I could do without the “only” part, frankly.
What’s that, it costs $10 to make a Sunday paper and get it to you, the Reader? Yeah, maybe, something like that.
But even so, I could do without the “only” part.
(There is unrest in the (urban) forest / There is trouble with the trees)
Well, read the news and turn the pages – a good part of San Francisco’s “urban forest” is toppling over this AM because of rain. Not due to wind, just a little rain.
Did former Mayor Gavin Newsom run for CA Governor on the number of trees “he” planted in SF? Yes he did. Is that a good thing? No, it’s not.
Could it be that local governments want to plant too many trees willy-nilly, the same way an alcoholic wants to drink too much?
A solution for that would be a conscious effort to stop planting trees. And also, getting rid of the policy of keeping trees in places where they don’t belong. This is a money issue, this is safety issue.
Oh, here are some facts:
- There is no urban forest. A forest, by definition, can’t be in an urban area. Oh, what’s that , you’re just being aspirational? Oh, you’re just “framing” the issue because you want more trees everywhere and you’ve been able to send the bill to Other People Later On? Oh, okay, well, keep on keeping on then.
- San Francisco doesn’t have any kind of “canopy.” Just look up – if you can see the sky or the fog, then there’s no canopy. Oh, what’s that , you’re just being aspirational? Oh, you’re just “framing” the issue because you want more trees everywhere and you’ve been able to send the bill to Other People Later On? Oh, okay, well, keep on keeping on then.
- San Francisco doesn’t have any kind of “cloud forest.” It can’t. We have trees and we have clouds but that’s not enough to have a cloud forest. Of course we have fog and a whole mess of trees from halfway around the world, you know, that don’t really belong here, but that’s not enough.
- Sutro Forest isn’t a “forest.” Do you want to call it a stand or a grove instead? That’d be nice. That’d be accurate too.
You do the math kids, but that’s something like 30 cents per mile, you know, with sales tax ‘n stuff:
But they feel like they’re already broken in from the get-go, so that’s gotta be worth something…
Here it is. I suppose it actually has a couple of rear seats in the back but they’re for like your purse or a dog or something. In mitigation, these rides come with gull-wing doors, just like a Mercedes!
Click to expand
Say, is this ride going to attract a certain “type” of person? You bet, you’ll see.
And say, should the U.S. or CA government subsidize the sale of these cars? Absolutely not.
That is all.
Now, I guess that they still have free admission hours still, but the amount of time is about 90% less than what they had before.
That’s part of the reason why the Tea Garden is FOR TOURISTS ONLY these days.
And oh, admission is $7 a head nowadays. (What? They have a website now? Well, imagine that. They didn’t a few years back…)
You’re going to have to click to expand to see the effect:
Old school 24mm 3.5 – bought it used, played with it, sold it
Will I ever return to this place ever again in my life?
Laura Hooper Back is in San Francisco Magazine these days saying how “The Room” is the “Best Worst Movie Ever.”
But what about shot-in-Half-Moon-Bay “Birdemic: Shock and Terror?”
It’s pretty bad/good itself. Check it.
Let’s meet the director – the caption for this photo is “DIRECTOR JAMES NGUYEN MEETS DAVID LYNCH TO DISCUSS DIGITAL CINEMA“
Here’s a short essay on the subject.
Of course Socketsite (“San Francisco real estate tips, trends, and the local scoop”) is all over this new listing for 1581 Masonic Avenue, you know, the place up in Ashbury Heights that was purchased just two years ago by former Mayor Gavin Newsom and former First Lady Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
They say it’s lovely on the inside:
Click to expand
Do you think 3000 square feet is enough room for a four-person nuclear family in San Francisco? You make the call:
[UPDATE: Word comes from City Attorney Press Secretary Matt Dorsey. Yes, they’re looking for $52k:
“The City is seeking to recover its costs related to the preparation of the administrative record and excerpts of the record requested by the court. We are also seeking to recover the costs we incurred in serving by messenger the attorney for the petitioner. The recovery of these costs, which total $51,959, is authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of the City’s costs in litigation is a standard practice by the City Attorney’s Office. (And I would assume that’s similarly true of other law offices, both public and private.)”
And here’s another update:
“We’re seeking to recover costs from the petitioners as a whole, so all of them. Assuming we prevail, they can decide among themselves how to apportion what they owe.
Also, we haven’t received a copy of it yet, but it appears from the docket that Ms. Miles filed a motion to strike the cost bill. The hearing is set for January 7.”
So, there you have it.]
[Launching watermelons (two minutes long – there’s a nice payoff with a slo mo bonus) can be fun but it’s always best to quit while you’re ahead…]
I don’t know, I can’t say I understand all this about social gadfly Rob Anderson, or the Coalition for Adequate Review (CAR), or “Ninty-Nine Percent Anderson” or some other person or entity being on the hook for expenses incurred by the City and County of San Francisco because of the whole Bicyle Plan injunction/litigation thing.
See? (I’ll tell you, physics majors who went to UC Hastings are known to be extremely reliable sources of information, so that’s why I’m buying all this.)
Anyway, appears as if this case will continue into 2011, believe it or not.
“AUG-19-2010 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, $51,959.00 TOTAL COSTS, MATURE DATE SEP-10-2010, FILED BY DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO”
“SEP-08-2010 NTC AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TAX RESPONDENTS COXT CLAIM; MEMO OF P AND A; DECLARATION OF MARY MILES IN SUPPORT ; DECLARATION OF ROB ANDERSON, PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY PETITIONER COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW NINTY-NINE PERCENT ANDERSON, ROB HEARING SET FOR JAN-07-2011 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 301.”
On It Goes…