Posts Tagged ‘approved’

OMG, It’s the Great San Francisco Structures Map 2012! 134 Buildings Under Construction, Approved, Etc…

Monday, June 25th, 2012

But don’t tell the San Francisco Bay Guardian, oh no. They won’t want to see certain buildings, like 8 Washington,* on this list.

Anyway, here it is, via Claudia Siegel, the San Francisco Business Times San Francisco Structures map 2012.

What an odd pattern of development, non?

Click to expand

Those West-side NIMBYs sure are strong, huh?

All the places, as of June 2012, after the jump.

*Putting 8 Washington/Rose Pak on the ballot this Fall? Sure, why not? 

(more…)

Why is McDonalds Charging Sales Tax on Donations? Anyway, the New San Francisco Happy Meal is Exactly the Same as the Old

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Well here it is, the before and after of the San Francisco Happy Meal from McDonalds.

Today’s the day that the San Francisco’s Healthy Meal Incentives Ordinance kicks in. The upshot is that now you have to donate 10 cents to Ronald McDonald House in order to get the toy.

See?

Click to expand

(Note the apple slices in the upper right. They’ve been around for a while.)

But uh oh, is Micky Dee’s charging sales tax on the donation? Yes it is. I cry foul.* (Uh, San Francisco McDonaldses, can you do that? Do you need to rejigger your registers?)

This sign was just put up. It’s all “10 cents adds a toy.”

Now I’ll tell you, I can recall buying a Hamburger Happy Meal in Palo Alto last year for exactly two-fitty ($2.50). It had more fries plus the free toy (but it didn’t have apple slices or a slice of cheese for the burger.) Anyway, prices be going up, it seems.

Oh well.

*So, the only reason to charge sales tax is if the 10-cent purported “donation” is actually for the “retail sale of tangible personal property,” right? So which is it, a donation or a sale? I mean if I donated money to Ronald McDonald House on Scott Street, they sure as Hell wouldn’t tack on sales tax, would they? Mmmm… I paid ten cents extra to get a toy, right? Thinking out loud here, could it be that, as far as San Francisco is concerned, the 10 cents shows that the toy isn’t included “for free” and therefore the sale need not comply with the HMIO, but as far as the state of California is concerned, McD’s is just selling the toy for 10 cents, so therefore, obviously, a penny needs to be collected and forwarded to Sacramento for each sale? (But of course, if you walk up and offer your 10-cent donation for just the toy, they’ll say, “No dice.” They used to charge $2 for toy only purchases). Have the legal advisers for area McDonalds restaurants thought this through? I don’t know. Anyway, the approach they’re taking appears to be a giant F.U. to the City and County of San Francisco. I’ll tell you, the path they’re on is full of rusty nails and garbage pails. Just saying. But hey, what about McDonalds Corporation in Oak Brook, Illinois? Did they sign off on this? I wonder. (Did they indemnify the local owners? By contract, or, you know, some other way. I’m just curious about who came up with this ten cent idea.) Anyway, this is me thinking aloud, just raising issues. I can’t wrap my head around “ten cents adds a toy” and how that relates to state tax law. Like when I got my Android phone plus two-year contract for $50, I had to pay another $50 or so in sales tax because the phone is worth far more than $50. For example…

Best San Francisco Examiner Newspaper Cover Ever: “Art Money for a Dog Killer” Re: Central Subway Art

Friday, September 16th, 2011

There’s no reason for me to read the actual bit, AFAIAC, ’cause I already don’t like our troubled CentralSubwayBigDigSubwayToNowhere.

Click to expand

But as for you, enjoy.

Central T Subway: Connecting People, Connecting Communities, Giving Money to Dog Killers 

BTW, here are the policies for the ridiculous Central Subway blog, you know, in case it gets a reader or commenter some day.

