Posts Tagged ‘c w nevius’

Saving Private Nevius: The Good and the Bad of the Latest CW Nevius Effort Regarding the Mid-Market Area

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014

Here you go, writer CW Nevius becomes a guide for your ride through the gritty 6th and Market area – he’s been in Pentonville and he’s been in Battersea, he’s your Sightsee M.C:

The toughest corner for Mid-Market to turn

1. If this is about the good, the not bad and the ugly of CW Nevius, let’s start with the Good. Check out these quotes:

“In the sunshine and rainbows world of Mayor Ed Lee…”

“…much-promised revitalization of Mid-Market.”

These are very un-Nevius. Could you imaging mayoral spokesmodel Christine Falvey ever taking this kind of tone when discussing our Dear Leader? I can’t. So this column is the rare instance of the Nevius holding a perspective from outside our reigning political establishment. These lines are in no way beat sweeteners / source greasers and that’s refreshing.

2. Instead of Nevius getting quotes from people in the Mid-Market and then holding those statements out as facts, here he  generally lets the quotes speak for themselves. This is what reporters should be doing, so let’s classify that as Not Bad.

3. Now, it’s time for a little Ugly. Here comes the dogmatic Nevius with completely unsupported statements:

“It’s a fascinating moment in Mid-Market. We’re either reaching a critical tipping point, with new construction and businesses driving the revival, or smacking futilely into the familiar dynamic of poverty, drugs and scary sidewalk theater.”

“Because Mid-Market won’t change until the corner of Jones and Market changes.”

So, what makes 2014 different from 2013 or 2011 or 2007 or 1999 or any other year in the history of Mid-Market? That’s not stated. And where’s the support for the purported Malcolm Gladwell-esque “tipping point?” It’s like Chuck is sitting in a bar pontificating about how if the Giants hire some new pitcher they’ll either win the World Series or they’ll have the worst record in the Division. Doesn’t really make sense, huh? Perhaps, just perhaps, Mid-Market might just muddle through with some changes here and there and later on 2014 wont be seen as some watershed moment? Well, that probability simply isn’t allowed for in Nevius-land.

And what makes Market and Jones the supposed linchpin intersection out of all the others in the area? Again, the Neve doesn’t even offer a theory.

That’s the good, the not bad, and the ugly of CW Nevius on the topic of the Mid-Market of 2014.

CW Nevius Just Moved Here a Few Years Ago, But He’s Already Telling Us San Franciscans How to Vote – Prop B Redux Redux

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

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.

Once more:

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…

Berkeley Contractor Randy Shaw’s Adoration for His Paymaster Has Gone Over the Moon – How Can Anyone Take Him Seriously?

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

Let’s see here, who in San Francisco takes Randy Shaw seriously?

1. CW Nevius (Maybe not a few years back, but these days, certainly)

2. San Francisco Magazine (Maybe not a few years back, but these days, certainly)

I think that’s it. (Nobody in SFGov takes him seriously, not really.)

Now here’s the latest:

And here’s part of it:

“Lee’s ‘Neptune Shot’ (a planet far further from earth than the moon) is off to a good start.”

So, let’s get this straight. Being appointed Mayor of San Francisco for nine years (effectively), by breaking a promise about being only an “interim Mayor,” is something similar, in some way, to sending a manned mission to planet Neptune, an ice giant?

OK fine.

Reader Notes:

Does Randy Shaw think that the moon is a planet? I don’t think so, but I can’t tell for sure.

Is BeyondChron really “The Voice Of The Rest?” No, it’s the voice of a white government contractor who lives in a large house in the Berkeley hills.

Is BeyondChron really the “Best Local Website” per the SFBG? No.

Well then why has that tagline been displayed there for years and years? IDK

San Francisco Chronicle Writer CW Nevius, Who Claimed to Want “Closure” on the Ross Mirkarimi Case, Brings It Up Yet Again

Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH, DEAR READERS, ONCE MORE:

Assembly race between Chiu, Campos finally picks up steam. The showdown between Supervisors David Chiu and David Campos in the race to represent San Francisco in the state Assembly may be just about to get a lot more interesting.

