Who will ascend the Iron Throne?
Mark Farrell as King Joffrey:
Joe Eskenazi of SFWeekly has all your Board of Supervisors President handicapping needs met right here.
London Breed as Khaleesi, Mother of Dragons:
Who will ascend the Iron Throne?
Mark Farrell as King Joffrey:
Joe Eskenazi of SFWeekly has all your Board of Supervisors President handicapping needs met right here.
London Breed as Khaleesi, Mother of Dragons:
WELL, HERE IT IS.
‘Why the 2014 Election Matters for SF Tech Workers – Elections matter. Tuesday’s election is extremely significant and symbolic for the tech community.”
WELL, MAKE UP YOUR MIND, DUDE – WILL IT BE SYMBOLIC OR WILL IT BE SIGNIFICANT? IN FACT, IT WON’T BE “EXTREMELY” ANYTHING.
Given all that’s been thrown at the tech community over the past year, Tuesday November 4 represents the one solitary day where the tech community can come together, exercise its electoral muscle and lets its growing voice be heard.
WHAT? SO THEN WHAT’S THIS, BROCEPHUS? IT’S “Leveraging the collective power of the tech sector as a force for civic action in San Francisco.” HAVE YOU HEARD OF THAT OUTFIT? MAYOR ED LEE SURE HAS. IN FACT, HE’S SO SMITTEN WITH MONEY FROM CON RONWAY AND OTHERS THAT ED LEE NOW IS FACING A CHALLENGE FROM A MEMBER OF HIS OWN POLITICAL FACTION IN HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY. AREN’T YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THIS? ALSO, BRO, MOST TECHIES LIVING IN SF DON’T ACTUALLY VOTE BY GOING TO THE POLLS ON A TUESDAY, SO IT’S HARDLY “ONE SOLITARY DAY” AT ALL…
So what’s at stake? In our recent 2014 voter’s guide…
SO WHO’S “OUR?” YOU MEAN “MY,” RIGHT? YOU’RE LIKE ONE DUDE, RIGHT BRO?
…Techies Who Vote…
“TECHIES?” ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? ISN’T THAT A PEJORATIVE TERM? IS THIS YOUR ATTEMPT AT REAPPROPRIATION? WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A “TECHIE?” IS THIS A PARODY WEBSITE?
David Campos voted against the tax breaks for tech companies setting up shop in the mid-market area…
GOOD. ‘CAUSE THAT’S CORPORATE WELFARE RIGHT? AND THE GENESIS OF THAT CORPORATE WELFARE COMES FROM A TIME BEFORE YOUR ARRIVAL IN THE 415, POSSIBLY – HERE YOU GO, DUDE, ENJOY.
“An independent report released by the SF City Controller this past week revealed…”
WELL, NUMBER ONE, THE REPORT COMES FROM THE VERY GOVERNMENT WHAT’S ALREADY BEEN CORRUPTED BY “TECHIES.” AND NUMBER TWO, ‘AS FOR THE TAX BREAK’S OVERALL IMPACT ON THE CITY’S ECONOMY, THE REPORT SAYS IT WAS PROBABLY ‘QUITE LIMITED.‘” SO WHERE’S YOUR MESSIAH NOW, DUDE?
…while revitalizing a depressed neighborhood in the mid-market area…
DO YOU THINK MID MARKET HAS BEEN REVITALIZED? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?
[BRO’S DAVID CHIU HAGIOGRAPHY OMITTED]
Proposition A is a transportation and Road Improvement (Bond) that provides $500 million to fund transportation projects and capital improvements for MUNI transit and for upgrading city streets.
NOPE. WHAT IT IS IS FREE MONEY FOR SFGOV – THERE’S NO OBLIGATION FOR ANY BODY TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON ANY PARTICULAR THING. WELCOME TO SF, BRO.
…our future as a world-class city.
ARE YOU A REAL PERSON DUDE? WHAT YOUNG PERSON TALKS LIKE THIS?
Proposition B is a population-Based Adjustment to General Fund Appropriation to Transportation Fund (Charter Amendment) that increases the voter-approved funding set aside for MUNI to reflect past ten years of population growth…
UH, THE SFMTA’S BUDGET HAS EASILY OUTPACED THE PAST TEN YEARS OF POPULATION GROWTH, RIGHT? DON’T YOU KNOW THAT?
OH, AND DUDE, YOU HAVE NO ENDORSEMENT FOR YOUR SEVEN READERS ON PROP E, THE SODA TAX? OH, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAVE “A DIRECT EFFECT ON TECH WORKERS?” WHAT? OF COURSE IT’LL HAVE AN EFFECT ON “TECHIES.” OBVS. AND YET YOU DO HAVE AN ENDORSEMENT, FOR YOUR SEVEN READERS, ON THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE? DO YOU THINK IT HAS A “DIRECT EFFECT ON TECH WORKERS?” SO DO “TECHIES” IN SF MAKE MINIMUM WAGE – ANY LAST ONE OF THEM?
ALL RIGHT, BROCEPHUS, IT’S BEEN REAL…
(Yes, there is white powder on the LCD screen of this digital scale - why do you ask?*)
(And no, I don’t think David Chiu is evil, but man, you ought to see some of these fliers I’m getting…)
Anyway, here’s what I pulled out of the old mailbox yesterday – 52 ounces of garbage, plus, somewhere in there, a small check from State Farm, a diamond in the rough:
Now, granted, there was a B&H catalog in there, plus a Costco Connect magazine, but the bulk of the bulk was campaign 2014 flyers what cost more to mail than they cost to produce.
My poor letter carrier!
