Click to expand
Snoop Youth Football League? News to me.
Plus, an “auction of Snoop Dogg’s paintings?”
Tonight’s soiree should be quite an event.
All the deets:
“MEDIA ADVISORY: SNOOP DOGG, JOE MONTANA, RON CONWAY, DR. ROBERT “BIKO” BAKER & MORE COME TOGETHER TO DISCUSS GUN VIOLENCE
Leaders from Tech, Music, Sports, and Politics Support “No Guns Allowed”
Program at SF Press Conference on May 29
Special Guests Include Mayor Willie Brown, MC Hammer, Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott, Swimmer Diana Nyad and more
San Francisco, CA - May 28, 2014 - Entertainment icon Snoop Dogg, NFL Hall-of-Famer Joe Montana, sf.citi founder Ron Conway and Executive Director, League of Young Voters Education Fund, Dr. Robert “Biko” Baker, will be the featured hosts at a May 29th benefit to raise money and awareness of the “No Guns Allowed” campaign. Other special guests to attend include former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, recording artist MC Hammer, Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott, swimmer Diana Nyad, and more.
The evening will be kicked off by a press conference discussing gun violence solutions, followed by a live auction of Snoop Dogg’s paintings and other exclusive items to benefit both the “No Guns Allowed” initiative and the Snoop Youth Football League.”
Ever more deets, after the jump
CW Nevius, “a sportswriter from the United States” “known for his breezy writing style” has gone bonkers over Prop B, which will require Mayor Ed Lee and his appointees to disallow building height violations on the waterfront, you know, without voter approval.
I don’t know why he cares so much about this issue. Mayor Ed Lee, who embarrassingly campaigned for 8 Washington with Gavin Newsom, has learned his lesson and, in fact, isn’t even opposing Prop B, you know, officially. But Neve, well, I’m guessing he might do one or two more Prop B columns afore the election, and then he’ll do more about the forthcoming lawsuit against Prop B, oh well. You’d think Neve would come out and support simply having no height limits at all, if he’s so concerned about this issue.
“Richard and Barbara Stewart, the wealthy neighborhood NIMBYs who donated over $440,000 to stop the 8 Washington condominiums, are at it again. Official election contribution filings from this week show that the Stewarts have chipped in $143,750 in support of Proposition B, the ballot measure that would require a public vote on any potential structure on port land that exceeds current height limits.
OR, IN OTBER WORDS, THE BALLOT MEASURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE POLITICIANS AND THEIR APPOINTEES TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE ALREADY-EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE VOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO.
With the Stewarts’ help, the Yes on Prop. B alliance has raised nearly $230,000. Compare that to Prop. B opponents, whose total is a $47,633, according to documents filed at the San Francisco Ethics Commission on Thursday. So much for the lofty talk from Prop. B supporters about listening to the voice of the people.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, CW NEVIUS? ED LEE DIDN’T “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE” ABOUT 8 WASHINGTON AND NOW HE’S GETTING SPANKED BY THE VOTERS.
It sounds more like the voice of two people who live on the waterfront and want to protect their turf.
WELL, THAT’S THE SYSTEM, RIGHT NEVIUS?
So forget city government, the Port, the Planning Commission and elected officials.
WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE VOTERS MEANT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR HEIGHT LIMITS, NEVIUS?
If you want to build something along the San Francisco waterfront, it seems you’d better pay a visit to the Stewarts.
OR, WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS?
And here’s the kicker. A recent poll shows that Prop. B is in trouble.
WHAT’S THAT, IS THAT THE SOUND OF ANOTHER FLIP FROM THE EAST BAY’S #1 FLIP-FLOPPER? LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” DIDN’T YOU WRITE THAT JUST LAST MONTH, NEVE?
Still, a case can be made that this is either going to be a lot closer than a many deep thinkers expected or – and this would be a wonderful and surprising turn of events – it might actually lose.
ARE YOU CALLING YOURSELF A “DEEP THINKER,” NEVE? SURE SEEMS THAT WAY. LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.”
Begin with the structure that started the whole controversy – the Warriors new arena.
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE OUR MAYOR AND FORMER MAYORS STARTED THIS “CONTROVERSY” BY GOING AROUND THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE VOTERS ONE TIME TOO MANY – IS THAT A POSSIBILITY, NEVE?