WELL, YES THE RACE IS MORE BORING-ER THAN AVERAGE, SURE. BUT NEVIUS, NOTHING’S REALLY CHANGED LATELY AND YOU KNOW THAT, NEVE. NOW, WHY WOULD NEVE WANT TO ANNOUNCE NEWS WHEN THERE REALLY ISN’T ANY NEWS?

1. HE MORE OR LESS NEEDS TO HAVE NEWS ELSE HE DOESN’T HAVE MUCH OF A REASON TO WRITE ON THIS TOPIC.

2. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTS ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER, SO HE WANTS TO DRAW ATTENTION TO AN ISSUE HE THINKS IS HELPFUL TO HIS CANDIDATE.

3. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, CW NEVIUS IS STILL UPSET, VERY UPSET OVER ROSS MIRKARIMI STILL BEING THE ELECTED SHERIFF OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY AND HE WANTS TO METE OUT PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DEFIED CW NEVIUS AND THE POLITICAL FACTION OF CW NEVIUS

OH, BUT I INTERRUPTED, PLEASE CARRY ON, NEVE

Chiu, the current president of the Board of Supervisors, had a double-digit lead in polls as recently as February. But lately the margin has been closing, indicating that Campos’ aggressive attacks are having some effect. In response, Chiu may go on the offensive.

BOY, WITH WHOM HAVE YOU BEEN TALKING, NEVE? SOMETIMES IT WOULD HELP IF YOU JUST CAME OUT WITH THINGS INSTEAD OF IMPLYING THAT YOU’RE ALL-KNOWING AND ALL-SEEING, JUST SAYING.

The problem is that Chiu, with an early lead in the polls, has preferred to sit back and talk policy while Campos has gone on the attack.From the start, Campos has painted Chiu as the pawn of big developers and an untrustworthy politician who was elected as a progressive but then moved to the business-friendly middle of the road. Chiu has responded with … well, not very much.

MAN, NEVE, YOU SEEM TO THINK ALL THE ELECTEDS IN YOUR NEW HOME OF SAN FRANCISCO ARE A BUNCH OF PANSIES, HUH? LIKE THEY TELL _YOU_ HOW MUCH PROP B SUCKS , BUT YOU CAN’T QUOTE THEM ON IT BECAUSE THEY, UNLIKE YOU, ARE BIG PUSSIES, RIGHT? AND YOU’RE THE JUNKYARD DOG WHO WON’T BACK DOWN FROM A FIGHT, RIGHT? SO, WHY DON’T YOU RUN FOR OFFICE, NEVE? IT’S NOT SO CRAZY AN IDEA IS IT? YOUR FORMER FELLOW ESTABLISHMENT SPOKESPERSON KEN GARCIA WAS BEING RECRUITED TO RUN FOR SUPERVISOR AND IT STILL MIGHT HAPPEN, SO WHY NOT YOU, NEVIUS? THEN EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT!

He even announced early in the campaign that he wouldn’t be bringing up one of the real wedge issues between the two – the reinstatement of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi after domestic abuse allegations.

OH HERE WE GO, THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS NEW BIT FROM NEVE. NOW LET’S TRAVEL BACK IN TIME TO 2012 FOR THIS HAM-FISTED, BONE-HEADED EFFORT FROM THE NEVIUS:

“The Board of Supervisors finally hearing the official misconduct charges for suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi sounds like a cause for celebration. Finally, everyone gets some closure on this long, strange soap opera. Don’t bet on it. It’s not that Mirkarimi is expected to have much of a shot to win reinstatement. All the smart money at City Hall is predicting an 11-0 vote against his case. That way everyone has some political cover. An ideological vote - John Avalos or David Campos voting for Mirkarimi to confirm far left credentials – isn’t likely. This is a vote that people will remember, and if someone like Campos has designs on the state Assembly, it could come back to bite him.

