists and found it to be a charming area with fun things for the kids. Maybe it didn't have the best views in San Francisco, but they were nothing to complain about!

We were very early to our hotel, but they had a room ready and were extremely friendly and welcoming. The staff made a point of knowing our names and constantly sought us out to make sure we were enjoying our stay. I liked the location because Pier 39 was accessible but we were far enough away to not be in the middle of a high traffic touristy area. The room was decorated very nicely and also very comfortable.

We ate breakfast and one dinner at the Blue Mermaid in the hotel. I normally stay away from hotel restaurants. My experience has been that they are usually high priced with low quality food. The Blue Mermaid had the best oatmeal I've ever eaten. I had Cioppini for dinner and it was delicious as was also the clam chowder in a bread bowl. It was a nice atmosphere, good service, and it was not overpriced.

We went to Haight/Ashbury and enjoyed walking around and seeing the different shops. Of course we had to buy die dye! My son plays guitar and wants to be in a rock band, so he loved this area. It was a Tuesday afternoon, but we did have some aggressive panhandling. In general, people were very friendly.

We rented a car for one day. We drove around the city for a short time then headed over to the Presidio. It is absolutely breathtaking there. We saw a lot so forgive me if I mix things up, but Crissy Field, Golden Gate Park, and the Presidio were all nice places to walk around with the kids. The Palace of Peforming Fine Arts was gorgeous! We drove over the bridge and stopped in Sausalito. We had brunch at a bakery/cafe. It was a little pricey but worth it. It was a little chilly outside despite the beautiful weather so we sat inside. Still, the views were stunning.

Next stop was Muir Woods. It was an amazing place to visit. The redwoods were unlike anything I've ever seen. There was a fine mist and sunlight breaking through moss and it looked like it was set up for a movie shoot. It was truly a wonder. It was very wet and muddy from the rain the day earlier so we only spent about an hour walking around.

We drove back towards the city and ended up driving towards Half Moon Bay. I had been told of an Afghani restaurant called Kabul. We found it but unfortunately it was not opening for another few hours so we turned back. On the way back we drove down the crooked part of Lombard which the kids loved! They wanted to go back up and walk down.

We did the touristy thing and ate at Hard Rock one night. It was disappointing. I was never a big fan, but the kids like to hit one anytime we go to a new city. It was very pricey and the food was barely mediocre. We also went to the Ferry Building another night. We sampled from some of the shops. There was what looked like a shop with a restaurant. The food looked delicious, but we had eaten a late lunch so only looked.

Alcatraz was a big hit with the kids. We took the night tour which gave us beautiful views of the city heading towards the island as well as beautiful views of the city lit up from the island. We took an audio tour which was very interesting. It was a great tour.

AT&T Park was another tour that was really good. I went with my one son the Yankees fan, lol. It is a beautiful park and extremely fan friendly. It really put us to shame here in NY to see what a great park could be built for the fans comfort and pleasure on less than half of what we are spending here for the Yankees and Mets and probably not half as nice a park as AT&T. My son and I walked around the area and then took the Muni bus around checking out different areas.

The Ghiradelli Square was disappointing. There is no factory any more and mostly it was shops. We did take the cable car from there down to Market Street. It was fun for the kids and we again saw a lot of things.

I'm sure I'm forgetting things because I feel like we did so much yet there was still so much to still see. I did steal some time alone to get some delicious coffee in Ocean Beach. We walked around Castro and saw Milk Plaza. We again were delighted at how friendly everyone was. We took the Muni around just to see things not sure really which part we were in but just enjoying the shops and the friendly people. San Francisco is beautiful and it seems that no matter where you are there is a great view. If I had one thing to disagree with the locals on, ok, besides the Wharf thing, I'd say that there are great views everywhere. Maybe when you live there you can finetune it, but as a visitor, everywhere we went, we saw something beautiful or a view of the water that just took our breath away.

One thing I was surprised at was the amount of pan handlers and just how aggressive they were. I go into Manhattan quite a bit and they don't seem to be as aggressive in NY. I never felt unsafe, I was just surprised. One that was pretty funny was a man across from Pier 39 who used a bush as camoflauge. He'd jump up and yell and it really scared me at first. After awhile and realizing he was harmless, I sat at a sidewalk restaurant across the street and ate dinner just for the entertainment factor. It was honestly one of the funniest things I've ever seen, and he definitely would not get away with that in Manhattan.

