Posts Tagged ‘CEQA’

Uh Oh, Now There’s ANOTHER Lawsuit Against the City: Small Property Owners vs. the “Nonconforming Unit Ordinance”

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Man, San Francisco sure seems to be getting sued a lot by property owners a lot these days.

Get used to it, 2014′s going to be a bumpy ride.

To wit:

“January 29, 2014 

SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO FILE LAWSUIT TO BLOCK LAW

New Ordinance Would Discriminate Against Families Who Move Into Their Own Buildings 

SAN FRANCISCO, Tuesday, January 28, 2014 – Today, the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute filed a lawsuit challenging Supervisor John Avalos’ Nonconforming Unit Ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance violates state law and fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Nonconforming Unit Ordinance would legalize the practice of renovating and expanding “nonconforming units.” Nonconforming units are “grandfathered” residential units that exceed local zoning laws’ density limits. Controversially, the ordinance would also discriminate against nonconforming units that have been the subject of lawful “no-fault” evictions, which are allowed under state and local law. Such units would be denied building permits for up to 10 years following a lawful eviction – even for regular maintenance and minor repairs. Property owners would also be barred from rebuilding their units after a fire or earthquake.

“This legislation punishes families who move into their own buildings,” stated Noni Richen, president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (SPOSFI). “It could cause thousands of lawful housing units to sit vacant while the City denies permits for basic upkeep. Given the current housing shortage, this is unconscionable.”

“As we have shown again and again, we will not allow the City to violate property rights with these illegal schemes,” stated Andrew M. Zacks, SPOSFI’s attorney. “The state’s Ellis Act prohibits this kind of discrimination against lawful evictions. Moreover, cities are required to evaluate a new ordinance’s environmental impacts under CEQA. This legislation was rushed through without proper review.”

Nonconforming units are different from “in-law” units, which are generally unpermitted and illegal. For example, a permitted third unit on a parcel zoned for two units is considered a nonconforming unit. The City Planning Department’s Information and Analysis Group estimates that approximately 52,000 units in the city are nonconforming, comprising some 14% of the city’s housing stock.

A copy of the Nonconforming Unit Ordinance is available at http://zulpc.com/small-property-owners-file-suit-to-block-discriminatory-law/.

The Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (“SPOSFI”) is a California nonprofit corporation. SPOSFI advocates for the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that works to promote and preserve home ownership in San Francisco. Its focus is to protect the rights of small property owners and foster opportunities for first-time home buyers. SPOSFI members range from young families to the elderly on fixed incomes, and its membership cuts across all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic strata. Its members include San Francisco residents who own nonconforming residential units in San Francisco.

Zacks & Freedman, P.C. is a law firm dedicated to advocating for the rights of property owners. With experience and knowledge in rent control issues, zoning, permitting, transactional disputes and other real estate matters, Zacks & Freedman, P.C. has successfully advocated its clients’ positions before local administrative tribunals and at all levels of the State and Federal courts.

Marina District Gratified by All the White People Who Showed Up for America’s Cup – But Says No to Regular Tourists

Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

Work with me here. The recent America’s Cup scrimmage event up in San Francisco’s Great White North got this kind of reaction in the pages of the Marina Times:

“This event brought exactly the right kind of crowd to the Marina.”

Uh, white people with some extra folding money to spend – that kind of crowd?

Mmmm…

Anyway, you’d think that the friendly Marinites would similarly welcome the Feds landing Alcatraz tour boats at Fort Mason, right?

No.

Let’s hear from socially awkward, born-into-the-one-percent District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell in the very same pages of the Marina Times:

“The National Park Service’s (NPS) intention to study Fort Mason as a possible location for its Alcatraz tour ferry service is one of those ideas with serious and long-lasting impacts that must immediately be put to rest.”

(Yeah, it’s one of those ideas, huh? So like, Alex, I want “Ideas with serious and long-lasting impacts that must immediately be put to rest” for $1600?”)

Apparently, one set of aquatic tourists is the best thing in the world and another set of aquatic tourists is the worst thing in the world?

OK fine.

Hey Marina, look at this! You think the future can’t cross a bridge ride through a tunnel?