“At first blush, if you say, “Should we vote on everything?’ people are in favor,” said Eric Jaye, an adviser to the No on B group. “Then they think about it and say, How’s that going to work?’”
WELL MAYBE THE MAYOR SHOULDN’T HAVE THE BACKERS OF 8 WASHINGTON FUND HIS PET PROJECTS. TO REPEAT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? WHY NOT HAVE THE BUILDERS RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS, WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD THING TO DO? RESPECT THE LIMITS AND THEN THERE’S NO NEED FOR ANY VOTE, RIGHT?
Well, I can give you the worst case scenario. If Prop. B wins it will be the second huge victory for the Art Agnos-Aaron Peskin-Golinger crowd. Developers aren’t stupid. If they really want to build something on the waterfront, they will have to recognize that that waterfront alliance has the political juice. Rather than put a potential development up for election and hope for the best, they will want to get the blessing of that faction, particularly the Stewarts. The result could be a series of backroom meetings where Agnos and others meet with the builders, work out an arrangement – with concessions to the alliance of course – and then put the brokered deal on the ballot with the group’s endorsement.
SO NEVIUS IS NOW AGAINST “BACKROOM MEETINGS?” REALLY? DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO ALL THE POLS ON THE RIGHT-SIDE-OF-THE-AISLE POLITICAL FACTION CW NEVIUS IS ALWAYS CHEERLEADING FOR?
Which sounds like you’re setting up a little back room protection racket to me. And yet there is a feeling that Prop. B is taking on water.
LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.”
If Prop. B loses it will be a bombshell – especially for Richard and Barbara Stewart.
ALL RIGHT, NEVIUS, WHATEVER YOU SAY…
This trial of shutting down Lombard Street to tourists looks unstoppable now.
Some rich property owners in Russian Hill have had their aesthetic sensibilities offended by those, those people known as tourists. So these richers want to gate off Lombard Street and make part of it a private.
Except they don’t want to pay for making it a private road. Oh. And the purpose of roads in California is so that people can use them – it’s like burned into the vehicle code or someplace.
So the next best thing for these white millionaires is this trial to cut down on tourism. And the way to get that is to turn an aesthetic issue into a safety issue.
For example here’s how this works when rich white property owners decide they don’t want telephone poles and MUNI wires lousing up their enclaves. Here we go, from “Report of Meeting with Supervisors Farrell and Chiu”
“Supervisor Farrell is also looking for ways to pitch it beyond aesthetics.”
So then the people who don’t want to see telephone poles and MUNI poles starting talking up the “safety issue.”
You see, ’cause if you tell the truth about your motives, then you give the rabble, the masses, the Proles a chance to undo your self-described “improvements.”
OTOH, if you say your concerns are about safety, then your biases will be given more deference if and when it comes time for higher authorities to give a stamp of approval. Of course, sometimes this safety argument works, sometimes it doesn’t:
1880: “There are too many Chinese working in San Francisco” – let’s do something about it.
2014: “There are too many Chinese* visiting Hyde and Lombard” – let’s do something about it.
One problem with district Supervisor elections is that a handful of property owners can have an outsized influence over matters that should be decided on a citywide basis. If tourists, all those millions past, present and future, threw house parties for Mark Farrell to raise money in, then maybe he’d consider what they want.
But they don’t, so he doesn’t.
*And Euros and upper-middle-class-and-lower domestic tourists as well, but just look at the worst case scenario photo here.
All right, c’mon, “Apply to be a Poll Worker!“
“Attend one training class that will clearly explain Poll Worker duties.”
“All Poll Workers must arrive at the polling place no later than 6:00 a.m. on Election Day. Although the polls officially close at 8:00 p.m., Election Day does not end until all materials have been picked up (usually around 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m.). There will be meal breaks during the day.
So let’s do the math:
Training in Civic Center before the election: 3 hours or so.
Game Day: 15.5 hours, less breaks = 8 hours straight time and let’s say 6.5 hours of OT at time-and-a-half
So what’s that, 3+8+6.5+3.25 = 20.75 effective hours of work?