SEE HOW THAT WORKS? 2012 NEVIUS PINED FOR “CLOSURE.” WHY? BECAUSE HE GENUINELY THOUGHT HIS POLITICAL FACTION WOULD WIN AND ROSS MIRKARIMI WOULD HAVE TO LOSE HIS JOB. BUT ACTUALLY, THE “SMART MONEY” WAS WRONG AND THIS 11-0 SLAM DUNK OF A VOTE WENT THE OTHER WAY. IT’S HARD TO TELL HOW HARD NEVIUS WAS SPUN ON THIS ONE. HE BECAME SO INVESTED IN THIS POLITICAL ISSUE HE BELIEVED WHAT HE WANTED TO BELIEVE. HE ENDED UP MISLEADING HIS READERS, ON PURPOSE OR NOT. NEVIUS DOES THIS KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME AND HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES HIS ERRORS, HE JUST MOVES ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE. ANYWAY, NOTE THE THREAT HE MADE AGAINST CAMPOS BACK IN  2012. WELL NOW, NEVIUS IS WORRIED THAT HIS THREAT MEANS NOTHING. SO HE NOW REALLY, REALLY WANTS TO MAKE GOOD ON HIS THREAT. YOU SEE, REPORTER NEVIUS ISN’T SERVING HIS READERS, HE SERVING HISSELF. BUT I DIGRESS, PLEASE CONTINUE NEVE.

Chiu voted against reinstatement, and Campos – despite avowed support for domestic violence prevention organizations – voted in favor.

SO THE QUESTION WAS WHAT TO DO ABOUT MIRKARIMI’S CONVICTION, IT WASN’T ACTUALLY ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IRL, OF COURSE

There was a school of thought that said the Mirkarimi hearings at the Board of Supervisors was old news, but it has continued to come up in public forums. Chiu’s camp has gotten the message, and he is beginning to press that issue in debates. To which his supporters say: “Finally.” Chiu is a cautious and deliberative politician, but some of his backers have told him he needs to take the gloves off. Mirkarimi, who was reinstated in October 2012, could be a winner for him.

OF COURSE, NEVIUS HIMSELF IS  A “CHIU SUPPORTER,” AND A STRONG SUPPORTER AT THAT.

Campos has an explanation for his vote, but it is complicated. He says he felt Mirkarimi’s behavior – grabbing his wife’s arm hard enough to leave a bruise – did not fall within the legal definition of “official misconduct.”

IT’S NOT COMPLICATED AT ALL, NEVIUS. THAT’S WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WHO’S WAAAAAY SMARTER THAN YOU, NEVIUS, AND WHO HAS BACKBONE, RECOMMENDED THAT MIRKARIMI SHOULD KEEP HIS JOB.

So, to the dismay of women’s groups, he supported reinstatement.

GEE NEVE, IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH A POLITICIAN, WHAT YOU DO IS SUPPORT AN OPPONENT OR SUPPORT A RECALL, RIGHT?

Look for Chiu to maintain his professorial demeanor while his campaign hits Campos on opposing new housing and bashing the tech industry.

HOW WOULD YOU WRITE THIS IF YOU WERE A NEUTRAL AND DETACHED JOURNALIST, NEVE? HOW WOULD YOU WRITE THIS IF YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL FACTION AS DAVID CAMPOS?

And Mirkarimi will be coming up at every opportunity.

HEY NEVIUS, WHAT HAPPENED TO “CLOSURE?” AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Campos will come back with accusations of backroom deals and complaints that Chiu isn’t a friend to rent control interests.

“RENT CONTROL INTERESTS?” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, NEVIUS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WITH RENT CONTROL?

And by the way, he will ask Chiu, why are you endorsing Kim?

OH, SO YOUR VENDETTA IS AGAINST JANE KIM AS WELL? OH MY. AGAIN, WHAT HAPPENED TO CLOSURE, DUDE?

And we’re off. A race. Finally.

UH, NEWSFLASH, NEVIUS. DAVID CHIU WILL WIN BOTH RACES WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR EFFORTS.


OH WHAT’S THIS, CW NEVIUS HAS A STINGER! FOLLOW HIS LINK IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A “QUOTE OF THE WEEK” FROM HEATHER KNIGHT FROM LAST YEAR. CHECK IT:

“I am not running for mayor, and I will not run for mayor unless Willie Brown and Rose Pak form a ‘Run, Art, Run’ committee.”

