Posts Tagged ‘civil code’

Usurpation Update: Bluebird Cleaners on Clement in the Richmond District Improperly Threatens to Tow Cars From Green Zone

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Well, this one should be simple:

Green zones and green meters are for public use and are not reserved for particular establishments.”

And yet:

Click to expand

Also, if you want a wedding dress cleaned the charge is $140, but if you go someplace else and say it’s a Black and White Ball dress, then the charge is just $15. And, of course at Bluebird Cleaners, girls pay more, as always. It’s all on the Yelp.

Why do people out in the West Bay think they own the streets adjacent to their private property?

Oh well.

“Green zones are for short-term parking, generally less than 10 minutes. In non-metered areas, green zones are indicated by a green curb marking with a ten-minute time limit. Standard effective hours are 9 a.m. until 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

In metered areas, short-term parking can be designated by a green meter with either a 15- or 30-minute time limit, in lieu of a painted curb. The effective hours for green meters are the same hours of operation as adjacent meters. Green zones and green meters are for public use and are not reserved for particular establishments. Please also note that vehicles bearing disabled placards or plates are exempt from the time limits for green zones or green meters.

Green zones or limited time meters are not intended for private parking. Such zones are intended for establishments where transactions are predominantly short-term – 10 minutes – in nature.  Typical establishments that may qualify for a green zone are dry cleaners, florists, small neighborhood grocery/deli convenience stores, audio-visual repair shops, shoe repair shops, postal shipping centers, and hardware stores.  Other establishments are reviewed on a case-by case basis. Among other reasons, green zone requests may be denied if private off-street parking is available, there are adjacent limited time zones nearby, or the establishment’s transactions are not predominantly short-term in nature.

A processing fee is required for either a green zone or a green meter. If approved at the public hearing, painted green zones are required to be renewed every two years thereafter; see the white/green zone fee schedule.  When applying for a painted green zone, please do not combine processing with painting/installation fees. Please send only the processing fee with your application. Green meter zones are not required to be renewed and there is no paint/installation fee.”

Blue Bird Cleaners in The Richmond Thinks It Owns the Streets of San Francisco – An Usurpation on Clement

Sunday, October 17th, 2010

Uh, just because The City, in its Wisdom, was kind enough to grant you a couple 15 minute green zones in front of your bidness doesn’t mean that you can start towing aways cars of the people who don’t put cash in your pockets.

V. C. Section 22658 covers “Removal From Private Property,” right?

Click to expand

Never before have I seen such an usurpation of authoritah by a private bidness.

This is not/

I cry foul.

Oh, and since we be into citing that California Code, what of the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, aka California Civil Code Section 51.6. That’s the one that says you charge the same price for cleaning a shirt whether it’s worn by a boy or a girl.

Now, why are the Yelpers so upset at the Blue Bird Cleaners? Is Alona B alone?

I feel terrible writing a scathing review for anything, but I feel like people should be deterred from this place.  Particularly, women who get their button-up shirts laundered!

I dropped off a few mens and womens shirts to be laundered (not dry-cleaned). $2.50 each, ok fine.  Thewomen’s shirts are the same cotton fabric as the mens shirts, except they are 3/4 length sleeve and have a little fold on the breast pockets (mini cargo pockets).  

Anyway, when I pick them up I am told that they are BLOUSES and therefore $5.50! Despite the fact that they are the same as a man’s shirt, just smaller.  This is a pinstripe, cotton, collared, button-up shirt.Nothing blousey about it.

I got pretty upset and tried to debate it, “um, no this is a shirt, no different from the men’s right here. there is no way this is a blouse!” and I didn’t even get the “Ok, well sorry for this time, but next time that’s our price.”

The service was a stubborn assertion that my button up is a blouse. $5.50 to have one of my work shirts cleaned.

Never again, forever.”

I, once again, cry foul.

What you need to do, BBC, is follow the law, not lecture The World Outside about the law.