Now here’s the kicker. The reason why the white people of the Marina are worried about the Fort Mason proposal is that it’s a lead pipe cinch, owing to the lack of NIMBY laws on federal land:

“What makes the idea even more distressing to residents and establishments in the Marina is the lack of local environmental review and input that would be available. The NPS stated that environmental review of the Fort Mason site would be conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and not under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because Fort Mason is federal property. Without a CEQA process in place for Fort Mason, the enormous changes contemplated in the Marina will never be considered by our local government, and any NEPA appeal would have to take place in Washington through the federal courts. In my letter to the NPS, I asked that since they are prepared to undergo a CEQA analysis for the sites located at the Port of San Francisco piers, they should do the same for the NPS-owned piers at Fort Mason…”

So, don’t come here, Feds. Don’t come here where it’s super easy to do business, you know, without dealing with millionaire NIMBYs for decades, oh no, don’t even think about it! Feds, you must immediately put the idea “to rest.”

Well, we’ll just have to wait and see how that works…

No AT&T LightSpeed Internet Service Anytime Soon – NIMBYs Win Against City – A Stay from Judge Harold Khan

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

The hard-core NIMBYs at San Francisco Beautiful (our Comcast monopoly’s L’il Buddy) ended up going two for two yesterday in their crusade ensure that dial-up internet service is the best that some San Franciscans can get. That is, they won a stay from Superior Court Judge Harold Khan temporarily blocking the installation of AT&T sidewalk boxes and they’ll have no requirement to post a bond to keep their stay.

This is, of course, despite the fact that the Board of Supervisors recently approved the installation.

Let’s hear the reaction from AT&T Regional Vice President, Marc Blakeman:

“Residents across the City, as well as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, have voiced support for competition and choice when it comes to TV, high speed internet and digital phone service. 

Despite today’s decision to issue a temporary stay, AT&T believes it ultimately will prevail in the litigation and it remains committed to bringing San Francisco a next generation IP network.”

Which, you know, sounds good to me, but I’m not a NIMBY.

So, when you see these existing boxes, which Judge Khan has no control over, what’s your reaction? Do you say, well there’s graffiti on a telephone box or an electricity box or a mail box so we shouldn’t have telephones and we shouldn’t have electricity and we shouldn’t have mail service? I don’t know.

Click to expand

Let’s hear from the NIMBY side of things after the jump, but I warn you, it’s barely legible.

On It Goes…

(more…)

Mayor Ed Lee Acts to Alter Poorly-Negotiated America’s Cup Deal – Fewer Massive Yachts Berthed at Rincon Point

Friday, October 21st, 2011

Just as dog murder threatens the image of our wasteful Central Subway, the plan to berth massive yachts at the wet end of SoMA does the same for America’s Cup 2013.

So, as he did with the Tom Otterness case, Mayor Lee is taking measures, as this late, late Friday afternoon press release shows:

“MAYOR LEE SUPPORTS SAFEGUARDING OPEN BAY VIEWS ALONG WATERFRONT DURING 34TH AMERICA’S CUP - Port of San Francisco & America’s Cup Event Authority Seek Approval from Bay Conservation & Development Commission for Revised Temporary Berthing Plan During America’s Cup Events

San Francisco, CA— Mayor Edwin M. Lee today announced that the City, the Port of San Francisco and the America’s Cup Event Authority (Event Authority) reached an agreement on a revised plan for berthing America’s Cup spectator vessels along the waterfront that will safeguard San Francisco Bay views along the Embarcadero promenade. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will need to approve the plan to temporarily accommodate vessels expected for the 34th America’s Cup events.

“We are working together with BCDC and the Event Authority to refine our plans, so that the America’s Cup special events enhance the waterfront in a way that balances the excitement of the races with the picturesque Bay views that are so important to our residents and visitors,” said Mayor Lee. “This temporary berthing proposal is another step in collaborating with our event partners and the residents of San Francisco to reach a consensus.”

The area is known under the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SAP) as the Rincon Point Open Water Basin. The Port of San Francisco and the America’s Cup Event Authority are seeking approval from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to amend the SAP.

In discussing the concerns raised by BCDC and the public over the last several months with the Port, the City and the Event Authority, the space sought for the temporary docks for these private vessels has been reduced from the entire Rincon Point basin to an area that begins at the northern boundary of Rincon Park and stretches northward to Pier 14, leaving the area in front of the park unobstructed by vessels. To free up these open water views, the event partners identified additional berthing locations for these vessels along the Port’s waterfront, including at Pier 9, the water area north of Pier 14 and the water area between Piers 32 and 36 where the America’s Cup racing vessels will also be moored.

“Because our goal for the 34th America’s Cup is creating a great experience for those both on land and on the water, we really appreciate the opportunity we’ve had to hear directly from San Franciscans about what is important to them,” said Tom Huston, Chief Operating Officer of the Event Authority. “We are very pleased that our work with the City, the Port and BCDC has resulted in a proposal that will preserve waterfront views while enabling the City to benefit from the economic impact that comes with these vessels.”

