Posts Tagged ‘board of supervisors’

Pop-Up Ford Motor Company Bikeshare Rental at Fell and Central – Vandalized Already – Where Can the Next Station Go?

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Here it is:

7J7C8033 copy

The SFMTA or somebody experimented with this part of this part of Central by putting long-lasting,  downtown-style hash marks on the ground, as if they were going to put meters here. But these spaces are gone now, of course:

7J7C8034 copy

Here’s a post, from a protester, one supposes:

7J7C8035 copy

(I’ll tell you, this is an amateur effort. I don’t think this is the way to organize after missing your chance before installation. Perhaps you might get some palliative cliches from London Breed’s office (but I wouldn’t address her as a mere Supervisor, oh no), but the other two literally get paid to promote corporate bike rental / advertising in Frisco.)

Here’s the vandalism, on the Ford part. It’s already been cleaned as best as you can expect from the basically minimum-wage (15% over minimum – hardly “living wages,” as was promised and as is still claimed) workers:

7J7C8036 copy

La mise-en-scene:

7J7C8037 copy

There was conflict online as well. Some of it looked like this:

Capturesdfgsddfdf

That discussion of bicycle activists vs. area locals went on and on, oh well. I’m not sure how the Ford Motor / Motivate crew went about doing its vaunted outreach, but it seems to have been pretty minimal. I think the Bay to Breakers people have put a lot more effort in, by way of comparison, with less at stake.

Anyway, the Ford Motor people are out there, scouting more locations. The next location after this certainly won’t be at Hayes and Cole, which was Ford’s original choice. Apparently, about ten locals yammered about this and that was all it took to get Ford to back down. Of course, that was before installation.

Now, feverish with victory, the residents of Hayes and Cole are discussing where the next Ford Motor station should go, to fill in the network. I think the suggestions were John Adams campus of CCSF at Hayes and Masonic, USF, the Panhandle, and maybe St. Mary’s, I forget. But they sure as Hell don’t want anything like the above anywhere on the far end of Hayes Street.

It wouldn’t take much for Ford to take its half-assed, minimal notice and turn that into actual notice, if it wants its expensive marketing effort to be less controversial…

Haight-Ashbury Sidewalk Hearts Honor London Breed for being a Part of the Summer of Love? – Somehow

Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

Here you go:

IMG_6897 copy

It’s the 50th Anniversary, of course. Oh look, some of them have names:

IMG_6924 copy

And look, London Calling:

IMG_6919 copy

IDK.

Chris Daly Warned Us

Monday, July 10th, 2017

He did, man.

As seen on Clement, quartier intérieur de Richemont

7J7C5834 copy

At least they are doing this With Style…

“Retired” SF Chronicle Writer CW Nevius Errs When Relating a Story About How He Errs – Let’s Go To The Videotape!

Friday, December 16th, 2016

Well, not really videotape. But anyway, here it is:

Let’s note a few things.

1. Uh, how many times does our Board of Supervisors issue a proclamation when somebody leaves the Chronicle? Who was behind this proclamation? Would most journalists be so proud to be honored for years of fawning coverage?

2. Did Supervisor John Avalos really go on a “rant?” And didn’t the topic have to do with Chuck, you know, purportedly, misquoting Avalos?

3. Did John Avalos really “slam” his microphone down? (I don’t know for sure, but I didn’t see it. Of course, neither did Chuck. Maybe I’d say Avalos pushed down or turned off the mic?)

4. Hey, did Peaches Christ really do that thing with the purported dildo?

5. Hey, I could go on and on. And he’s not even being honest when he says, well, that’s how I look at things. I’ll leave you with this, Gentle Reader – two bits on the wasteful expensive Central Subway. One, written before City Hall told Chuck how to feel and the other after. He was like Donald Trump on the Twitter, contradicting himself, seemingly without without realizing, and certainly without acknowledging…

Nevius: Chinatown subway plan makes me wince” – February 21, 2008

“There’s really only one question to ask about the proposal to bore a light-rail subway deep under the heart of downtown San Francisco. You’re kidding, right?

“Just the initial math makes your head hurt. Basically it works out to somewhere between $1.22 billion and $1.4 billion for an underground railway that runs for less than two miles and has only three stops. That’s not a transit system, it’s a model railroad.

“Throw in a few of the inevitable cost overruns and this could work out to a billion dollars a mile.”

“No matter. This is the kind of big, splashy project that city officials love to put their name on.”

“Basically, the argument seems to boil down to this – we’ve got the money (as if federal tax dollars grow on trees), the Chinatown community is behind it, why not build it? Oh, let me count some of the reasons.”

“But, critics say, a stop on Market beneath which BART and other Muni lines already run might have made this whole thing an easier sell. That would have created an opportunity for a single station where riders could make connections between regional and local trains, almost like Grand Central Terminal in New York. Instead, riders will have to walk all the way up to Union Square.”

“Oh, and did I mention that in order to get under the BART tube, the subway station at Union Square will have to be at least 95 feet below the surface. That’s nine stories.”

“What is it about that image of deep, underground dirt-munching machines in earthquake country that makes me wince?”

 

S.F.: City of whine aficionados” – January 9, 2014

“A subway will take traffic off some of the busiest streets in the city – try riding Muni on Stockton Street in the morning – and provide quick north-south access across the city, and it’s mostly paid for with federal funds. Who wouldn’t like something like that?”

Press Release: “Board of Supervisors President London Breed Introduces Toughest Styrofoam Ban Law in the Country”

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

“Board of Supervisors President London Breed Introduces Toughest Styrofoam Ban Law in the Country

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 19, 2016

SAN FRANCISCO— Board of Supervisors President London Breed today introduced legislation to create the most expansive Styrofoam prohibitions in the country including a ban on the sale of Styrofoam: 1) cups, plates, clamshells, meat trays, egg cartons, and other food ware; 2) packing materials, including packing peanuts; 3) coolers; 4) pool and beach toys; and 5) dock floats, buoys, and other marine products, as well as a ban on the use of Styrofoam packing material for items packaged in San Francisco.

“Three days before we celebrate the 47th Earth Day, I am excited to introduce some of the strongest environmental protection legislation in the country,” said President Breed. “We are a city prized for our natural beauty, surrounded by water on three sides. We have a moral, a public health, and frankly a financial responsibility to protect ourselves from pollutants like polystyrene foam.*”

Polystyrene cannot be recycled through San Francisco’s blue bin recycling collection program and essentially never decomposes. It is a significant source of litter on land and one of the most egregious elements of rising plastic pollution in the Bay and ocean.

Polystyrene breaks down into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that seabirds often mistake for fish eggs. And unlike harder plastics, polystyrene contains a chemical used in its production called “styrene” that is metabolized after ingestion and threatens the entire food chain, including humans who eat contaminated marine wildlife. Styrene is linked to cancer and developmental disorders, and according to the US FDA, it leaches into food and drink from polystyrene food ware.

“The science is clear: this stuff is an environmental and public health pollutant, and we have to reduce its use,” said President Breed. “There are ample cost effective alternatives to Styrofoam on the market.”

More than 100 US cities have ordinances restricting polystyrene food service ware and/or packaging materials. San Francisco itself has prohibited serving food in polystyrene since 2007. President Breed’s legislation is the next step, covering new uses that have never been regulated in other cities.

“San Francisco will once again be at the forefront,” said President Breed. “We will replace hazardous products with compostable, recyclable ones. We will continue our work toward Zero Waste. And we will protect the public health and the natural beauty of our waterways and wildlife.”

President Breed worked closely with the San Francisco Department of the Environment, the nonprofit Sustainable San Francisco, the California Grocers Association, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, as well as many local and international businesses. The legislation is designed to help businesses comply and accommodate those who cannot yet.
__________________________________________
*Styrofoam is actually a brand name for polystyrene foam.

Here We Go Again: “SUPERVISOR MALIA COHEN AND LONDON BREED’S STATEMENT REGARDING TEXT MESSAGES BY SFPD OFFICERS”

Tuesday, April 5th, 2016

Just released, below.

And here’s two cents from CWNevius, to compare.

Mario Woods day stand shows S.F. supervisors are clueless

Disorderly conduct at top of SF law enforcement

(He seems much less demanding of the SFPD.)

“*** STATEMENT ***
SUPERVISOR MALIA COHEN AND BOARD PRESIDENT LONDON BREED’S STATEMENT REGARDING RECENTLY REVEALED TEXT MESSAGES BY SFPD OFFICERS

SAN FRANCISCO – At the full Board of Supervisors meeting today, Supervisor Malia Cohen and Board President London Breed issued the following joint statement regarding the recently revealed racist and homophobic text messages sent by a new group of San Francisco police officers.

“It has barely been a year since the last time we issued a joint statement about racist and homophobic text messages exchanged by SFPD officers. In that time, we’ve witnessed the tragic shooting of Mario Woods; the launch of multiple investigations; our community gripped by protests and pain; and—in a maddening twist—officers from the last texting scandal back on duty in SFPD uniforms.

When is enough, enough? We talk about implicit bias training, yet time and again are confronted with explicit bias by those who are sworn to protect the community. This behavior cannot be tolerated without consequence; the City must rededicate itself to police reform. 

As Supervisors, we have written June’s ballot measure to require independent investigations of all officer involved shootings. We pushed for and helped fund body cameras for every officer. We called for the federal investigation into Mario Woods’ shooting. And we led the effort to stop the proposed $300 million jail. 

But there is clearly more work to do. We need more diversity and bias training, culturally competent community relations, data collection, independent investigations, accountability, and transparency. And as we recruit more officers, it’s imperative we continue to fight for increased diversity on the force.

We urge the Police Commission and Chief to seek the fullest possible disciplinary action for the officers involved in this recent action, and we will work with the Mayor, the Department, and community stakeholders to create an action plan to prevent these incidents from ever happening again.”

KremlinWatch, 94102 – One Amazing Gif Shows Our Board of Supervisors 2015 v. 2016 – Photoshoptopia!

Thursday, February 25th, 2016

Via SFist comes news of larger-than-life Aaron Peskin being ‘Shopped into last year’s official photo of the BOS. (You might need to click on the image to get the gif going, or maybe click here.)

output_Kx9iot

Wow, man.

Just wow.

Some ideas are bad ideas…

From the Mind of CWNevius: An Ad for Senator Scott Wiener, More or Less – Today’s Topic is Tech Shuttle “Vilifiers”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

HERE YOU GO:

Vilifiers of tech shuttles are taking us for a ride

The Municipal Transportation Agency is just concluding an 18-month pilot program for the tech buses meant to calm fears…

REALLY, THAT’S WHAT THE PILOT WAS FOR, TO “CALM FEARS?” I THINK NOT, I THINK IT WAS FOR OTHER REASONS. IT WASN’T JUST A THERAPY SESSION FOR US IRRATIONAL “HATERS,” RIGHT?

provide a way for the shuttle companies to pay for using Muni bus stops.

UH, NO. THE PILOT FEES WERE A WAY TO PAY THE SFMTA TO RUN THE PILOT.

Most people thought…

IS THIS THE STANDARD? LIKE, DO “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MAYOR ED LEE’S JOB PERFORMANCE? NOPE! NOT CURRENTLY, ANYWAY. SO, DOES THAT “PROVE” HE’S NOT DOING A GOOD JOB? HEY, DID “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MOST OF SFGOV SERVICING THE NFL FOR FREE AND FOCUSING ON THE SUPER BOWL 50 PARTY FOR THE BULK OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS? NOPE! SO WHAT DOES THAT PROVE, CHUCK?

But the progressive wing of the supervisors, particularly Jane Kim

SO LET’S SEE HERE, JANE KIM SUCKS AND SCOTT WIENER IS OUR SUN, OUR MOON, AND ALL OUR STARS? IS THIS GOING TO BE THE THEME OF CHUCK’S COLUMNS FROM HERE TO ETERNITY / NOVEMBER 2016? I THINK SO.

“They’re playing politics,” says MTA Board director Gwyneth Borden. “We’re separate agencies, so they don’t get to tell us what to do.”

OH BOY, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ISN’T AN “AGENCY,” RIGHT? SO OUR LOCAL PARTY APARATCHIKS SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN TRYING TO EQUATE THE BOS WITH THE SFMTA. OF COURSE, THE SFMTA _IS_ AN AGENCY, BUT IT’S A BIG POS AGENCY THAT SHOULD BE DISBANDED. ITS PRIMARY JOB IS RUNNING MUNI BUT IT CAN’T REALLY DO THAT WELL, SO IT FOCUSES ON TRYING TO EXPAND ITS POWER, BUDGET, PAYROLL, ETCETERA. I’LL TELL YOU, PROP E FROM 1999 HAD SOME YARDSTICKS FOR THE SFMTA – CHECK OUT “SEC. 8A.103. SERVICE STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.” IT’S ALL “at least 85 percent of vehicles must run on-time.” HEY, ARE WE THERE YET? NO? SO WHAT DID THE 85% MEAN? OH, NOTHING? OH, IS 85% SOMETHING THE SFMTA TRIED TO COOK THE BOOKS TO TRY TO ATTAIN, BUT EVEN THEN IT COULDN’T? YEP. SO WHY DO WE HAVE THE SFMTA STILL AROUND THEN? OR MAYBE THE 85% FIGURE IS MEANINGLESS, JUST SOMETHING TO GET “MOST PEOPLE” TO VOTE YES ON PROP E BACK IN ’99? BOY, IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 2016. WHAT IF THAT ON-TIME FIGURE COMMITTMENT HAD BEEN 100% – WOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT NOW? OR WHAT IF PROP E PROMISED VOTERS A 110% ON-TIME PERCENTAGE? WOULD THAT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE? IDTS. IN ANY EVENT, THE BOS ISN’T JUST ANOTHER RUN OF THE MILL “AGENCY” FILLED WITH RUN OF THE MILL APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS, FTR.

OH NEW ISSUE: ISN’T THE SFMTA’S PILOT CONTRARY TO STATE LAW? I THINK IT IS. I THINK THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO CHANGE CA STATE LAW TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE, BUT I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT SINCE. OH WELL.

“As Supervisor Scott Wiener says…”

CWNEVIUS SHOULD LEAD OFF EVERY SENTENCE IN EVERY ONE OF HIS POLITICAL BITS LIKE THIS, ‘CAUSE THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE’S DOING.

The shuttle companies already have parking lots and white zones picked out for stops and will just use those.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT CHUCK IS TALKING ABOUT HERE. THERE ARE SOME PARKING LOTS THAT AREN’T CURRENTLY BEING USED, BUT ARE ALREADY “PICKED OUT” JUST IN CASE? IF I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT CHUCK’S TALKING ABOUT, HOW WILL HIS EVERYMAN, ARCHIE BUNKER-TYPE READERS UNDERSTAND WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT? HEY, WHAT IF CHUCK HAD AN EDITOR, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY TO RUN THINGS BY AFORE PUBLICATION? MAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

hubs

IDK, MAYBE. MOST OF THESE ROUTES FUNCTION LIKE LIMITEDS, RIGHT? LIKE THE NX JUDAH, WHICH HAS STOPS AT BOTH ENDS WITH A LONG-HAUL STRETCH IN THE MIDDLE. SO, WHAT IF THE NX HAD JUST ONE STOP OUT IN THE AVENUES? IT WOULD BE STILL BE USEFUL TO MANY, BUT PERHAPS NOT AS USEFUL AS BEFORE. I’LL TELL YOU, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT “PLAYING POLITICS,” THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON WHEN SCOTT WIENER SAYS THAT EXPLORING HUBS WOULD “DESTROY” OUR CORPORATE BUS LINE SYSTEM.

The pilot program created some changes, like taking big buses off narrow streets, and it seemed to be working.

REALLY? I DON’T KNOW THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CHANGES? I’LL TELL YOU, OUR SFMTA, WHICH HAS GOTTEN MILLIONS AND MILLIONS WORTH OF “BEHESTED” MONEY FROM, WELL, I’LL JUST LET YOU GUESS FROM WHOM, GENTLE READER, IS AWFULLY CAGEY ABOUT THE ENTIRE PILOT. HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, “WELL, WE HAD THIS INTERSTATE BUS TRYING TO MAKE A TURN AT THIS INTERSECTION AND IT WASN’T WORKING OUT, SO NOW WE’RE USING … SMALLER BUSES? OR, A DIFFERENT ROUTE? “IDK.

…hard-core progressives are mad as hell…

SO WHO ELECTED THIS HARD CORE, CHUCK? YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS OF FRISCO, AKA YOUR NEW-FOUND HOME? HEY, PERHAPS YOUR POLITICAL HERO SCOTT WIENER IS CONSISTENTLY RIGHT OF CENTER, SF POLITICS-WISE? ISN’T THAT TRUE? PERHAPS, BOTH CHUCK AND SCOTT ARE HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVES, SF POLITICS-WISE? DOES THIS TYPE OF DISCOURSE HELP MATTERS, ONE WONDERS?

They’re angry that the techies not only have good, high-paying jobs…

REALLY, CHUCK? SO ANY CRITIQUE OF OUR POS SFMTA IS BASED UPON THIS ALLEGED ANGER? IDTS. (AND HEY, CHUCK, DO _YOU_ HAVE A “GOOD HIGH-PAYING” JOB? OH, NO, BUT YOU’RE WORKING ON IT?)

Now they want them to leave

SO JANE KIM WANTS “TECHIES” TO LEAVE SF? REALLY?

wonderful, desirable place to live

ONE WONDERS IF THE MSM OF PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA HAS A CHUCK NEVIUS CHEERING ON THE GOV’MINT LIKE THIS?

haters

ELECTEDS KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS, TO USE TERMS LIKE THIS, SO THEY SHUNT THIS KIND OF HEAVY LIFTING TO THEIR PR PEOPLE. BUT, THE PR PEOPLE SIMILARLY KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS. SO THEY ASSIGN THE TASK TO … SFGOV HEAD CHEER LEADER [GIVE ME A] C! [GIVE ME A] W! [GIVE ME A] NEVIUS!

all in the name of “improving” the program.

SO, ANY ATTEMPT TO ALTER WHAT THE SFMTA WANTS TO DO MUST FAIL BECAUSE WHATEVER IT’S DOING AT WHATEVER TIME IS PERFECTLY FINE? OK FINE. HEY, SPEAKING OF FINE, DID CHUCK EVER PAY FOR HIS RECENT DOCUMENTED FARE EVASION FROM THE SFMTA? IDTS! (WELL, HE DIDN’T PAY IN MONEY, ANYWAY)

ALL RIGHT, LET’S HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW GREAT SCOTT WIENER IS, ALL THE WAY UNTIL NOVEMBER 2016 ESPECIALLY, AND THEN, AS NEEDED, BY SCOTT WIENER, OR OTHERS. CHUCK IS OUR MEDIA’S CHESTER, AFTER ALL…

END OF LINE.

