Posts Tagged ‘blog’

“BURRITOFICATION IN PROGRESS” – Chipotle Chain Store Comes to Mervyn’s Heights, 94118 – NOW HIRING at Geary and Masonic

Monday, April 6th, 2015

After a giant Fail Whale landed upon the efforts to bring a Chipotle Mexican Grill to the masses at Church and Market a few years back, the purveyors of America’s Favorite Mission-style Burrito set about making things work up at 2675 Geary.

And lo, here it is:

7J7C4948 copy

Soon enough, everybody living on the wrong side of Divis will be able to Live Más and Think Outside The Bun…

Disturbia: Trail of “Bloody” Footprints on Hayes Leads to $5 Million House That Used to be a Baptist Church – Good Friday?

Saturday, April 4th, 2015

Nuala Sawyer of Hoodline just snapped this photo in the Western Addition – all the deets here:

Disturbing Footprints Leave Neighborhood Concerned

Via Nuala Sawyer:

Capturefsffffff

(Now I’ll tell you, whenever I leave bloody footprints, the trail generally, how do you say, attenuates as I move on. Moving on…)

Sure seems curious that this trail starts at the more-trafficked part of the NoPA / Western Addition and leads to 601 Broderick, the THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOODhouse, which, of course, used to be Gethsemane Baptist Church.

And then this building got sold for $5 million(!) as a Single Family Home.

And now it stands out, IMO, in an area of expensive houses.

Oh, here you go, CurbedSF’s Tracy Elsen called these transactions “our absolute favorite flip of the year.”

And here’s some assigned reading from Building Talker James Hill

601 BRODERICK: NOSTALGIA AND AMNESIA

But of course, I don’t know who did what to create those imprints…

Debunking the Debunkers: “Charles Vincent, Chris Bucchere, and the SFPD”

Monday, March 30th, 2015

Look what popped up in my inbox:

Saturday, March 28, 2015 Charles Vincent, Chris Bucchere, and SFPD

Take a look and then come back here – that’s how the dedebunking business works.

On March 2nd Charles Vincent, 66 years old, was riding his bike at the intersection of 14th and Folsom in San Francisco when…

When he ran a red light, per the SFPD police report (which I’ve ask to see, but haven’t seen yet), right? The problem with telling the story the way DJ Connel tells things, is that that makes it StreetsBlog-style advocacy journalism. Why not instead tell the story straight? Moving on.

“The DA is not gonna charge that person with a crime because…”

Because the DA would have to get a guilty verdict from a notoriously-slack San Francisco jury. By way of example, you and your GF can have about 14 drinks at the Foodies’ New Favorite Bay Area Restaurant and then run over a Eurpoean visitor and then stop and then move his bicycle off of the street(!) and then switch seats and then make a run for it and then, later on, you get a little bit of jail time, less than a year, perhaps just a few months. So that’s your because. IMO, a different question is whose fault the accident is. (I thought the PR said it was the cyclist’s?)

If someone is in violation of code, it’s sanctionable to kill them with your own violation?

Well maybe, it depends on how the violation relates to the harm. (I’ll point out that sanctionable is a particularly poor word choice here.)

Rewind to the Chris Bucchere case…. Chris rode his bike at approximately 31 mph…

Oh no no no. It was “at least 31 MPH.” If you want to go for “approximately,” then the answer if 35 MPH.

This case brought out a wave of rage against Chris, indeed against cyclists in general, which caused the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition to attack him…

Whoa, slow down here. What happened was that he got carried away with Strava, so he’d repeatedly “bomb” down segments of steep streets to see how fast he could complete the “Castro Street Bomb” or the “XXth Street Bomb” and, even though he was experienced with how pedestrians behave on Market street, he crossed over it way over the limit and then he made a bizarre post on the Internet. So if that’s what you want to simply call “the case,” that’s fine, but there’s a reason why this accident became international news. I certainly didn’t feel any “wave of rage” directed at me and I don’t think that the SFBC would have cheered him on absent any purported generalized wave of rage. The people who were really mad were on SF2G, boards like that. Bucchere was way off the scale.

Indeed there’s little question Chris was being reckless…”

Oh, this is quite an admission. The next step after reckless is purposeful, and nobody thinks this accident was purposeful, right? So, yes, pretty reckless. Something I do after I’ve entered an intersection legally, you know, IRL legally, is to stop just before the crosswalk at the far side of the intersection, so as to avoid hitting one or more of SF’s horrible peds. Too bad Bucchere couldn’t have thought of that. Or even slowing down a little bit – that could have helped a lot.