These revised proposals reflect the City and the Event Authority’s commitment to listening to the concerns raised through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) comment process and other public meetings about balancing the event activities with the needs of San Francisco residents and the environment.

If the vessel berthing proposals for the Rincon Point Open Water Basin and the Brannan Street Open Water Basin between Piers 32 and 36 are approved and implemented, the terms of the City’s Host and Venue Agreement for the 34th America’s Cup provide the Event Authority with the right to negotiate for a future long-term lease for the development of recreational marinas at these locations.

Any long-term marina proposal of this kind would require further amendments to the SAP before any lease could become effective, and are not directly contemplated under the current proposal. Any further SAP amendments would require a separate public review and planning process for the City, Port and Event Authority working in concert with BCDC.

BCDC will consider the issuance of a brief descriptive notice for the SAP amendments relating to this temporary berthing plan at its public meeting on November 3, 2011.”

O.K. fine.

Larry Ellison giving the finger to the people of the City and County of San Francisco with one hand whilst steering his boat with the other:

Click to expand

Supervisor Scott Wiener’s “Dear NIMBY” Letter for Those Distraught By Yesterday’s Vote to Allow AT&T U-Verse Service

Thursday, July 21st, 2011

Well, here it is, via Noe Valley SF, a Hyper-Local Guide to Noe Valley … With Attitude, it’s Supervisor Scott Wiener’s address to the NIMBY associations of District 8 regarding his approval of U-Verse Internet/TV/Phone service for San Francisco after all those years of delay.

See below – it goes on and on.

I myself don’t recall seeing too many AT&T boxes in the 415 with graffiti. The shots produced by the NIMBYs generally are from out of town / out of state. Anyway, here’s one of the genuine AT&T utility boxes already in town. It sort of has graffiti:

Via Eric Fischer – click to expand

Leave us begin:

From: Date: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM
Subject: My vote on the AT&T issue
To: Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org

I’m sending this email to a number of neighborhood association leaders and other involved folks in District 8, in order to explain my vote yesterday on the AT&T environmental appeal. I would appreciate it if you would forward this email to your boards, memberships, and neighbors who have an interest in this issue. The voters are entitled to an explanation of all of my votes (and I cast many each week), including votes as controversial as this one. People can agree or disagree, but they deserve an explanation.

I will start by saying that I struggled mightily with this issue. Like many of you, I do not like these boxes, or any of the utility boxes that are already on our streets. Part of me very much wanted to vote against AT&T and for an EIR simply because I dislike the boxes. But one of the commitments that I made to myself, and to the voters, was that I’m not just going to be a reactive elected official. I committed that I was going to be the kind of elected official who tried to find solutions to hard issues. I also committed to myself early on that I would not abuse CEQA by ordering EIRs where the law doesn’t support it simply because I have policy issues with the underlying project. As described below, ordering an EIR here probably would have been illegal and certainly would have fed into our City and State’s addiction to environmental review, with the effect that good projects (including public projects) are delayed, killed, or made much more expensive than they need to be.

The issue here was very hard — pretty much everyone agrees that Comcast is in desperate need of competition while also agreeing that these boxes stink. There were also incredibly strong views on both sides of this issue. I received many emails from opponents, passionately and articulately describing the issues with the boxes, and from proponents, passionately and articulately describing why we need the service and competition. This was a no-win vote for me in terms of popularity contests. Either way I voted was going to make one group or the other upset with me. But, for better or for worse, casting controversial votes is what we do at the Board. If I wanted to be loved by everyone all the time, I wouldn’t have run for office.

And, this issue pointed to a major problem we have in San Francisco. We do a bad job managing our sidewalks. Our departments don’t coordinate well. We don’t have a strong master plan. We haven’t fully implemented the Better Streets Plan. That plan is how we should be managing our sidewalks and deciding what to put on them and where. Not through CEQA, which is a blunt instrument that doesn’t get you much other than delay and expense, but through actually having a plan for our sidewalks. As described below, through a strong and well-planned permitting system, we can do that.

So, why did I, in the end, tip in favor of voting to reject the appeal?”

It continues.

(more…)

The NIMBYs Just Can’t Win in 2011: Here’s a Blow-By-Blow Account of the AT&T U-Verse Utility Box Vote. Poor Comcast!