I woke early on Saturday our last morning there. The kids slept in and I walked to the park next to the hotel and sat on a bench by the water watching swimmers. I can't imagine how cold the water was. I walked down the pier and went back for some oatmeal. The kids and I took a final walk down the street and had our pictures drawn by a sidewalk artist. We bought some souveniers and then headed to the airport. 2 out of 3 of my kids told me on the way to the airport that they'd like to move to San Francisco. We spent most of the plane ride trying to convince the 3rd. Considering that they are in their teenage years, that says a lot about San Francisco that they'd be willing to leave everything in NY to move there!

My apologies to Stu because he gave a very detailed list of things to do and sights to see and I don't feel we did them justice. The dungeness crabs were out of this world and I never liked crab before! We had a great time being tourists though and seeing sights and wandering around. We got lost a few times which was great because it gave us a chance to really explore. So forgive me if I didn't name names of everything because part of the fun was just in the discovery of things there. We will definitely go back and I promise to have better details and names of everything! My advice though is to just go!

Sounds like a lot of fun! Did you have decent weather (because it's been raining a LOT lately)?

I'm so glad you had such a great time. You did a wonderful job seeing a great deal of the city. Yes, the crabs are yummy, aren't they? I always wonder if tourists really do have a good time in SF and hope the negative parts (panhandlers, litter, etc.) aren't too off-putting. I hope you get a chance to come back to this neck of the woods soon.

Our kids liked san francisco too! We all had a great trip there a few years ago. Sounds like you had fun!

It's great that you had a terrific time and even greater that you've come back with a trip report! We sometimes wonder what happens to the folks who come here to ask for advice and then kinda disappear.

So, you met the Bush Man! He's a fixture over in that area!

BTW, don't feel badly about staying at the Wharf, it's the number one hotel destination in San Francisco. It's an especially kid-friendly part of town.

Hope you get to come back soon!

Don't apologize for not doing everything on my list. We've been here for 34 years, and a few things on my list we only discovered within the last 5 years.

A person on the aol forum was surprised by the Bush man. Unfortunately, she was somewhat disabled and walks with a cane. She fell over & injured herself. She had to restrain her husband from going after Bush man. It will take 1 good 20 million dollar lawsuit against the Ciy - and the Bush man will be history, & people here will wonder why the City allowed him to do his stuff in the first place.

Stu Dudley

Great trip report! It sounds like you were able to see quite a bit. My husband and I are going to SF in March; I can't wait.

Thanks for sharing your trip report.

Hey Stu, what is the City supposed to do about Bushman when many tourists find him amusing. They can't really arrest him unless someone swears out a complaint and if they do, you just know that lots of people will claim he is being harassed for his "performance art".

BTW I think visitors should send their complaints about panhandlers, etc directly to the SF Board of Supervisors (or as we refer to them the Stupes) because they scream the most whenever anyone wants to institute any program aimed at controlling panhandlers. Believe me many of us residents are tired of panhandlers also, but fortunately for us that is, they congregate mostly in the tourist areas where they can find people who will give them money--most long time residents don't.

They can't really arrest him unless someone swears out a complaint - that's not correct. If he's violating the law (is he?) and the police see him doing so, they can arrest him without a complaint.

and if they do, you just know that lots of people will claim he is being harassed for his "performance art"- of course, this being San Francisco

Like I stated - a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City would settle things. It's not "art" if someone is shocked and has a heart attack, or falls down & injures herself like the person on AOL did (BTW, the AOL person is a long time Bay Area resident whom I have met). I'm actually surpised that one has not occurred already. Seems to me that the city has some responsibility if an act that is potentially "harmful" occures on a predictible & regular basis, and the City does nothing about it. Cute - at times - until it harms someone pyhsically.

Homeless - I don't think the Stupes/Mayor will ever do anything about it with the Stupes so fractured as they are, and almost unamiously against anything the Mayor proposes. It has been that way for the last 3 mayors. We were in NYC in Oct '01, and I saw only 1 panhandler - there were scores of them when we were there about 8 years earlier. A court case, funds from the State of NY, and a strong Mayor who could pretty much do what he wanted, helped solve the problem for NYC. Don't expect that to happen here. I've heard Willie express these same opinions.

Stu Dudley

NYC!!!???

Which panhandler would want to stay in New York City where it's cold and blowy and snowy and canyon-y?

The weather is better here, lots of agencies to give out free food - BTW, are the Stupes (cute!) still handing out $400 per panhandler?

The weather in NYC did not change from 93 to 01 when the number of panhandlers decresed substantially. Maybe when they were forced to leave NYC, they came out here. How about figuring out how to send them to Hawaii or San Diego where the weather is even warmer than it is in SF???