DOES THE NEVIUS THINK HE HAS A FRESH QUOTE? I CAN’T TELL, OH WELL.

Writer CW Nevius Brings an East Bay Perspective to San Francisco Politics: He Fights for Prop B for No Obvious Reason

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

[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?

CW Nevius, Unpaid Spokesperson for SFGov, Weighs In, Once Again, on Twitter Not Paying Its Taxes – “The Twitter Miracle”

Wednesday, February 26th, 2014

Chuck is at it once again. At first I thought he was doing a kind of “Day Without  a Mexican” thought exercise, but now I don’t think so. Does he think Twitter will break its lease? The mind boggles.

So here’s a question for the people who keep shouting that tech workers and their money are ruining San Francisco.

ALL RIGHT, WHAT”S THE SIZE OF THE AUDIENCE YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE EVER SHOUTED ABOUT THIS TOPIC? IDK, A COUPLE HUNDRED? AND THEN HOW MANY PEOPLE “KEEP” DOING IT? THAT NUMBER’S GOT TO BE LESS, RIGHT? THAT’S A PRETTY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE TO QUERY, ISN’T IT, NEVIUS?  

What if it all works out just as you’d like? The tech companies decide it isn’t worth the trouble to try to run a business in San Francisco. The workers say they are tired of being hassled and mocked in the neighborhoods where they live.

DO PEOPLE REALLY MOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN “MOCKED?” NO, SIMPLY. THE ONLY PERSON I CAN THINK OF WHO’S DONE SO IS YOU YOURSELF, NEVIUS. AND ACTUALLY, YOU MOVED _TO_ SF AFTER GETTING MOCKED FOR NOT KNOWING A WHOLE BUNCH ABOUT SF, FOR NOT LIVING IN THE TOWN YOU COVER. AND THEN YOU MOVED HERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND NOW, EFFORTLESSLY, YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT YOUR BEAT. JUST BY LIVING HERE. I’M SURE YOU’LL AGREE WITH THAT, NEVE. ANYWAY, IF ANY INDIVIDUAL TECH WORKER MOVED OUT, NOBODY WOULD CARE.

But there’s also Berkeley. And Oakland.

BUT WOULDN’T TECH WORKERS GET MOCKED IN BERKELEY AND OAKLAND TOO? I THINK THEY WOULD.

Suppose the “Twitter Miracle” on Mid-Market dries up.

IS THIS A PHRASE NOW, THE “TWITTER MIRACLE?” I DON’T THINK SO. THE ONLY REFERENCE I CAN FIND IS A SARCASTIC ONE ON MISSION LOCAL. SO OF COURSE I’M QUOTING YOU, BUT WHO ARE YOU QUOTING, NEVE? YOURSELF? OK FINE. BUT WHY IS TWITTER MOVING FROM 4TH AND FOLSOM TO 10TH AND MARKET A MIRACLE, WHICH OF COURSE IS “an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.” BUT IRL, TWITTER MOVED TO THAT LOCATION DUE TO POLITICS, DUE TO GAVIN NEWSOM WANTING TO BECOME US PRESIDENT, CA GOVERNOR, CA LT GOVERNOR. THAT WAS NOT DIVINE INTERVENTION, NEVE.

Of course, part of the reason they came in the first place was that the city offered them a nice tax break for six years.

THAT’S THE STORY, BUT IT’S NOT REALLY PROVABLE. WE SIMPLY DON’T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE SUBSIDY. BEFORE TWITTER, WE HAD CORPORATE WELFARE FOR BIG PHARMA. THIS WAS A BIT BEFORE YOUR TIME HERE IN SF, NEVE. IT WAS THE “GENENTECH MIRACLE.” IT DIDN’T WORK OUT.

But now, entering the third full year, the companies are likely to take a hard look at how things are working out.

THINGS WORKED OUT GREAT FOR TWITTER, RIGHT? THEY HAD THEIR IPO AND THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO PAY THE PAYROLL TAX SIGNED INTO LAW BY GAVIN NEWSOM(!) BACK IN 2004; BUT IF TWITTER LEAVES TOWN, WHAT’S THE HARM IN THAT?