(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995.
   (b) No business establishment of any kind whatsoever may
discriminate, with respect to the price charged for services of
similar or like kind, against a person because of the person’s
   (c) Nothing in subdivision (b) prohibits price differences based
specifically upon the amount of time, difficulty, or cost of
providing the services.
   (d) Except as provided in subdivision (f), the remedies for a
violation of this section are the remedies provided in subdivision
(a) of Section 52. However, an action under this section is
independent of any other remedy or procedure that may be available to
an aggrieved party.
   (e) This act does not alter or affect the provisions of the Health
and Safety Code, the Insurance Code, or other laws that govern
health care service plan or insurer underwriting or rating practices.
   (f) (1) The following business establishments shall clearly and
conspicuously disclose to the customer in writing the pricing for
each standard service provided:
   (A) Tailors or businesses providing aftermarket clothing
   (B) Barbers or hair salons.
   (C) Dry cleaners and laundries providing services to individuals.
   (2) The price list shall be posted in an area conspicuous to
customers. Posted price lists shall be in no less than 14-point
boldface type and clearly and completely display pricing for every
standard service offered by the business under paragraph (1).
   (3) The business establishment shall provide the customer with a
complete written price list upon request.
   (4) The business establishment shall display in a conspicuous
place at least one clearly visible sign, printed in no less than
24-point boldface type, which reads: “CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS ANY
   (5) A business establishment that fails to correct a violation of
this subdivision within 30 days of receiving written notice of the
violation is liable for a civil penalty of one thousand dollars
   (6) For the purposes of this subdivision, “standard service” means
the 15 most frequently requested services provided by the business.

Dennis Herrera Acts to Protect Tenants If Landlord Fails to Pay Utilities

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

Here’s a little equation relevant for these times:

Declaration signed by Department of Building Inspection Director Vivian L. Day and City Attorney Dennis Herrera + California Civil Code + California Public Utilities Code = Your apartment building not getting cut off from utilities despite your deadbeat landlord not paying the bill.

Read all about it, below.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera addressing a large crowd in City Hall last year:

Declaration Triggers State Laws to Protect S.F. Tenants From Utility Shutoffs. Termination of Gas, Electricity Services Due to Owner Nonpayment Poses ‘Significant Threat’ to Public Health and Safety, City Finds

A declaration signed by Department of Building Inspection Director Vivian L. Day and City Attorney Dennis Herrera triggers provisions of state law that will protect tenants of master metered multiunit buildings in San Francisco from losing gas, heat and electricity services if their landlords stop paying their utility bills. The 2-page declaration issued today concludes that “the termination of private utilities at a master metered building will be automatically deemed to cause a significant threat to the health or safety of the residential occupants or the public,” and establishes that no such utilities be terminated to occupied master metered multiunit residential buildings in San Francisco because of the landlord’s failure to pay. The declaration will remain in effect through Dec. 31, 2010.

“Given the number of reports of utility shutoffs and the uncertainty in our economy, this declaration is a prudent and necessary step that protects not only tenants, but all San Francisco residents,” said City Attorney Herrera. “The state laws triggered by today’s action were enacted to protect public health and safety in circumstances exactly such as these. DBI Director Vivian Day and her staff deserve credit for their hard work to address these concerns proactively, and I appreciate, too, the efforts of community groups like the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco to protect tenants during these difficult economic times.”

“We know from experience,” said DBI Director Day, “that interruption of utility services can cause
residents to try to make due with illegal generators and unauthorized heating devices, and that these pose significant health and safety risks to themselves and their neighbors. This declaration is an important step to eliminate such risks in the midst of the current foreclosure crisis. I am grateful to City Attorney Dennis Herrera for his leadership, the work of his office, and the pro-active efforts by community groups, to help the Department of Building Inspection protect the interests of all San Franciscans.”

While today’s declaration is not limited to residential buildings facing foreclosure, reported cases of utility shutoffs affecting tenants due to non-payment by landlords have spiked dramatically during the
recent housing foreclosure crisis. Findings cited in the City’s declaration note that “foreclosures have
increased by as much as 450% over the past year” in some San Francisco neighborhoods, and one tenant advocacy organization—the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco—is “reporting that they are seeing an average of one case per day” of utility shutoffs to tenants through no fault of their own.
Today’s declaration follows a public memorandum Herrera issued on Jan. 16 outlining the rights of San
Francisco tenants under state and local law to remain in their rental units and continue to receive utility service when residential property owners face foreclosure by creditors or delinquency on utility bills. The 11-page memo issued to DBI Director Day, SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and Director of Public Health Dr. Mitch Katz identified legal provisions in California law that compel such privately owned utilities as PG&E to continue gas and electric service when a public health or building officer certifies it is necessary to protect life, health or safety.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which operates the City’s publicly-owned water and
wastewater utilities, has a standing policy against shutting off utility services to its customers who are
tenants for non-payment by their landlord, and rather pursues collections by placing liens on delinquent
landlord’s building. SFPUC policy additionally affords tenants or their representatives the option of
establishing a new account for service, directly with the PUC, without being responsible for the past
delinquencies of their landlord.