But in some ways this is the most important street corner in San Francisco. Go to Turk and Taylor if you want to buy drugs, get panhandled or run the risk of getting shot.

Monday night six people were shot at the intersection, one fatally. It was a classic Tenderloin scenario - a suspected drug connection, people hanging around on the street, and a shooter who fled to Oakland.

"Turk and Taylor is ground zero for the Tenderloin," said police Capt. Gary Jimenez. "It is, it has always been, and it continues to be."

This is ridiculous. Local residents ask how can we cut the homicide rate, decrease drug sales, and make downtown safe? Here's a thought. How about getting control of one intersection - Turk and Taylor?

On Wednesday, a small, sullen crowd gathered beside an informal curbside memorial next to Grand Liquor. It isn't the first time someone's been killed nearby and it won't be the last. I asked the store manager, Jim Rantisi, how many people have been shot outside his store in the 18 years he's been there.

"I don't know," he said. "I can't count, but a lot."

The problem is, the usual rationalizations don't work. When there's lots of crime in one spot, people gripe about lackadaisical effort by the police. But Jimenez has his officers writing citations like crazy. In the 14 days before the shooting on Monday, the Tenderloin Station made 89 drug arrests in the Tenderloin and he says they average between five and 12 a day.

"I've made arrests myself," Jimenez said. "It is so blatant that even a slow-moving police captain can't miss it."

So maybe we need to keep the criminals from living in the neighborhood? That's not the problem, either. As Jimenez once said, "People talk about people 'right off the boat.' My problem is people right off the BART." The fact that Monday night's shooter immediately headed over the Bay Bridge is no surprise. It's the usual East Bay connection.

All right then, what about blaming the timid district attorney's office? On the street, residents roll their eyes when you ask about arrests. Bail is set too low, they say, and besides, nobody seems able to make the arrests stick. The same guys are back on the street the next day.

But there is more to the story. First, although accused crooks do seem to make bail with ease, it isn't because the amount is set too low. Some bail bondsmen have begun offering "zero down" bail, meaning the accused doesn't have to put down the usual 10 percent fee to get out of jail.

The financing plan has been controversial, especially in 2006, when San Francisco policeman Nick Birco was killed by a van driven by a man who in a single month posted a $100,000 bail for one crime and a second, $75,000 bail for another. In both cases, news reports indicate that he put less than 10 percent down.

For the last three years the San Francisco Police Officers Association has been lobbying to get legislation passed that would require an accused person to put up at least 10 percent of his bail amount to the bondsman.

"We'd like to call it the Birco Bill," said POA vice president Kevin Martin.

As for the arrests, it is true that they often don't stick. If an undercover cop can make a drug buy, a conviction is nearly a slam dunk. But an "observed buy," when an officer spots a dealer handing a rock of crack to a user, is much tougher to prove.

One idea is to "bundle" several of those arrests. Perhaps the first and second time the guy is caught he's arrested, cited, and not brought to trial. But the third time the district attorney takes all three crimes to the jury at once.

"The D.A. thinks that would show a pattern," Martin said. "These guys have already been arrested twice and it has been no deterrent."

Unfortunately, when this idea was floated a couple of years ago, there were howls of protests. It was called a "catch-and-release" program and it was suggested that after a couple of arrests the perps would just stay home.

What's wrong with that? And what is wrong with legislation that would make accused crooks pay the full 10 percent of their bail?

While we are at it, why not pass an anti-loitering law for notorious intersections like Turk and Taylor?

The answer, of course, is that San Francisco is famously reluctant to support tough measures. People here don't want to be seen as insensitive. But for Jimenez the day is coming.

"At some point the people in this city are going to have to say, 'OK, that's it. No more.' " he said. "It is up to the citizens of this city to say, this is what is needed."

And if you have your doubts, go to the corner of Turk and Taylor and wait. You'll be convinced soon enough.

C.W. Nevius' column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle