Posts Tagged ‘board’

Word on the Street: Instead of Fillmore, “Fill-No-More”

Tuesday, August 12th, 2014

As seen on Fillmore Street in the Fillmore, home of the failed Fillmore Jazz District, brought to you by our horrible, failed Redevelopment Agency and SPUR, the urban renewal people:

On it goes…

Oh, here’s my message to those SPUR people:

Instead of doing something, just stand there.

Kite-Boarders, PG&E Tower, Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco Bay

Friday, August 8th, 2014

Click to expand

A Case Study of SFMTA’s Controversial “MUNI-COMMUTER” Shuttle Program: The New Stops at Hayes and Clayton

Monday, August 4th, 2014

Here’s what things looked like on August 1, 2014 at a MUNI bus stop that just debuted as a new “commuter shuttle” stop:

I think MUNI meant to say MUNI/COMMUTER SHUTTLES instead of MUNI-COMMUTER SHUTTLES, but who knows.

Note that the small print advises those with Concerns or Complaints to go to Hell call 311.

Here’s the place, on Hayes at Clayton:

Things were pretty sedate around here before the shuttle program began. (Yes, Hayes is a thoroughfare, as it has the 21 Hayes bus line but that bus doesn’t run as much as the nearby #5 Fulton just to the north or the lines on Haight just to the south.)

Anyway, some of the area NIMBYs are upset, so they started a direct mail campaign and they posted fliers about.

Like here on this rather dirty building, which lost some paint when the fliers came down cause the tape they used was extra strong oh well:

So that’s it – life here is pretty much the same as far as I can tell. I’ve jogged past these two stops, the inbound and the outbound right across the street from each other, four times now, during times when I know that there are hundreds of people milling about the 415 / 628 waiting for dozens of shuttles, and I haven’t seen nothing.

Perhaps the NIMBYs were wrong? Perhaps all good and bad points about life in the 94117 will remain unaffected?

We’ll see.

Will This Fall’s Half-Billion Transit Bond Allow Your Landlord to Raise Your Rent, Costing You Thousands? – “Pass-Throughs”

Friday, August 1st, 2014

I don’t know.

But check this out:

“Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the City and County: $500,000,000 to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation and transit related improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of  the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37…”

All right kids – you do the math. Start with $850,000,000 and divide that up among the denizens of the 415 / 628.

I don’t know how to do that but when I tried, I came up with a $30 a month rent increase for you, Gentle Reader, for the next 7-10 years.

Would the average landlord take the trouble to do a pass-through? IDK. I’m thinking the typical rent-controlled renter in SF doesn’t have to deal with pass-throughs currently. But maybe this big old honking bond would be the trigger for a wave of passthroughs?

Here’s what former SFGov employee Howard Wong has to say:

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

What does the ballot measure do:

Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.

If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.

To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/Meeting_Information/BSC/agendas/2014/November/1-B%20Transportation%20Road%20Improvement%20GO.pdf

The SFMTA wants more money, certainly. But the question is what will the SFMTA do for us in order to get the money, right? Otherwise, we’re just shoveling more coal into a broken-down machine. Why not use the bond as a carrot to get the SFMTA to reform?

Perhaps our SFMTA doesn’t deserve this bond?

Anyway, if I were promoting this bond, I’d figure out what the odds are that landlords would pass through 50% of the burden and also how much rents would be increased, on average, and for how long. And then I’d say, well this is what the SFMTA is going to do with your money and this is how much it will cost you, the renter, or you, the owner.

Is this massive transit bond a good idea?

I don’t know.

A Plea from “NoPa Neighbors” to “Protect” a Solitary 21 Hayes Bus Stop from Being Used by Too Many People

Thursday, July 10th, 2014

[UPDATE: Oh, here you go, NIMBYs:

"Carli Paine, an SFMTA transportation manager, said about 80 percent of shuttles using Muni stops take passengers to destinations within San Francisco, while the other 20 percent take passengers to destinations outside the city."

So I don't know what that means for this particular stop - it could be that only one entity wants to use it. So it could be 100% intra-city, who knows. Oh, what's that, NIMBY. You're still upset? You're all offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline? OK fine. Have it your way. But keep in mind that most of your "neighbors" aren't up in arms over this issue, most of your "neighbors" disagree with you. And in any event, August 1st, 2014 will not be the End Of The World As We Know It. You'll feel fine.]

Here’s a direct mail campaign to “save” the SFMTA MUNI DPT bus stop at Hayes and Clayton.

It comes from somebody who has a lot of energy to post and mail flyers, but this effort is coming waaaaay too late in the process.

Now I’m probably a little too close to this issue myself, but I’ll point out that UCSF employees could be the biggest beneficiaries of having the corner of Hayes and Clayton included as inbound and outbound stops during the trial. And I’ll note that UCSF simply gives money to the SFMTA by, among other things, using the bus stops of the 21 Hayes for public relations advertising. And actually, there are so many UCSF shuttles on Fell and Oak that the unneighborly “neighbors” of NoPA probably don’t even notice them any more.

In any event, it’s a free country so you’re free to mail anybody anything.

And I’ll say that it would be nice if our slow and expensive MUNI system would itself use these bus stops more often. (And the 21 Hayes, in particular, still has too many stops.)

Reader Note: If you can’t read the above, I took another shot and posted it below. One photo used a smaller lens and the other one, well, it has focus issues owing to the bent paper, oh well. And I amazed by how different the yellow-y colors look using auto white balance from two different cams, oh well.

Lisa: I’d like 25 copies on Goldenrod.

Clerk: Right.

Lisa: 25 on Canary.

Clerk: Mmhmm.

Lisa: 25 on Saffron.

Clerk: All right.

Lisa: And 25 on Paella.

Clerk: Ok, 100 yellow.

What’s The Perfect Age to Be? Old Enough for Coffee Drinking But Young Enough for Skateboarding

Monday, June 30th, 2014

And if you want to look cool, you gotta put your free hand in your jacket pocket.

As seen in Golden Gate Park: 

Click to expand

Judgment Day is Nigh: Signs for the “Oversize Vehicle Overnight Parking Restriction Pilot” Have Been Posted

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

I don’t actually know if they’re enforcing the new RV parking restrictions in the Panhandle part of Golden Gate Park yet, but here are the brand-new signs, anyway:

Click to expand

Of course, 22 feet is pretty long – that’s enough to cover your Ford Excursions, your Chevy Suburbans and even your Maybach 62‘s. And seven feet is pretty high, so the rules seem fair enough if the goal is to kick the RV liveaboards out of the Panhandle.

But I haven’t heard or seen any RVs getting the heave-ho yet…

Domestic Violencer Gurbaksh Chahal Resigns from Board of RadiumOne: Here’s His Nonsensical Open Letter

Thursday, May 29th, 2014

I’m not sure what Gurbaksh Chahal is talking about with this “exoneration” stuff. The best he could have hoped for was a “not guilty” verdict, and that’s not anything close to exoneration, not at all.

Did he have an agreement allowing himself to be convicted in San Francisco in exchange for something from the Board of RadiumOne? Is any such agreement in writing? Would it even be enforceable? IDK.

Did his father have a heart attack from the stress associated with the assault upon the girlfriend? IDK.

And who’s the primary owner of RadiumOne these days? IDK.

Anyway, here it is, entitled “Greed, Betrayal, and Honesty.”

An Open Letter to the Board of RadiumOne

To the Board of Directors of RadiumOne:

As you all know, I resigned from the board of directors on Tuesday. In light of recent events and to stay transparent and forthright, you give me no other vehicle than an open letter to communicate adequately.

I am deeply disappointed by your actions and decisions over the last few weeks.

All of you were well aware of the legal matter I had been struggling with since August, just as you were aware that of the exaggerated allegations against me. You supported me from the beginning both in person and in writing, and you made it clear that you had every intention of standing by me until justice prevailed.

(more…)

Well, Here’s What the New Signs in the Panhandle Look Like: “PARK HOURS – 5AM-Midnight – PARK CODE 3.21″

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Apparently, our Board of Supervisors is unaware that the paved path on the south side of the Panhandle, the one that goes along right next to Oak, is NOT a bike path.

Oh well.

   (a)   Persons may enter and use any park from 5:00 a.m. to midnight daily, provided that the Department may set different hours in a permit, contract or lease. This subsection shall not apply to buildings, such as recreation centers, restrooms and clubhouses, or to athletic fields, which may have different hours of operation, as determined by the General Manager or the Commission, as the case may be.
   (b)   Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the Commission may by resolution and at any time set different hours of operation for any park or part thereof, based on operational requirements or neighborhood impacts.
   (c)   No person shall enter or remain in any park without the permission of the Department outside of the hours open to the public as set in subsection (a) or under subsection (b), except that:
      (1)   In the case of Balboa Park, Golden Gate Park, Lincoln Park, and McLaren Park, persons may use a vehicle (including but not limited to a car, truck, bicycle and motorcycle) on the roadway(s) in those parks or walk on paved sidewalks immediately adjacent to such roadways, at any time for purposes of transversing the park only;
      (2)   In the case of the Panhandle, persons may walk or ride a bicycle on the bike paths at any time for purposes of transversing the park only; and,
      (3)   In the case of Union Square, Civic Center Plaza, and Justin Herman Plaza, persons may walk on the paved portions of those plazas at any time for purposes of transversing the plaza only.
   (d)   (1)   Except as provided in subsection (2), a violation of subsection (c) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Park Code Article 10.
      (2)   A person who is found sleeping in a park outside of the hours open to the public in violation of subsection (c) shall not be cited under this section for being present in the park while sleeping. Such a person may be cited only under Section 3.13 of this Code.
   (e)   The Department shall post the hours for each park (1) at the park in a location designed to provide notice to members of the public, and (2) on the Department’s website.
   (f)   The Department shall issue an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor by September 1 of each year providing the following information for the preceding fiscal year: (1) the number of citations issued by the Police Department and Park Patrol for violations of this section and the age and race of individuals cited, (2) the Department’s costs for repairs and maintenance, including graffiti abatement, resulting from vandalism in parks, and (3) the Department’s costs associated with enforcing this section.
   (g)   Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the General Manager and the Commission under section 3.03 of this Code.
(Added by Ord. 265-13 , File No. 130766, App. 11/27/2013, Eff. 12/27/2013)

Sure, Re/code and the Huffington Post are Against Gurbaksh Chahal Now, But Why Did They Partner with Him Until Last Month?

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

Was the biggest owner of RadiumOne allowed to promote himself on Re/code as recently as April 9th?

Sure looks that way:

And here’s some similar claptrap from the HuffPo

So let’s see here, we knew about the 911 call and the existence of the damning video evidence all the way back in 2013, right?

So what’s changed?

I don’t get it.

Anyway, Re/code and the HuffPo, to their credit, haven’t allowed him to promote himself, AFAIK, since his convictions, so I guess that’s a start.

Oh well.