“But the question is here is one of fairness, whether drivers are treated comparably to cyclists…”

Well, let’s look at the case of Randolph Ang. No 35 MPH, no Strava “King of the Hill” aspirations, no internet ode to a bicycle helmet posted five hours later. He got community service, performed at, at least in part, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. No felony conviction, certainly. His post-accident behavior seemed more understandable, right?

The Bucchere case, on the other hand, went something like this: A: “That speeding cyclist blew through the stop sign and hit the pedestrians legally crossing the intersection – throw the book at him!” 

Uh no, for a lot of reasons. The people who voiced emotion against Bucchere, which included, of course, most of the cyclists who commented, (including one who said he’d feel embarrassed to continue wearing a jersey with a certain club name on it) didn’t really get into Sutchi Hui being legally in the crosswalk or not. And this wasn’t a California stop at a stop sign, as this intersection was and is controlled with electronic signals. No no, it was Bucchere’s attorney who talked about Bucchere entering the intersection “legally,” but of course this couldn’t have been true since he was speeding, so oh well to that. And big factors were what he posted online and his fascination with Strava

“But the video shows he [Bucchere] entered the intersection legally.”

Uh, do you mean on a yellow, DJ Connel? I think that’s what you mean. He was speeding though, right? Is speeding legal?

A: “Well, never mind that — he still plowed into those pedestrians legally crossing the intersection!”

Uh no, you’re putting words into peoples’ mouths here.

B: “But if he entered legally, and was near the speed limit, it’s impossible the pedestrians entered the intersection legally…

Whoa, whoa. He didn’t enter legally ’cause he was way over the limit, right?

A: “Well, never mind that — someone says he ran a stop sign during one of the blocks before the intersection.”

Well, stop signs – it looks like he did that too.

I’m not defending Bucchere…

Really? I think you are.

Amelie Le Moullac is just the most egregious of so many tragic cases where cyclists have been killed and blame-the-victim has been the first line of investigation.

Then cite all the many cases then, Dude. I don’t know, what about 2014? All of the deaths in SF were the fault of the cyclists themselves, right? Do you want to get into lessons learned here, DJ Connel? I don’t think you do.

You want to say that Bucchere was reckless but he was at the same time “legal.” You want to debunk myths, but you add some of your own.

So how does that help?

If you want to help, why not pour through all the police reports with at least one transportation-related fatality from last year. I’ll get you started, from a report I can’t link to, after the jump. Maybe you’ll learn something, IDK. Here’s something linkable, from Heather Knight. I’ll tell you, politically, this data proved to be unpopular with SFGov and, for whatever reason, the SFPD commander in charge of traffic got transferred to Timbuktu shortly after this bit came out. So there might be a bias involved, but not the kind you’re looking for.

All right, hop to it. For whatever reason, your blog is Google-worthy, so anything you write about Chris Bucchere gets sent out as a Google alert to those MSM journalists who haven’t yet cancelled their Bucchere Google Alerts. So, unlike any comments you might post on StreetsBlog, actual real nonactivists will look at what you have to say…

(more…)

Explaining Why the “Haight Street Rat” Isn’t “as close as you can get to the intention that Banksy had”

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

Here it is, back in 2010. That greenish building that used to be a bank housed Villains Vault at the time:

Click to expand

Detail, camera left:

Und camera right:

A thin red line connects these two elements, one assumes.

Here’s the update:

Banksy’s ‘Haight Street Rat’ graffiti holes up in an S.F. gallery by Rachel Howard

Now let’s say that Banksy caught Villains Vault displaying and selling unlicensed Banksy reprints as well as stuff from other street artists, you know, flagrantly, back in 2010. So then Banksy was all enough is enough, so he was all THIS IS WHERE I DRAW THE LINE.

And then he drew the line.

So really, the line is the piece, instead of the rat, right?

So if you just have the rat, you’re missing part of the story, right?

So it’s not just The Rat In The Hat Comes Back, right? I’m not saying that Banksy is all that deep but he’s deeper than a simple put-a-beret-on-it.

Now I understand why that KRON guy just went for the rat, but to do this job “as close as you could get to the intention Banksy had,” you’d have gotten the rest of the piece.

Just saying.