And what is appointed Mayor Ed Lee offering these poor souls? Well apparently no pay at all for the mandatory training, and then:
“Depending on your assignment, Poll Workers are paid between $142 and $195 for working on Election Day.”
Is this a joke, you ask?
No, Gentle Reader, it’s not. They’re srsly.
I cry foul.
In any event, if you’re an inspector you can make a bit more, but then you gotta deal with high school seniors with their Katy Perry and cell phones and whathaveyou. They’re intelligent, you know, but lazy. And if their work doesn’t add up the way it should shortly after 8 PM, well that’s tough cookies – you’ll hear the beep beeps from the waiting cars and then the kids are gone and you, the vaunted elections inspector, will be left to fix things up.
Anyway, you get something like this for your troubles …
…but you won’t get minimum wage.
Now why is that?
[UPDATE: Comes now John King to contradict poor CW Nevius: "The fact is, the creators of Prop. B make several valid points."]
Appointed head coach Ed Lee is calling for a punt, but head cheerleader CW Nevius is cheering for a Hail Mary on 4th down with 38 yards to go:
Let’s begin by saying this is a waste of time. I know, that’s not much of an incentive to read, but it is the hard truth.
SO WHEN DID YOU MOVE HERE FROM THE EAST BAY, NEVIUS – A COUPLE YEARS AGO? FINE, BUT WHAT’S THE “WASTE OF TIME?” ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WASTING _YOUR_ TIME TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN UPCOMING ELECTION? ISN’T THAT A BIT MUCH? LIKE, DO YOU THINK SAN FRANCISCANS WOULD PONDER MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER THE HELL YOU’RE FROM TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS THERE?
Proposition B is almost certainly going to pass. That’s the ordinance that will mandate an election on any construction on the waterfront that exceeds the existing height limit.
WELL THAT’S ONE WAY OF PHRASING IT, I SUPPOSE. BUT HOW ABOUT “PROP B WILL PREVENT POLITICIANS FROM IGNORING THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT,” YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?
It’s got a snappy slogan – “Let the people decide” – an enthusiastic base of supporters and the always compelling what-the-heck factor. Why not vote for it? What’s the harm? I believe the potential harm is greater than you think.
WELL, FAIR ENOUGH, NEVE. BUT I THINK YOUR SELF-APPOINTED ROLE OF BEING THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHMENT’S “MAN AT THE CHRONICLE” DOES MORE HARM THAN _YOU_ THINK – HOW ABOUT THAT? YOU JUST MOVED TO THE MOST CORRUPT BIG CITY WEST OF CHICAGO, BUT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE DOMINANT POLITICAL FACTION WHAT RULES THIS TOWN IS JUST HUNKY-DORY. BUT I DIGRESS. PLEASE DO GO ON, NEVE, EVEN IF IT IS A BIG WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS TIME.
Not that it matters. This is seen as such a slam dunk that not a single San Francisco politician is willing to stand up and oppose it. Someone ought to express some reservations.
I BELIEVE ED LEE HAS “EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS” REGARDING PROP B. ALSO, PROP B OPPONENTS HAVE DESCRIBED THE MAYOR AS BEING OPPOSED.
Although supporters continue to call the 8 Washington vote a landslide, citywide win, the numbers aren’t convincing.
UH, NO, THEY’RE _HIGHLY_ CONVINCING. OTHERWISE MARK FARRELL OR SCOTT WIENER OR ED LEE WOULD HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD AGAINST PROP B. ALSO, IT’S NOT JUST “SUPPORTERS” WHO CONSIDER THAT VOTE A LANDSLIDE.
Just 27 percent of registered voters cast ballots, so you could say that almost three-fourths of voters couldn’t be bothered to mark a ballot.
THEREFORE WHAT? THE ELECTORATE IS THE ELECTORATE, NEVE – DEAL WITH THAT. YES, YOU’RE PARROTING THE PARTY LINE, ESPOUSED BY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT SPOKESPEOPLE IN ADDITION TO YOU, NEVE, BUT THE TURNOUT WAS WHAT THE TURNOUT WAS.
It did win across the city, but in places like the Marina and SoMa, turnout was barely 20 percent. And in Bayview and Ingleside it was closer to 10. Still, that’s enough when 50 percent of Telegraph Hill area voters turn out. That’s the strategy. Target an off-year election with low turnout, mobilize the base of voters who favor the position and then claim you’re surfing the new wave of public opinion.