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

[UPDATE: And oh, yesterday’s vote at the Board o’ Supes will have no effect upon cell phone service in San Francisco, despite what some might tell you. Uverse is about TV and wired Internet and wired phone service, for the most part. It’s FttN, Fiber to the Node, bro-ham. It’s not Fiber to the Cell Phone Antenna, no, not at all…]

The selfish, aging, rich, white, property-owning NIMBYs of San Francisco are having a tough go of it in the 415 during 2011. I mean, we just had the approval of the Booker T. Washington Community Service Center and the (effective) approval of the King Edward II project and, now, a whole mess of utility boxes from AT&T.

Am I saying that San Francisco should “push projects into neighborhoods without input?”

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The thing is though, even when you allow the NIMBY’s to give input before you start building a community service center or apartment building or brace of utility boxes, they’re still not happy.

Isn’t that funny?

Don’t you think that ugly people from San Francisco Beautiful had more than a little input on the long-delayed project to bring regular San Franciscans U-Verse Internet and TV and phone and WiFi service? (Way too much input, IMO.)

Anyway, Sunglint was all over yesterday’s action at the Board of Supervisors. See below. (Sunglint is not without strong feelings on the matter, so you’ve been warned.)

Is this an AT&T box? No it’s not. Should area NIMBY’s want it banned? Well, not if they want electricity:

Click to expand

Here’s an excerpt from Sunglint, who later goes into what was behind each pro-NIMBY vote:

“At approximately 4:45PST, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the exemption determination for AT&T’s once-in-a-century telephone infrastructure upgrade project, aka “Project Lightspeed.” This means that AT&T can now start to implement their plan to upgrade the telecom infrastructure in the city, with the goal of delivering higher-speed 24Mbs DSL service within all San Francisco districts. AT&T also calls this as “Uverse” which can be any combination of television, telephone, and internet.

The final proposal seems to allow 495 cabinets to be installed throughout the city of San Francisco by AT&T. Multiple potential sites for each cabinet location are to be evaluated. When AT&T seeks an excavation permit from the DPW, besides doing the usual permit stuff, DPW will also notify that site’s supervisor. Then, that supervisor signs an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with AT&T regarding the site, or one of the alternative sightings are considered. Something like that: the specific details seem fuzzy. There seems to be a formal and sane DPW appeals process, and a  my-supervisor-is-crazy-curve-ball appeals process.

Voting against were the following sorry lot of supervisors, with their comments below.

District 1: Eric Mar

District 3: David Chiu

District 5: Ross Mirkarimi

District 6: Jane Kim

District 11: John Avalos

Note to the supervisors listed above: I will be voting against you in future elections, geography permitting, and consider your conduct in this matter anti-internet, anti-technology, anti-jobs: death eaters, all! Here are specific comments.”

Get Sunglint’s summary of comments here.

All right, I have to go talk a suicidal Comcast executive down from the roof right now. He’s yelling, “Millions, millions, our precious monopoly is going to lose millions!”

Oh, and after the jump, a list of NIMBY fellow travelers, the people who don’t want you to have high-speed Internet and whatnot.

(more…)

Forget About Rob Anderson, the StreetsBlog Crowd Now Has a New Public Enemy #1: It’s Writer Scott James of the Bay Citizen

Friday, July 15th, 2011

[UPDATE: Right on scheduleBay Citizen’s Scott James Tries to Drum Up Opposition to Fell and Oak Bikeways”]

Back in the day, Rob Anderson was The Most Hated Man In Town, ’cause he tied the City and County up in knots by insisting upon an Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. He instigated a slam-dunk lawsuit (really, he was pretty much guaranteed victory) owing to the City trying to go around CA state law by just pretending that an EIR wasn’t necessary.

But eventually, after years, the required report got finished and that was that. IMO, he should have quit while he was ahead, but no, he and his lawyer said the EIR wasn’t good enough – they ended up losing on that issue. Still, you’d have to say he was one of the most successful NIMBYs in CA history.

Remember when he was on the front page of the national edition of the Wall Street Journal? Good times:

But that was then and this is now, so forget about Rob Anderson.

Comes now Scott James of the Bay Citizen - feel free to set your sights (sites?) on him:

Why?

Well, because of stuff like this. People didn’t like that bit, not at all.

And now, today, ooh boy, that’s not going to go down well, no sir.

I was pleasantly surprised by how there’s not a ‘no way, this is crazy, don’t do it’ feeling out there,” [Mike] Sallaberry said, according to Streetsblog.org, a pro-cycling website. But the bike coalition research, obtained using the open-records law, surveyed only 14 businesses — and it actually reveals very serious objections, which some survey respondents later reiterated in interviews.