Or, IOW:

“The original Haight Street Rat stencil is a beret-wearing rat clutching a marker and a red line that extends from the rat to the neighboring building on the corner of Haight Street and Belvedere Street. On the adjacent building, the rat has seemingly written the text “THIS IS WHERE I DRAW THE LINE” in red which can be seen from the street above a clothing store that allegedly took street artists’ works and printed them on T-shirts and other apparel for sale without giving the artists any credit or revenue.”

Or IOW:

“Named the Haight Street Rat for its placement atop a Victorian building on Haight Street, the stenciled rat clutching a red marker is now neatly framed and displayed in a location entirely unlike the one in which it was created: the lobby of the U.S. Bank Tower in downtown L.A., the city’s tallest tower and perhaps its most conspicuous symbol of capitalism. It’s a baffling venue for a piece of site-specific street art that initially wrapped across two buildings…

Double-Park Nation, San Francisco – A Lesson in Urban Etiquette – “Double Parking: Is It For Me?”

Friday, December 19th, 2014

Here’s long-time SF blogger 40 Going On 28 going on about what really grinds his gears:

Urban Etiquette: Motoring in the City

And all that’s fine, for the most part.*

But here’s your nugget, San Francisco driving culture-wise:

4. Double Parking: Is It For Me?

The advice about not parking “anywhere near an intersection” is the Inviolable Rule. You can’t just go to the end of the block and then double-park right in front of the crosswalk – that’s not kosher. Agreed.

But what of this fairly typical sitch, in the Western Addition?

7J7C0631 copy

The street here is quite short, just three blocks, plus it’s quite wide plus, bonus, it’s not on a bus line, so all these bandits need not worry about getting a pesky MUNI bus camera ticket. IMO, the moving van has priority here, so the other drivers should avoid double parking near it.

Obviously, these double parkers should show a great deal of respect for elements of the SFPD and DPT, and they shouldn’t box in legally parked cars. If that happens to you, simply start honking your horn and then the car owner should appear within a minute or so, to hastily get out of your way. (I mean, ideally.)

Anyway, that’s my perspective, that double parking etiquette is something you’re just going to have to learn after you get here and drive around.

I’ve been driving / parking here for a quarter century now. This is JMO.

*Personally, I don’t see the harm of California stops in SF in most circumstances. I’m not talking about a MUNI driver blowing through stops at 12 MPH (as documented by a video cam on the very same bus), no, I’m talking about creeping (down the back streets on D’s) through. You should aspire to drive just the way off-duty SFPD cops do. Then you’ll be invisible to them when they’re on-duty. And when they’re trying to meet their quota for tickets on Fulton, let’s say, they’ll just sit and watch 20 cars creep through a stop sign (without ever coming to a complete stop) but then pull over the driver who only slows down to, say, 7 MPH or so. And as far as ped safety is concerned, you’re always scanning for peds, right? If so, feel free to Cali stop, particularly when there’s not a soul around.

Our Local Gannett Co Inc CorpoBlog “The Bold Italic” Asks, “SHOULD ALL WOMEN UNINSTALL UBER?” – Why This Is Funny!

Friday, October 24th, 2014

Well, first off, I don’t know where the question comes from. Is it about stuff like the hammer attack and the “inefficient route” thing from LA?

Prolly.

And, IMO, it’s not even a sincere question. Hey, how about this instead?

“Should women consider uninstalling Uber?”

Something like that would have a better chance of NOT being dismissed as a straw dog.

Anyway, I’ll bet you that there are some PR people at UBER who might not exactly approve of this straw dog headline.

Having said that, I know what the answer is, without even looking at the bit, because UBER is the kind of place what “partners” with our local Gannett CorpoBlog.

See?

Capturefdfffffd copy

So that’s why it’s funny.

[UPDATE: Whoo, well, I might have skipped through a few grafs there, but I just read the bit and here you go:

“For the record, I’m not suggesting that anyone uninstall Uber.”

So, the insincere question is answered with no, women should NOT uninstall Uber. So, the longstanding “partnerings” betwixt Uber and TBI are free to continue. Whew! 

And actually the whole bit was more about the sexy Lyon, France marketing stunt gone wrong as opposed to physical assaults, so that surprised me.

But this is fucking appalling:

“There have been a few incidents lately where Uber drivers have harassed their female passengers

Uh, abductions DO NOT EQUAL “harassment,” right? Uber drivers “harass” women each and every day, right? But didn’t these allegations relate to something like kidnapping and false imprisonment? I think so. Minimize that all you want, Gannett Co Inc. Feel free. And also feel to take your Women’s Studies major and … whoops, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean. Well, keep them coming, TBI. Keep them coming until your Virginia-based overseers ship your Page Street clubhouse on down to LA, reclaimed wood and all…]

The SFMTA’s New MUNI Blog Urges You to Raise Your Rent by Voting YES on the Half Billion Dollar Prop A, More or Less

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

Why did the people at the SFMTA just happen to start up a PR blog three months before an election that it really, really care$ about, you know, so it can continue to pay its employees their six-figure salaries? Mmmm…

Their latest effort:

“Going Green – SF’s Taxis Can Help You Go Green by Gary Fiset, September 8, 2014″

Isn’t this a headline at least a touch patronizing? I think so. “Oh MUNI, help me go green! Empower us!”

Our occasional “Going Green” feature will focus on the sustainability efforts at the SFMTA. We’ll share fun facts and figures about one of the most sustainable transportation systems, including Muni and the city’s taxi fleet, in the U.S.

Boy, that prose gags, doesn’t it? I think what dude is saying is, “Vote YES on Prop A. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!”

SF taxis come in all shapes, sizes and colors, but the vast majority of the fleet is definitely green.

Again, that prose gags, doesn’t it? But I think what dude is really saying is, “Vote YES on Prop A. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!”

In the 90s taxis were mostly lumbering Crown Victoria sedans that got 10 miles per gallon. Today’s hybrid taxis get better than 40 miles per gallon, reducing the GHG emissions by 75 percent.

Well, let me call bullshit on that one, Gentle Reader. I’m showing a City MPG of 19 Miles Per Gallon for the oldest of the Crown Vics that the SFMTA is talking about. In fact, those lumbering Crown Vics weighed less than lithe, smallish, current-day BMWs, like an athletic 2.0 litre 5 Series, for example. So, if you throw in an airport run or two during an average shift, then you’re well over 20 MPG. Oh, what’s that, in real life, with the hills and all the passengers and luggage, 1990’s era CVs got less than 20 MPG? All right, well, then that means that, IRL, today’s hybrid taxis aren’t averaging “better than 40 MPG” in San Francisco taxi service, right? I mean I see the point you’re making, SFMTA, but you’re lying about mpg and you know it.

Converting SF’s taxi fleet to hybrid and CNG has resulted in removing more than 60 thousand tons of GHG emission savings, the equivalent of taking 6,890 passenger cars off the road every year.

Again, that prose gags, doesn’t it? And please note how the SFMTA spins the putting of GHG’s into the atmosphere as “removing” GHG’s – those are kind of opposite things, right?

So it’s looking like the SFMTA, San Francisco’s worst public agency and the operator of America’s slowest big-city public transit system, is giving itself an A+ on how it has managed taxis in SF.

I cry foul.

And, oh yes, I’ve learned a bit more about the rent increase, the”passthrough” you’ll be voting for yourself this November if you vote YES, as the SFMTA really wants you to do, on that huge Prop A bond. It’ll be turbo simple for your landlord to raise your rent to pay for Prop A. Other landlords will laugh at your landlord for NOT increasing your rent. So, even if you’ve never had to deal with rent passthroughs before, you’ll get one from Prop A.

So what you say, what’s a few bucks a month in increased rent over the next seven years to pay for a better MUNI? Well fine, Gentle Reader, as long as you know it won’t be just a “few” bucks, then vote AYE, and so long as you know what you’re getting us into. But IMO, the road to a better MUNI starts with a NO vote on Prop A.

And a YES vote tells the SFMTA to carry on, business as usual, you all are doing a great job, gee thanks for all the “EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION CHOICES” [that’s an actual SFMTA corporate catchphrase, I’m srsly.], here, have some more money, build us another Subway to Nowhere why not…

Our Long Parochial Nightmare is Over: The Vandalized Slides at Panhandle Playground 94117 have been Replaced by RPD

Monday, September 8th, 2014

Well the slides at the Panhandle Playground have been replaced after three months of absence.

20140906_113412 copy

1. Perhaps the RPD spokesmodel meant that the entire slide complex was being repaired, as opposed to the $2000 plastic slide itself. I don’t think it would have made sense to repair the slide itself, due to liability issues for starters. This is a brand-new slide, one that’s similar enough to the original.