BUT THERE _IS_ A NEW WAVE OF PUBLIC OPINION, RIGHT? SO YOU’RE DEAD WRONG THERE.
So if you liked 8 Washington, you’re going to love Prop B. It’s on a June ballot that will see low turnout, vociferous support from a dedicated core and Agnos haranguing anyone who dares to oppose it.
NEVIUS, DOES ANYBODY ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE EVER DO ANY “HARANGUING?” YOU MIGHT THINK NOT BUT MAYBE THEY DO, NEVE. AND DO YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN BARS TALKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT? ‘CAUSE YOU SURE SOUND LIKE YOU DO.
But since he’s already mad at me for calling his group the Flat Earth Society, I’d say this: First, if this is such a good idea, why stop there? Shouldn’t other neighborhoods be able to vote on height limitations?
UH, _ALL_ NEIGHBORHOODS JUST VOTED ON HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, RIGHT? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? DO YOU HAVE AN EDITOR? IT DOESN’T SEEM THAT WAY. WHY DO OTHER PEOPLE AT THE CHRON WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, WAY SMARTER THAN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EDITOR BUT YOU CAN JUST WRITE WHATEVER YOU WANT, REGARDLESS OF REALITY?
Or homeless shelters. Or Muni routes? Or whether the mayor should have soup or salad for lunch?
ALL RIGHT, NEVE, HERE WE GO. WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY RULES ABOUT WHAT THE MAYOR SHOULD EAT, DO WE? HOWEVER, WE _DO_ HAVE A RULE ABOUT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS NEAR THE WATERFRONT. THE CURRENT PROBLEM IS THAT THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING A DEVELOPER FROM DONATING A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT, SAY GIVING $25,000 TO SOMETHING HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE AMERICA’S CUP, YOU KNOW, TO “HELP OUT” OUR POOR POOR MAYOR AND THEN, LATER ON, WE’RE LEFT WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE DON’T KNOW WHY THE MAYOR PRESSURED HIS APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. I’LL TELL YOU, I WOULDN’T EVER DREAM OF MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER AND THEN START TELLING PEOPLE HOW TALL THEIR BUILDINGS SHOULD BE. HEY, WHY NOT THIS, NEVE, WHY DON’T YOU LOBBY FOR A VOTE TO RAISE THE HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT OR JUST GET RID OF THEM ALTOGETHER? WHY DON’T YOU BE DIRECT ABOUT THIS SITUATION, THE ONE YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT?
Elections are expensive and time consuming.
I SUPPOSE NEVE, BUT THE REASON WE HAVE THE PROPOSITION SYSTEM HAS TO DO WITH A WELL-PLACED CONCERN OVER POLITICAL CORRUPTION
They’re also a formula for gridlock. The Giants have prepared a terrific plan for a retail center on their parking lot A.
WHO SHOULD DECIDE HOW “TERRIFIC” ANY PLAN FROM THE GIANTS IS, NEVIUS? YOU, THE NOT-TOO-BRILLIANT SPORTS JOCK? YOU, THE ONE WHO JUST LOVED THE _INITIAL_ AMERICA’S CUP PROPOSAL BACK WHEN YOU LIVED IN THE EAST BAY, REMEMBER? WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOUR WORD ON THIS?
Now they might have to prepare an election strategy.
FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT? PERHAPS THEY SHOULD LEAVE IF THEY DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE. (AND PERHAPS YOU, THE MIGHTY NEVIUS, SHOULD LEAVE IF YOU DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE.)
Second, the elections-for-everything meme short-circuits the political system.
FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?
We elect public officials and expect them to use their good judgment, regardless of the views of a small, rabid group.
DID WE “ELECT” ED LEE? NO WE DID NOT. HE WAS APPOINTED FOR, EFFECTIVELY, NINE YEARS, BASED UPON A PLEDGE HE MADE THAT TURNED OUT TO NO PLEDGE AT ALL, A BIG FAT LIE. AND IF THE GROUP YOU OPPOSE IS SO “SMALL,” HOW IS IT THAT THEIR PROPS KEEP WINNING?