To annoy drivers “and make it worse of a pain is not the solution,” Miloslavich said.

Robert Williams, owner of Panhandle Guitar, said: “Fell Street is dangerous to have bike lanes on.”

[SFMTA Spokesmodel Paul] Rose said he was not sure whether Sallaberry’s remarks had been correctly reported. Sallaberry was not available for comment.”

Wow, that’s all you can come up with? You’re “not sure whether the remarks had been correctly reported?”

Wow. That’s the last arrow in your quiver that you should be using, right? Oh, it was the only arrow you had?

Wow.

Obviously, when the SFMTA and its affiliates decide to do a program, it’s the job of the SFMTA to push that program through come Hell or high water. If the program gets executed then the manager succeeded and if the program doesn’t get executed, then the manager failed – it doesn’t matter a whit whether or not the program itself is good or bad for the commonweal at that point. Not at all. What matters is that the SFMTA decided to do something. It’s the job of SFMTA employees to cheerlead and mislead and lie to get any particular program through.

Remember the traffic circles of the lower and upper Haights? Boy, they took out stop signs on Page Street and Waller and then you’d just have to guess at what drivers were going to do when they came upon the intersection. You see, drivers didn’t have to stop. Anyway, that crazy idea got voted down – it lost five times out of five – but all the people behind the stupid traffic circles could say is how “sad” it was that the traffic circles were such a failure.

The fact that they weren’t a good idea never seemed to occur to the people behind the traffic circles.

Fixing the eastbound Panhandle-to-Wiggle connector shouldn’t be that hard. Mostly, it’s about taking out some parking spaces or otherwise freeing up some more room. It’s not about “completing” Oak Street, it’s not about being the next “win-win” from the SFMTA. It’s about making compromises, it’s about winners and losers, it’s about costs and benefits.

Lying to people about the costs doesn’t benefit the people of San Francisco.

Of course.

California Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Ban on Plastic Bags: “Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach”

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

Just saying. KQED’s Scott Shafer has some deets.

Looks like San Francisco’s idea will spread further, now that there will be fewer concerns over every NIMBY’s favorite weapon, the California Environmental Quality Act.

See below for the deets on “Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach.” No. S180720.

Bags, bags, bags!

“California Supreme Court Upholds City’s Ban on Plastic Bags

Ruling Dampens Challenges to Plastic Bag Bans Across The State, And Raises Threshold For Environmental Impact Reports

SAN FRANCISCO, July 14, 2011 — The California Supreme Court today issued a ruling that impacts not only plastic bag bans throughout the state but has far-reaching ramifications for the circumstances under which public agencies must prepare environmental impact reports under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The court ruled in favor of the City of Manhattan Beach, paving the way for the city’s ban on plastic bags to go into effect. Downey Brand partner Christian Marsh argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant, Manhattan Beach. He was joined in the argument by James Moose of Remy Thomas Moose & Manley for amici curiae Californians Against Waste. “We were confident the city had a right to impose the bag ban, and this ruling gives cities across California some real clarity,” Marsh said.

An industry coalition of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors known as the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition sued Manhattan Beach for its citywide ban on plastic bags, arguing that the environmental impacts associated with increased paper bag use would outweigh any environmental benefits of the ban. The city, among many in California with similar ordinances, imposed the ban to limit the number of plastic bags making their way into the ocean and marine environment. The case raised two important issues that have been facing fiscally-strapped cities and counties across the state: (1) whether the coalition, which had a commercial interest in overturning the ban, qualified for “public interest” standing under CEQA, and (2) what is the legal threshold under CEQA for when a project or ordinance necessitates preparing an environmental impact report, known as an EIR. In its ruling, the court sided with the city on the CEQA threshold, but ruled against the city on the coalition’s standing to sue.

Justice Carol Corrigan, writing for a unanimous court, upheld the city’s ban, finding that “it is plain the city acted within its discretion when it determined that its ban on plastic bags would have no significant effect on the environment.” In the face of a number of “life cycle” studies that had been put forth by the coalition, the court noted that “common sense leads us to the conclusion that the environmental impacts discernible from the ‘life cycles’ of plastic and paper bags are not significantly implicated by a plastic bag ban in Manhattan Beach.”