What if the companies say: You know, part of the reason we located here was because we thought our employees would love the city and quality of life. But now we’ve been turned into ideological punching bags.

CAN YOU CITE AN EXAMPLE OF SOME FRAGILE SOUL MOVING OUT OF SF FOR THIS REASON? I DON’T THINK YOU CAN.

Our firms are criticized for not doing enough in the community, despite hefty donations. (Twitter, to pick an example, has pledged $388,000 to Tenderloin schools and charities.)

THIS IS ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LESS THAN WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE PAID IN TAXES TO THE GENERAL FUND. DO YOU GET THIS NEVE? MOST BIG COMPANIES PAY THEIR TAXES _AND_ DO CHARITY

And our employees are being mocked, hassled and trash-talked. It’s unpleasant. They don’t like it.

CITATION? EXAMPLE? HEY NEVIUS! DIDN’T YOU JUST GET THROUGH MOCKING DANIELLE STEEL? WHAT IF SHE MOVES TO FRANCE FULL-TIME?

Efforts are being made to find ways to keep families and blue-collar workers here. 

NICE USE OF PASSIVE VOICE THERE, NEVE. LET’S LET YOUR BUDDIES IN SFGOV KEEP ON KEEPING ON. ALL IS CALM, ALL IS BRIGHT.

Driver and Writer CW Nevius Goes on a “Rant” Against the “Militant” Pedestrians of SF – Do They Have the Right to Jaywalk?

Friday, January 31st, 2014

Here’s the latest effort from CW Nevius, who’s taking a break from being spokesman for San Francisco’s right-side-of-the-aisle  political faction to go on a “bit of a rant” against local pedestrians. But what’s up with this?  

“Even when they are in the right, I worry about them. When the traffic light countdown gets to five or six, they step confidently into the crosswalk — which is their right…”

But pedestrians don’t have “the right” to do so. It’s agin CA law – check out V C Section 21456,* which is dealt with by Rule #3 of the Five Rules for Pedestrians.

Don’t you have an editor, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have an editor, and plus, editors cost money, that’s right.

But don’t you have a fact checker, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have a fact checker, and plus, fact checkers cost money, that’s right.

But don’t you have a photographer, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, photographers cost money. So all your observations, we’ll just have to take your word about them. OK fine. BTW, [sarcasmmode ON] nice stock photo you’ve got there, Neve. “Cause a stock photo taken in the People’s Republic of China, you know, from more than a thousand li away, well, that really illustrates how “militant” and “freaking nuts” San Francisco peds are, huh? [sarcasmmode OFF]

And oh, BTW Neve, the peds of SF aren’t militant, not at all. Try to find a different word for what you mean.

Of course you’re new in town, I get that. Sure, welcome to San Francisco, Neve.

But you’re doing a half-assed job doing your half-time gig.

You need to try harder.

*”Walk, Wait, or Don t Walk

21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows:

(a) “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.

(b) Flashing or steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing.

Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.”

NEVIUS TRILOGY: Big Central Subway Booster CW Nevius USED TO HATE the Central Subway – Why the Change?

Friday, January 10th, 2014

Let’s check in with San Francisco Chronicle writer CW Nevius on the topic of the Central Subway:

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?”

So that was Nevius 2014. Now let’s check in with Nevius 2008 on the same exact topic:

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?”

Has CW Nevius offered any explanation for this 180 degree turnaround?

‘Cause I’ll tell you, this subway-to-nowhere project has gotten worse since 2008.

Let’s review:

CIVIL GRAND JURY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO – “CENTRAL SUBWAY, TOO MUCH MONEY FOR TOO LITTLE BENEFIT

Wall Street Journal: Off the San Francisco Rails – $1.6 billion for 1.7 miles of subway.

San Francisco Bay Guardian: Central Subway gravy train shows how City Hall work

SF Weekly: Portmistress Pelosi

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera: It’s time to rethink the Central Subway 

San Francisco Examiner: Dennis Herrera comes out against San Francisco Central Subway project

CalWatchdog: S.F. Subway Derails Into Boondoggle

SAVEMUNI: Central Subway – Background – An Opportunity Gone Wrong

Former Richmond District Supervisor and San Francisco Transportation Agency Chair Jake* McGoldrick: S.F. must stop Central Subway from being built

Get the point? Good, let’s dance!