There are those who want to compare Agnos’ small, dedicated core to the Tea Party, which also wants to take government out of our lives.
DOES ART AGNOS REALLY WANT TO “TAKE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES?” NO, NOT AT ALL.
But a better comparison would be Howard Jarvis‘ “people power” revolution in 1978. Jarvis became a national sensation when he championed Proposition 13, which clamped down on property taxes in California.
HEY NEVE! WERE YOU ABLE TO TRANSFER YOUR PROP 13 TO FRISCO COUNTY, YOU KNOW THE WAY SOME EMPTY NESTERS IN CALIFORNIA ARE ABLE TO DO? MMMM… BUT IF NOT, YOU’RE KIND OF GETTING SCREWED BY PROP 13 NEVE, IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT ALREADY.
The result was immediate and disastrous.
WELL, IN YOUR OPINION, NEVE. AT THE TIME, NANAS AND POP-POPS WERE BEING FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOMES ALL OVER THE STATE DUE TO REAL ESTATE INFLATION. SO, IRL, THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS DUE TO PROP 13. DON’T YOU KNOW THIS, NEVE? ISN’T THERE ANY NUANCE THERE BEWIXT YOUR EARS, NEVE?
Schools suffered, in particular, and only now is there a concerted effort to walk back some of the tax breaks for businesses, which are using the measure to game the tax system.
HEY NEVE, WHY NOT SUGGEST GETTING RID OF PROP 13 ALTOGETHER, IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH?
Prop. 13 was supposed to be exciting, innovative and life-affirming.
UH, CAN YOU LINK TO THESE QUOTES, NEVE? I THINK YOU’RE JUST MAKING UP ADJECTIVES IN ORDER TO CLOSE YOUR BIT. HEY, CAN I GET A RULING HERE, EDITOR? HELLO, ED? ANYBODY THERE?
Instead, it was just the product of lazy, simplistic rhetoric. So is Prop. B.
HEY NEVE, WHO AT THE CHRONICLE IS LAZIER AND SIMPLER THAN YOU? SERIOUSLY. YOU DON’T DO ALL THAT MUCH WORK AND YOU’RE NOT THAT SMART, RIGHT?
This isn’t the Arab Spring, it is spring break. I’d worry about the hangover.
I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT NEVE. IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. BY THIS POINT, POLS SHOULD KNOW IF THEY ABUSE THE VOTERS TOO MUCH, IF THEY PRESSURE THEIR APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE PRIOR VOTER RESULTS THEN THE VOTERS JUST MIGHT RISE UP AND TURN SOMETHING THAT WAS ADVISORY INTO SOMETHING MANDATORY.
WHAT COLOR IS THE SKY IN _YOUR_ WORLD, CW NEVIUS?
Just look at this:
How are we supposed to react here, thank Goodness David Campos was born and raised in San Francisco and thank Goodness David Campos was never ever infected by that horrible Harvahd institution, am I right voters?
Actually, the big problem in this race is that President Chiu and Supervisor Campos are pretty much peas in a pod. Chiu would be a bit more pro-bidness and most likely he would be less in favor of affirmative action at UC campuses – those are the two issues I can think of where they’d differ. Otherwise, they’d carry similar bills, vote the same way, yada yada yada.
Anyway, here’s what you get from your mailbox, you get to see David Chiu staring at you from an anti-Chiu attack ad, which wouldn’t be an attack ad at all in the places where The Davids grew up…
Here’s the Wiki entry, for reference:
1. Mssrs. Matier & Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle appear to have pushed source greasing a bridge too far here.
Well yeah, but this kind of suppression motion would have been made and won by anybody, so I don’t know if the result in this case is proof of anything. But throwing out excellent evidence such as a video showing a domestic violence defendant hitting and kicking like that, well, that’s a rare thing. Why did that happen?
2. It happened because people at the SFPD screwed up. You see a bunch of somewhat pervy cameras all around so then you should go to a judge for permission to see if there are recordings too, right? That’s the system, baby. Of course there are reasons, sometimes good ones, for not going to a judge first. Who judged the SFPD in this case?