“Central Subway is Phase 2 of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) Third Street Light Rail Project.  It will operate as an extension of the T Third line and will extend light rail service with a surface stop on 4th Street near Brannan Street, and subway service under the South of Market (SoMa), Union Square and Chinatown neighborhoods.  The Central Subway project is a critical transportation improvement linking neighborhoods in the southeastern part of San Francisco with the retail and employment centers downtown and in Chinatown, and it will provide much needed and improved transportation to an under-served portion of the City.

The Central Subway Blog is monitored and maintained by the project’s Outreach Team.

Comment Policy

The Central Subway Blog serves as a forum for open communication about San Francisco’s Central Subway project.  We welcome your comments and expect that our conversation will follow the general rules of respectful civil discourse – we expect this community to treat its members with respect.

Bloggers are fully responsible for everything they include in their comments, and all posted comments are in the public domain.  We do not discriminate against any views, but we reserve the right not to post comments.  The Central Subway Blog will remove any comments that include personal attacks, slurs, offensive language, or otherwise inappropriate content.

Thank you for visiting the Central Subway Blog!

Linking Policy and Disclaimer of Endorsement

The views expressed by official authors of the Central Subway Blog reflect the official opinion of the Central Subway project and SFMTA.  The views of public comments may not necessarily reflect those of Central Subway, SFMTA or the City of San Francisco.

The Central Subway Blog includes useful hypertext links to information created and maintained by other public and private organizations and individuals’ blogs.  The Central Subway and SFMTA share these links solely for the public’s information and convenience.

When you select a link to an outside Web site, you are leaving the Central Subway Blog and are subject to the privacy and security policies of the owners/sponsors of the outside Web site.

The Central Subway and SFMTA do not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information contained on a linked Web site.

The Central Subway and SFMTA do not endorse the organizations sponsoring linked Web sites, and we do not endorse the views they express or the products/services they offer.

The Central Subway and SFMTA cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites.  Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Those who provide comments are responsible for the copyright of the text they provide.

The Central Subway and SFMTA are not responsible for transmissions users receive from linked Web sites.

The Central Subway and SFMTA do not guarantee that outside Web sites comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act.”

Typical Happy Meal Banned in San Francisco – Eric Mar’s Legislation Passes With Veto-Proof Supermajority

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

The typical Happy Meal (or Kids’ Meal or what have you) with an included toy has just been banned in the City and County of San Francisco. Check it:

“This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity.  The legislation encourages restaurants to provide healthier meal options.  To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.”

Today’s vote at the Board of Supervisors was 8-3, which means that any veto from Mayor Gavin Newsom would get overridden with a quickness, one would presume. Robble robble, indeed.

Legislation author and District One Supervisor Eric Mar is aiming to “challenge the restaurant industry.” Well, mission accomplished.

Get all the deets from this uploaded doc: Healthymlsdig3

So, either McDonalds will alter its menu accordingly or you won’t be able to get the likes of these Barbie dolls, these “Youth-Focused Incentive Items” in the 415 come December 1, 2011:

The upshot is that McDonald’s es infeliz. Muy infeliz. See?

Just after the vote, McDonald’s spokeswoman Danya Proud said, ‘We are extremely disappointed with today’s decision. It’s not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for.’”

So there you go.

All the deets:

“Supervisor Eric Mar’s Healthy Meal Legislation passes with a supermajority

The Healthy Meal Legislation sets nutritional standards for restaurant food that is accompanied by toys or other youth focused incentive items. Supervisor Eric Mar’s legislation is co-sponsored by Supervisors Campos, Chiu and Avalos and was supported by a broad coalition of grassroots community organizations, parents and health professionals.  Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Daly, Dufty, Mar, Maxwell, and Mirkarimi voted in support of the legislation.

This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity.  The legislation encourages restaurants to provide healthier meal options.  To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.

“This is a tremendous victory for our children’s health. Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color,” said Supervisor Eric Mar. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment.”

The effective date of the legislation is December 1, 2011.

OK then.

What the suits had to say about this plus Your Amended Legislative Digest, after the jump.

(more…)