Nevius 1988, artist’s conception – perhaps this particular Nevius had yet another strongly held position on this corrupt SFGov boondoggle:

Post sponsored by Nevius Nation 1414 – “We are a part of the Nevius Nation

*Forget about it Jake, it’s Chinatown

Longtime East Bay Resident and SFGate Advocacy Journalist CW Nevius ID’s Cable Car as a “Hyde Street Trolly”

Monday, January 6th, 2014

(You can take the boy out of the East Bay (and plop him in a SoMA condo), but you can’t take the East Bay out of the boy.)

Gentle Reader, consider CW Nevius and his most recent bit advocating for the oppressed white millionaire homeowners of Russian Hill – this time he’s acting at the behest of Supervisor Mark Farrell (R., District 2)

See that*? 

Click to expand

Now I think the word you’re looking for, CW Nevius, is trolley with an “e,” as in potatoe.

Except it aint a trolley, it’s a cable car.  To wit:

“…electric tram (streetcar), sometimes confused with a cable car.”

And the vehicle code section cited here is wrong:

“The problem, says Deputy City Attorney Buck Delventhal, is California Vehicle Code 21106.1…”

CW Nevius, if you’re going to take the trouble to cite a law, why not take the time to do it the right way? Do you feel overworked, CW? You shouldn’t. Moving on…

And there’s this:

“Stefani says Farrell’s office was unaware of the 1987 law…”

Uh, former law? Or former bill? Did the “law” sunset automatically? And was it ever signed by The Duke in the first place? I don’t think so actually.

You see, CW Nevius, what you should look at are the reasons why the millionaires’ efforts always fail. Try this on for size:

The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen, subject to legislative control or such reasonable regulations as to the traffic thereon or the manner of using them as the legislature may deem wise or proper to adopt and impose.’ … ‘Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure…”

Nevius, why don’t you retire or go back to sports, srsly? Then you’d get replaced by somebody who would do your job better than you, right? Wouldn’t that be a win-win?

But before you do that, why don’t you fix this**`?

“Jose had been struck by a late-’90s, silver, four-door sedan as he stepped off the curb at Oak and Scott.”

“And the intersection of Fell and Scott, where Jose was hit, has consistently been described as one of the city’s most dangerous.”

Fin. 

*Looks like somebody is striking a pose on the crosswalk:

I’m a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the  
Yeah on the catwalk on the crosswalk, yeah
I do my little turn on the crosswalk

**I actually believed The Neve on the Fell and Scott thing, so I was going to go out there a week or two later on a Tuesday night at around the same time on the theory that this was somebody coming home during the evening drive. But then I saw that the actual location was on Oak so now I think the driver isn’t on a commuting schedule. You know, I’ve got a Canon 5D, crank the ISO up to 25,600, use a simple 200mm 2.8 prime to see if I could see some damage and get a plate. I mean it might have been worth the effort.

CW Nevius Gets It Done! A Few Words From His Now-Paywalled Column Stirs Government Workers Into Action – Or Not

Friday, June 21st, 2013

You know, San Francisco columnist CW Nevius used to complain about all the people commenting underneath his writings. In fact, he would dedicate some of his bits to rip on all the uncouths who dared contradict his conclusions.

(I’ll bet he misses those days now, he misses the time when he had hundreds and hundreds of commenters on SFGate instead of just a handful on the Chronicle website.)

Anyway, here’s the latest, about a BART / SFMTA / MUNI entrance near the intersection of Sutter and Sansome:

A sign on the barrier said the portal would be closed until June 4. When that date passed, a commuter added a sign that said: “Or whenever we get around to it.” The date was then changed to June 21.”

But Nevius got BART to change the sign to say that the opening date was pushed up to June 20th. See? Here’s how it looked the morning of 6/20:

And here’s the same location on the afternoon of 6/20:

Oh Nevius, when will all your incessant source greasing and beat sweetening pay off?