3. Gurbaksh “G” Chahal lucked out in the judge lottery. Governor Jerry Brown might consider these two recent appointments as “balanced” because they came at the same time, but only one judge is going to decide whether your video gets thrown out. Take a look here and pick which judge you want hearing your motion:
“SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced the appointment of Brendan P. Conroy and Braden C. Woods to judgeships in the San Francisco County Superior Court…”
4. Hiring public relations “Master of Disaster” Sam Singer during your legal troubles seems tantamount to a guilty plea. Just saying.
5. Gurbaksh “G” Chahal seems to really really care about his Wikipedia entry. Take a look at the photo with Barack Obama he bought – who posted that? Mmmm… Hey, do you know something? Do you know that a person (or persons) from Gurbaksh “G” Chahal’s companies have been caught editing his Wiki page? Perhaps Gurbaksh “G” Chahal himself edited his Wiki entry and perhaps he’s still doing it – that would explain a lot. Anyway, just because it looks as if some PR firm is altering Wiki doesn’t mean that some PR firm is actually altering Wiki.
That’s it for now.
Well, here it is:
Um, but I think Bill Gates is the philanthropic alpha dog, right? And others in the Bay Area have given more as well, and they did it, um, more quietly.
This is part of a coordinated push from Benioff’s PR people. One supposes the San Francisco Chronicle is too hostile a journalistic environment for this type of message, so San Fran Mag and the San Francisco Bidness Times will have to suffice
All right, here we go.
1. Don’t just look at the title, read all or part of this bit here:
This is how others perceive you, MB. Is this perspective totally wrong? Is it from Crazy Town?
2. Now here’s MB in his own words:
“They are using the Ellis Act during this unbelievable boom time, to toss everyday residents out of their homes. I think is unfair and I think it has to change. I think that our government, our industry leaders and everyday citizens — all three stakeholders — need to come together in a conversation and change that. I think these buses — which if you hang out in the Mission, [they come] every five minutes — they’ve got to be massively regulated, we have to get them off our streets”
All right, Marc. Well, why not just throw a couple hundred grand at every Ellis Act evictee in SF County? You could afford that, easily. I “call upon” you to do it, how’s that? And there’s a reason why we have the Ellis Act – it helps to make rent control constitutional. Do you know that, MB? And since when do you care about the Ellis Act, MB? You’re a follower and not a leader, huh MB? And since when are the streets of San Francisco your streets?
3. Here’s his 1-1-1 plan. Hey Marc, I call upon you to upgrade this to the 5-5-5 plan. C’mon! I’ll hector you the way you hector Zuck. Let’s dream into action. I’m the best person in philanthropy because I say I’m the best person in philanthropy! It’s as simple as that.
4. Sean Parker. Whoo boy, aren’t you supposed to temper the Billionaire Boys Club, Marc? Isn’t that your role? No, you’d rather add fuel to the fire, you’d rather encourage them?
“Amazing post by Sean Parker. One of the great visionary leaders of our time. I could not agree more with his view. http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/weddings-used-to-be-sacred-and-other-lessons-about-internet-journalism/
Here’s what you could have told Sean Parker, you could have told him that having a wedding like that in that location is HARD. It takes a lot of work, which is why most people don’t attempt something like that. But why do a half-assed job on it, why didn’t Sean Parker know enough to do things the right way? He’s not stupid, right? He just lacked perspective. Kind of like you, MB.
5. Mission Bay fiasco. Oh, that’s right, you’ve moved on, after all that bluster, you’ve moved on. Fair enough, enough said.
6. America’s Cup fiasco. Why not call upon your great pal Larry Ellison to pay our general fund about $11,000,000?
7 Twitter Enterprise Zone. Why not call upon Twitter to pay its taxes under the old rules? Shouldn’t Twitter “give back” as well?
Well, those are a few recent things ever since you became almost famous by giving big bucks to UCSF the first time. People applauded you for it, as did I. But you, Marc Benioff, aren’t the King of Philanthropy. Not yet, anyway.
So it’s sort of funny to hear you spout off like this.
(But oh, if you want to start doing something, why not start with Jimmy’s Old Car Picnic, which has recently been fee’d out of existence by the very government you so admire. Or why not do things like that in addition? You know, instead of criticizing those who don’t line up behind you like ducklings just because you ask them to?)