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy” – Requests BoS Hearing

Thursday, July 16th, 2015

A new release:

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy

San Francisco, CA ― San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today delivered his response to Mayor Ed Lee’s July 14, 2015, letter [referenced here in the Examiner] calling on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to rescind its policy regarding contact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“This tragedy spotlights the need for legal clarity at every government level,” stated Sheriff Mirkarimi. “This matter requires an open and honest conversation about the legislative intent and meaning of San Francisco’s ordinances and how they comport with everyday enforcement of laws leading to deportations.”

In his response, printed in its entirety below, the Sheriff asserts that the Mayor’s request raises legal conflicts; the Sheriff asks for an open and immediate discussion, via a Board of Supervisors committee hearing, to resolve the conflicts, provide clarity, and produce a workable and fair ordinance.

July 15, 2015
Reference: 2015-120

The Honorable Edwin Lee
Mayor
City Hall, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mayor Lee:

I received your July 14, 2015 letter regarding the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s (SFSD) Federal Immigration communications policy. Your letter does not provide legal clarity regarding my department’s duty under city law. Your request to immediately rescind the policy contributes to the confusion and conflict between the Sanctuary City Ordinance (Administrative Code 12H.2) and the Due Process For All Ordinance (Administrative Code 12I). I urge a resolution of these conflicts so that there is a consistent and uniform understanding of the laws.

Finger pointing around this tragedy serves no purpose other than election year politics. It would serve the public interest to have an immediate open discussion of the Sanctuary City Ordinance and the Due Process For All Ordinance. I propose that you and I and other stakeholders come before a committee hearing with the Board of Supervisors so that a resolution of the conflicts can be achieved in a meaningful and transparent way.

Your request to rescind the policy and require the SFSD to contact federal immigration officials would eviscerate the city’s Due Process For All Ordinance, an ordinance I supported and which you signed into law. Historically, the only reason for SFSD to notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release has been in relation to honoring an immigration detainer. This practice has been curtailed by the Due Process For All Ordinance and the federal court ruling that any detention for the release of an individual to federal immigration officials without probable cause violates the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

At present, the only request for notification SFSD has received from federal immigration officials is contained in the detainer form which the Due Process For All Ordinance prohibits SFSD from honoring, absent limited circumstances.

The only reason to now notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release would be to facilitate the release of the individual to the federal immigration officials. This would completely circumvent the requirements and intent of the Sanctuary City Ordinance, the Due Process For All Ordinance and lead to unconstitutional detentions.

In 2013, my office worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Board of Supervisors before and after the Due Process For All Ordinance was implemented to provide guidance on its provisions and effects. SFSD alerted representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and you of provisions of the Ordinance that posed operational and procedural problems. In early 2015, I met with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of Homeland Security separately on two occasions to confirm San Francisco’s laws and procedures. I also expressed concern about the legality of the detainer/notification process.

I shall continue to ensure that SFSD policy as it relates to federal immigration issues is consistent with city, state, and federal laws. I therefore request legislative direction to reconcile the conflict inherent in your proposal versus city legislation prohibiting ICE detainers except in specific circumstances. Your request would require the Board of Supervisors to amend the Administrative Code as it relates to cooperation with federal immigration officials and honoring detainers.

In addition to clarifying city law, other solutions should be considered. One such solution is to propose that an Administrative Law Judge review immigration detainers and provide a warrant or finding of probable cause for those persons who federal immigration officials seek to detain.

I will continue to cooperate with any amendments to city legislation by the Board of Supervisors. I look forward to working with all city representatives including the Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney’s Office to provide legal clarity to these sensitive and complex issues.

Sincerely,

ROSS MIRKARIMI
Sheriff

cc London Breed, President of the Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors

Is David Chiu Really This Orange? The Challenges of White Balance at the Chambers of the Board of Superviors – Desaturation = Win

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

The offending photo, reposted today.

That’s over the line, IMO.

Here’s a two-step fix – tone down the Saturation by sliding left and then brighten up the remaining sunburned-looking patch on the forehead using Replace Color:

920x920 copy

JMO.

Is this impermissible photo manipulation?

IDK, but it’s certainly closer to IRL than what I started with…