2. So some wealthy, non-profit people came by with clipboards to say that this particular playground currently earns a “D” grade? Well, OK fine, but if you talk to the people who actually use the place, they, more or less, give it an “A” grade, you know, except for the slide that wasn’t there all summer long. Mmmmm… What’s up with that?

3. Supervisor London Breed’s office was unresponsive to the email contact sent by a group of concerned parents, apparently. So she gets an “F,” or an Incomplete perhaps. (I’ve worked at two similar offices, with about ten or one hundred times as many constituents, and if the elected in charge found out about something like this then there’d be a 20-minute yell-fest and/or a passive aggressive note sent to a (lower-case “s”) supervisor to “fix this.”) So, obvs, a “communication issue” occurred, I just don’t know how common this is with her office.

4. RPD has a policy to not repair anything in a playground if it’s due to be revamped in the next two years? That’s my understanding. Does that mean that this playground won’t get revamped anytime soon? That’s my understanding. Why’s that? Read on, Gentle Reader.

5. What RPD really wants is area parents to get together to raise something on the order of [bites right pinkie finger] one million dollars, you know, the way they do things in rich areas of SF, like Sea Cliff (ala the new Mountain Lake) and Presidio Heights. Only then will RPD put your playground at the top of the fix-it list? OK fine. The funny thing is that most of the money that gets used to refurbish existing playgrounds is paid for by the non-rich, from some bond. But all this doesn’t matter for the playground at hand, because:

6. The slide vandalized in May 2014 has been replaced in September 2014 and the users are now satisfied. No $5,000,000 modernization from the RPD is needed, frankly. [Oh what’s that, RPD – this old-school playground costs you a lot of coin to maintain? Well, then why don’t you fix it up, RPD, you know, using the money we give you?]

And that’s the end of this story.

Look Who’s Blogging Now: The SFMTA! – Presenting the Brand-New MUNI Blog, “[Slowly] Moving SF [If We Feel Like It]”

Friday, September 5th, 2014

The SFMTA knows it has an image problem, so when it spends our money to make itself look better it needs to acknowledge reality. So what it does is to say, “We’re working on it, we’re trying to get better.” See for yourself here at the new official MUNI Blog.

Compare it with PG&E’s current “We’re sorry we blew up part of San Bruno and killed eight people” campaign or Buick’s “We know we have a horrible brand image that’s been built up over the decades, but please give us another chance” campaign

So here it is, the Moving SF Slowly blog. What do we see here? We see a logo that was released with recklessness. And we see “excellent transportation choices?” What does that mean? Is it aspirational? Does the SFMTA really consider itself “excellent?” I mean, just random chance would have the transit system that you, the Gentle Reader, have be average, on average, or mediocre, right? But MUNI sucks, right? MUNI is the worst big-city transit system in America, right? So where does the “excellent” part come from? I mean, you’re living out there at 42nd and Lawton and what are your “excellent” “choices?” And “The SFMTA is responsible?” Do you think that phrase is in there by mistake? I don’t. IMO, it’s more phoney-baloney, folksy PR bullshit from an official SFMTA spokesmodel. And do the people at MUNI work “tirelessly?” Well, it depends. If you’re talking about the cable car operators who skim fares off of tourists six dollars at a time to “supplement” their already-fairly-large paychecks, well, perhaps you’re right, MUNI flack. And the SFMTA’s PR machine is only starting up now, in 2014? Like, they’ve never tried to start telling their “story” before? I think that’s incorrect. Anyway, check it:

Capturedfggfd copy

And who’s Kristen Holland? Why it’s none other than Nat Ford’s Right Hand Man!

4563853173_0e19af6361_s copy

Or left-hand woman, in this shot anyway.

Hey Kristen, were you at the infamous “snitch” meeting? I think so! How has MUNI improved since then? You know, in some ways MUNI has gotten worse.

All right, we’ll see how this latest PR effort from MUNI goes. One suspects that Proposition A is the primary motive. (Hey Kristen, why would SFMTA Director Bruce Oka oppose giving you another blank check to the tune of a half billion dollars? Why not blog about that?)

An Old, Dilapidated Church for Black People in the Western Addition Has Become a Refurbished Single-Family House for White People in NoPA

Wednesday, August 13th, 2014

Well, the outside of 601 Broderick is finished.

Here are the deets, and here’s Hoodline’s effort from May.

And don’t miss James Hill, Architect:

Click to expand