Stu Dudley

Wow! Since I started the panhandling conversation, I'll add my 2 cents. While I was amused by the Bushman, it is true that someone could get hurt. I honestly thought that a man who was insulted or felt macho would have attacked him. Still, I'd take him over some of the aggressive ones we saw throughout the city.
As far as NYC, it used to be a huge problem, especially the squeegee men. They would accost drivers at streetlights and brigdge and tunnel crossings. Many would actually smash car windows if refused. I used to be very afraid driving in Manhattan for that reason. Guiliani did a rather amazing job cleaning that up. It was surprising because NYC is a very liberal place and he really did crack down hard. I don't know anything about the political situation in San Francisco, but again, you built one of the most beautiful fan friendly stadiums in the country at no cost to tax payers. I think you could handle the pan handler situation.
Overall, its a beautiful place, I felt very safe, and if the Bushman is your biggest problem, then that's not such a bad thing. I will definitely be back!

I don't know anything about the political situation in San Francisco, but again, you built one of the most beautiful fan friendly stadiums in the country at no cost to tax payers. I think you could handle the pan handler situation.

Oxymoron - the only reason we COULD get the stadium built is because it was done with private funds. If we wanted public funds, we would have had to agree to hire all those homeless people to build it, fight over whether we could move the homeless off the site if they were camping out there, use only union labor, etc. Nothing gets done here if it's a political hot potato, which private funding for the stadium was not.

sf7307-you may have missed my point. The voters blocked tax dollar funding several times. That is an accomplishment. We are building 2 stadiums here in NY at tax payers expense and the amount is over 1 Billion each. On top of that, we were unable to keep our 2 NY football teams in NY. They now both have 100 year contracts to get their stadium built in New Jersey. We have a family here in NY that owns Madison Square Garden. He opposed the football stadiums in NYC because it was competition for him. He owns a cable company on Long Island which has also fought competition. So my point about your political situation was meant as a compliment. While we tackled the panhandlers, we lost jobs and revenue because one man in NY wielded more power than the voters. In fact, we never really had the chance to vote on it either way if I recall correctly.
Your city may not be as large as our 5 boroughs, but your transportation system was great, the city was very clean and very safe. Something is being done right there. Unfortunately the panhandlers are not going anywhere right now, especially in this economy, but with enough public outcry and maybe an election coming up, I'm sure things could be done.

I know this wasn't meant to be a political discussion, but since it's your thread LOL!

You noted that NY is a very liberal place but Giuliani cracked down hard on the homeless/panhandling situation. Well, SF is an ultra-liberal place and no politician will crack down hard on anything that's not considered "politically correct" - noone here has Giuliani's backbone (and believe me, I'm far from conservative politically).

As for the stadium, I don't actually recall why the stadiums were on the ballot in the first place, but my guess is they had to be due to Prop 13 -- since most increases in taxes have to be put to the voters. It fits the very liberal political climate in SF that the voters would not permit public funds to be used for the stadiums (AT&T or Candlestick).

So you're right in one sense - it's because SF is basically a very liberal city that we DO have lots of panhandlers, and DON'T have publicly-funded stadiums.

interesting political discussion....sf7307, your viewpoint does not sound far from conservative politically, on this issue anyway. It sounds like pragmatic skepticism to me, lol.

Glad you enjoyed your trip, writealiving. I think the Argonaut is a gorgeous hotel and would love to stay there one day. I stayed at the Sheraton near Pier 39 and that was pretty nice also....cool mod decor. I was also so pleasantly surprised by an excellent meal I had in Fisherman's wharf. I can't remember the name but it was near the main Boudin's and it was the only one open late at night. Maybe Stu knows the name. Everything was outstanding including the clam chowder. I thought there were only tourist traps in F.W.!

It sounds like pragmatic skepticism to me, lol.

From now on, instead of calling myself a "moderate Democrat", I'm going to refer to myself as a "pragmatic skepticist"!

Maybe Stu knows the name

only if they have a branch elsewhere in the City!

sf307 --Bushman is not violating any law that I'm aware of. He could be arrested for assault but only if a person states that they were afraid of bodily harm, hence the need for a complaint. So the police would have to witness him "suprising" someone then ascertain that the person was in fear of bodily harm, then arrest him. Sorry, but when people are being shot in a drive by in the Tenderloin, there are better uses for limited police resources.

Sorry, but when people are being shot in a drive by in the Tenderloin, there are better uses for limited police resources

I don't disagree at all, but when the city gets sued for millions if someone has a heart attack, it may offset the savings! (By the way, I think your description of the elements of the crime of assault is not right, either....)