The decision on the threshold for producing an EIR was being closely-watched by public entities and private project proponents alike, as often they are compelled to prepare costly and time-consuming EIRs even though the activity in question has little or no environmental impact (and in this case, a tremendous environmental benefit). As Marsh reported, “Due to the risks associated with litigation over these decisions, public agencies often feel the need to go well beyond the requirements of the statute, at great time and expense. This decision sets a more reasonable threshold for when pubic agencies must prepare EIRs, and will reduce the ability of would-be challengers to delay projects across the state. Instead of conducting unwarranted environmental review, the decision allows public agencies to focus their limited resources on producing reports for projects that are much more likely to impact the environment than minor projects would.”

Christian Marsh is a partner in Downey Brand’s San Francisco office, and advises public and private clients on natural resource, energy, and land use matters involving water supply and water quality, endangered species, California planning and zoning law, and CEQA and its federal counterpart the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Marsh also conducts trial and appellate-level litigation in these areas. With a former partner, he prevailed in the last CEQA case decided by the California Supreme Court, Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481.”

The End of the Comcast Monopoly Might Begin Today: Boo, Comcast! Hurray, Free Infrastructure from AT&T!

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

[Well, the can got kicked down the road today at the BoS of course. Oh well. BTW, can your neighbors band together to prevent you from getting your mail? Not that I know of. So why should your neighbors band together to prevent you from getting your Internet at faster than dial-up speed? I don’t know. Once again it’s Rich White Homeowners 1, You 0.]

I don’t know, I think I’ve weighed-in enough already on the whole AT&T LightSpeed / U-Verse situation. But anyway, once more into the breach, my friends, once more down to City Hall for another Board of Supervisors meeting, starting at 2:00 PM this afternoon.

Now I know this might come as a shock to the easily shocked homeowners at San Francisco Beautiful, but, you know, most of the existing AT&T utility boxes in town don’t have graffiti all over them.

And remember, there’s graffiti in town that’s on other, non-AT&T utility structures.

Can you imagine?

All right, let me be your Sightsee M.C. – let’s take a tour of the Western Addition, the NIMBYs’ Fortress of Reaction.

Check it, is this a graffitoed AT&T box? No it’s not:

Click to expand

So what, should we take it out to satisfy the millionaire homeowners across the street? You know, just do without whatever utility this utility box provides? Is that what you want, NIMBYs?

I think that one above is about electricity.

I know this one here is about electricity or gas, one or the other or both – see the new SmartMeter stuff? Is this array considered blight? So then we should live in the dark with candles, maybe?

Oh here we go, look at all this telephone pole “blight.” Should we get rid of land lines now?

Now, I don’t think you people need to watch any more TV than you already do. But U-Verse is a utility, right? Just like phone service and electrical and gas and whatnot, right?

So what gives wealthy, influential, white people* the right to put the kibosh on somebody’s Internet / Phone / Cable TV triple play for $99** a month?

That’s what I don’t know…

*What’s that NIMBY? You’re not wealthy? Oh yes you are! What’s that NIMBY? You’re not influential? Oh yes you are! You’ve got Supervisor Scott Wiener shaking in his boots, as ascared of you as he is of area dog owners. What’s that NIMBY? You’re not white? Oh, forget it, you already know you’re white, right NIMBY?

**For the first six months, but then, look out, brother!

We DON’T Need An EIR Before Utility Boxes Are Installed – Welcoming AT&T U-Verse Service to the 415, At Long Last

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

Get up to speed on the U-Verse issue right here and Fog City Journal has coverage of yesterday’s rally at City Hall right here.

Oh, look, yet another “utility box” on the sidewalks of San Francisco. But, kell domaje, it’s covered in graffiti. Let’s solve this problem by cancelling mail service to the 415 – does that make sense?

Via Don BeetleDick

Now, let’s hear from the West Bay:

“My final words to SF Beautiful. Keep your hands off the neighborhoods of others. You don’t speak for us. We can speak for ourselves.”

Harsh. Now, I’m not sure how real a group the Ocean Beach Condominiums Homeowners Association is, but you can only get Comcast or dial-up internet out there near the ocean? Wow. Those poor devils, poor poor devils.

And, generally, do young people like judgmental homeowners associations? Apparently. (You mock twisted copper into the home? All right, but some people would like that. Deal with it. Who is stepping up for Fiber Into the Home or whatever they call it? Who is going to pay for that? Oh well, in the meantime, we’ll have AT&T as another choice.)

Anyway, appears as if those AT&T boxes will get approved today at the Board of Supes, but that will come with the chance that your neighbors will still say neigh and you won’t be able to get U-Verse after all.

Consider that a partial victory for Progress.