At first. I thought that this might have been on purpose:
But no, it’s just arrested decay, as this nearby sign indicates
Well this is how things were shaping up way back last year, when the fun-loving North Bay Bros of Autodesk teamed up with East Bay radio personality
Sandy Beach, J Crew, Sam Francisco, Greek Aphrodite, oh, “Roman Mars” to redesign our official flag.
Now, at the time, the plan was to have a contest or something with a “San Francisco official” giving input, you know, for color of authority. But here in the West Bay, this scheme might not be all that popular, so I was wondering who was going to step up to climb up the flagpole / lightning rod, you know, for no good reason.
Well, nobody’s stepped up yet, just saying. So that means things are behind schedule, since all this was supposed to get going last year.
And when I say things, I mean, there’s no way that you could come up with one new flag design that would get voted in over the current version, so the effort is to first get people to agree to chuck the old flag and only then come up with the replacement. The auslanders have decided on a two-stage process for us.
And when I say voted in, I mean that the People Of SF would eventually be able to weigh in with big fat VETO stamp, in one fashion or another. (Remember when Our Designerly Community tried to wholesale change the official flag of Iraq? It didn’t go so hot. That’s something to consider, College Boy. And remember this recent attempt to change the UC logo? (I wonder if we ever got our money back for that one?))
And I mean that Mayor Ed Lee right now has never been more unpopular right? So, who’s going to step up to shepherd this New Flag plan?
I know not.
Anyway, let’s see if 2016 shakes out better for this misguided effort…
Here’s how the Twitter looked this AM after opening a new window:
Then I says to myself, I says, “Oh no, I’m now without TWITTER’s MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE EVER!!!”
But then I double-checked a few minutes later and it turned up once again, like a bad penny:
I have nothing against Moments, but it’s not for me. I only ever click on it by mistake, especially after it switched places with Notifications…
1. Will the Geary BRT end up being a good thing? IDK.
2. Will the Geary Merchants Association ever accept it? No, definitely not.
3. Will our transit overlords figure out a way to placate Japantown, which is up in arms over the pending destruction of the pedestrian bridges connecting the north side with the south side? Probably, but I don’t know how they’re going to do it.
Here’s some video of Geary merchant David Heller berating said transit overlords, with county worker Peter Lauterborn playing the role Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park:
How many Seinfeld-ian moments did I see last night afore I left? A whole bunch.
Oh, and some monkey wrencher(s) stole the registration sign in sheets and some filled-out comment cards? Whoops. Is this kind of thing akin to Target getting hacked and having your email address spread about? Sort of.
On It Goes…
And check it, from our local Paper Of Record last year:
Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.
Here’s your lede, buried:
“When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax.”
All’s I know about Fixed is the first few posts here.
IDK, I was always skeptical of Fixed’s success percentage claims and, IMO, its employees / contractors should never have touched any official ticket placed on any car, but it’s sort of amusing to see how far our SFMTA will go to protect its big cash cow…
What the SFMTA really wants, in its dreams, is a household transit tax, what would cost you about $500 a year, whether you ride the MUNI or not, and then it wouldn’t have to begging for money as much, and then it wouldn’t have to pay so much heed to any random San Francisco Board of Supervisors Member, you know, fucking Supervisors…
Dream on, SFMTA. And until that day, WAKE UP, SFMTA:
Sometimes, the Vision Zero people show their work, they show how they came to their faulty conclusions, hence this posting.
So here’s the
When a plane crashes, we don’t call it an “accident.”
Uh, yes we do:
All the time, as a matter of fact. Oh well.
Let’s try again:
“Another reason is that “accident” is not neutral. It implies a lack of guilt.”
No. It, at the very least, implies a lack of intent, actually.
Oh well again.
It’s hard to find much against the new-ish term Vision Zero, but here’s a stab at it:
“Chasing infinity rather than incremental improvements looks even dumber.”
Yep, pretty much…
Airbnb is pulling out all the stops here.
Let me just say that first of all, no “minor” violations of San Francisco’s short term rental laws will result in anything like a $435K award. Sorry. And also, by the time any “awards” are handed out, said violations are no longer merely “alleged,” but actually proven.
And now, on with the show:
“Noted Law Firm Browne George Ross LLP Provides Review of Legal Impacts of San Francisco’s Prop. F
Proposition F creates a profit-motivated private right of action even if the City and County of San Francisco finds no violation.
WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? YEP. WHAT PROP F ADDS ON TOP OF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF $250-$1000 A DAY, ASSUMING THAT THE RESIDENTS BRINGING SUIT ACTUALLY WIN. THE REASON THAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SFGOV DOES IS THAT SOMETIMES SFGOV LIKES TO SIT ON ITS HANDS AND DO NOTHING, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IT’S DONE VERY LITTLE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THE LIKES OF WHICH WE’VE BEEN SEEING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND, IN FACT, THE LITTLE THAT SFGOV HAS BEEN DOING LATELY WAS SPURRED ON BY THE PROSPECT OF PROP F. SO ACTUALLY, PROP F IS GOOD BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY PAYING OFF. AND, AS FAR AS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED” IS CONCERNED, SOMETHING SIMILAR IS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING LANDLORD REFUNDS OF RENTAL DEPOSITS. SO IF A LANDLORD IMPROPERLY RETAINS AN APARTMENT SECURITY DEPOSIT, THE TENANT CAN SUE FOR NOT ONLY THE WRONGFULLY RETAINED PART BUT ALSO AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE DEPOSIT AS A KIND OF SPECIAL DAMAGES. SO A LANDLORD’S MOUTHPIECE COULD ARGUE THAT THE TENANT SUING IS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED,” BUT THAT WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE TRUE, RIGHT? AND IN FACT, THIS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND LAW SCARES LANDLORDS INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO THAT NO LEGAL ACTION EVER NEEDS TO GET KICKED INTO ACTION. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?
In other words if someone wishes to sue their neighbor even after the city and County of San Francisco has determined there is no violation, an unscrupulous individual can still file a lawsuit and simply claim damages amounting to as much as $435,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
WELL, THIS LOS ANGELES-BASED LAW FIRM IS SIMPLY ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER USING AIRBNB OR WHATEVER TO VIOLATE OUR LAWS WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AFFECTED. BUT LOTS OF AIRBNBERS DON’T EVEN LIVE IN SF, RIGHT? SO IT’S RATHER MORE RESIDENT SUING AIRBNBER AS OPPOSED TO “NEIGHBOR SUING NEIGHBOR,” RIGHT? AND HEY, HOW CAN AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL” GET AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? AND HEY, “NOTED” LA LAW FIRM WHAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF AFORE, HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER REPRESENTED AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL?” HMMM… THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ON. IN ANY EVENT, UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS WITH WORTHLESS CASES WON’T WIN AT COURT SO THEY WON’T GET ANY DAMAGES AT ALL, RIGHT? AND LET ME JUST SAY, ANY AIRBNBER WHO ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING $435K PLUS HAS REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWED UP. THESE WILL BE UNIQUE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY.
Because litigation is so incredibly expensive, time consuming and stressful many people will pay to get out of suits even though they have done nothing wrong.
BOY, WHAT A PITCH FROM A LAW FIRM – YOU DON’T NEED US, JUST PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYBODY EVER ASKS FOR AND THEN WAIT FOR THE NEWS TO SPREAD AND THEN GET SUED AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND NOTE HERE, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR AIRBNBERS (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR SOME) – I’M SAYING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR SAN FRANCISCO. AND ACTUALLY, PROP F WOULD BE GOOD FOR LOS ANGELES LAW FIRMS, POSSIBLY, IF LA-BASED AIRBNBERS GET SUED IN SF AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL ATTORNEY, THEN MAYBE EVEN THIS LA FIRM COULD GET IN ON THE ACTION.
Proposition F will exponentially exacerbate the problem by encouraging an untold number of new lawsuits, thus delaying even more those who appropriately seek justice through San Francisco Superior Court
WELL LET’S SEE HERE. PROP F WILL BE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS SF SUP CT IS CONCERNED. IT’S NOT GOING TO EXPONENTIALLY DO ANYTHING.
Well, this is news to me.
Via Omar Masry, here’s this:
(Science, meet Local Politics! Local Politics, meet Science!)
Myself, I don’t approve of this Clintonian-style compromise, but that’s just me. And of course, I’m not the Emissions Czar of San Francisco, so carry on, NIMBYs.