*It’s flour, fool, purchased
in bespoke fashion [25 pounds at a time] from my local purveyor of comestibles [Amazon, Fuckin’ A, bubba, back when it was only $27 a bag – now it’s like $40 for some reason?]
Believe it or not, Mayor Ed Lee is saying that DiFi is giving “enthusiastic support” to the Assembly campaign of David Chiu. Check it:
“I am proud to join U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein … in giving David Chiu my enthusiastic support.”
Now IRL, here’s DiFi herself on President Chiu’s Airbnb legislation from October 20th, 2014:
I’m thinking no, DiFi’s residual support of David Chiu, if any, against David Campos sure aint “enthusiastic.”
Read the news and turn the pages. Moving on…
Hey, speaking of Airbnb, check this out, from San Francisco’s biggest corrupt non-profit org:
“On October 6, Supervisor Jane Kim’s persistence and the last-minute intervention of Mayor Ed Lee ensured that legislation legalizing tourist rentals in San Francisco will have teeth.”
The problem with this, or I should say just one problem with this, is that Ed Lee could have simply not signed the legislation, right? There was no need for any “intervention,” right?
I don’t know how seriously people take all these shenanigans. We’ll see, soon enough…
[UPDATE: Marisa Lagos has the other side of the story – so put them together and it starts to make sense. Everybody wants some sweet sweet free cash from Coke and Pepsi, but nobody wants to admit they want some sweet sweet free cash from Coke and Pepsi…]
I don’t really “get” this one, I don’t understand what’s going on here.
But see if you can figure things oot, eh?
“San Franciscans United For The Soda Tax – Calls on David Chiu to Stop Coordination with Big Soda Industry
WHAT: A public call to action from San Franciscans United For The Soda Tax. The coalition will draw attention to the Chiu campaign’s coordination with the big soda industry and call on David Chiu to stop accepting campaign funds in opposition to the soda tax he claims to support.
WHO: San Franciscans United for the Soda Tax: Representative from the nurses; Adrienne Suffin, former SEIU Chapter President; Laura Thomas, Co-President, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club; Arthur Welton, San Francisco Young Democrats; Juan G. Berumen, affordable housing advocate and more
WHY: Over the course of the last month, David Chiu has coordinated with the big soda industry to steer thousands of dollars of soda industry money into his campaign. The soda industry has funded $10,000 to the Chinese American Democratic Club, $7,500 to the Black Young Democrats and $2,500 to the Asian Pacific Democratic Club. Many of David Chiu’s strongest supporters, whom he proudly lists on his website and who are doing a lot of work on his behalf – the San Francisco Building Trades Council, the plumbers and the Teamsters – are opposed to the soda tax. San Franciscans United For The Soda Tax finds this hypocrisy on behalf of David Chiu appalling and is calling on him to cease accepting any resources from the Big Soda Industry.
WHERE: In an emailed press release, San Francisco.
WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 30th, 4:00 pm”
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.
A fresh press release:
“NEWS RELEASE: SAN FRANCISCO CITYWIDE COALITION SAYS NO TO PROPOSED CHIU LEGISLATION – Board of Supervisors trying to convert residential housing to short-term rentals
Press conference Tuesday April 29, 2014 Steps of City Hall at 10:00 am
San Francisco — Organizations representing usually divergent interests ranging from tenants to landlords, and from hotel workers to the hospitality industry have joined forces with neighborhood and homeowner associations to oppose legislation introduced by Supervisor David Chiu to legalize the short term rentals of residential property throughout San Francisco.
“In the face of an unprecedented housing crisis, Supervisor Chiu’s legislation to legalize the short term rentals of residential property will only exacerbate the housing crisis. This practice is detrimental to our rent-controlled housing stock”, said Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
“Our studies have shown that with over 10,000 units of housing being rented out over Airbnb, HomeAway and other websites this practice is having a negative impact on hotel workers and San Francisco’s hospitality industry”, said Mike Casey, President of UNITE HERE Local 2.
“The proposed legislation would rezone the entire city from residential zoning to commercial zoning in one fell swoop. We hear complaints from almost every neighborhood about the detrimental effects of short term rentals on the quality of life of tenants and residents”, said John Bardis, former President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and former San Francisco Supervisor.
“Supervisors Chiu’s legislation would repeal hard won controls on Single Resident Occupancy housing, threatens current affordable housing provisions for over 30,000 permanently affordable units, would transform newly approved “in-law units” into high priced motel rooms and make “below market rate” units lifetime luxury hotels. It is the single biggest threat to affordable housing ever proposed by a San Francisco Supervisor” stated longtime affordable housing advocate Calvin Welch.
“Airbnb and other hosting platforms owe the City millions of dollars in unpaid hotel taxes. It is high time that the City collect these taxes which pay for the arts and vital city services and programs. The proposed legislation does not clearly hold Airbnb and similar organizations responsible for collecting and remitting the hotel tax”, said former Supervisor Aaron Peskin.
All of these organizations are calling for Supervisor Chiu to withdraw his legislation at a press conference on Tuesday April 29 on the steps of City Hall at 10:00 am.”
Just look at this:
How are we supposed to react here, thank Goodness David Campos was born and raised in San Francisco and thank Goodness David Campos was never ever infected by that horrible Harvahd institution, am I right voters?
Actually, the big problem in this race is that President Chiu and Supervisor Campos are pretty much peas in a pod. Chiu would be a bit more pro-bidness and most likely he would be less in favor of affirmative action at UC campuses – those are the two issues I can think of where they’d differ. Otherwise, they’d carry similar bills, vote the same way, yada yada yada.
Anyway, here’s what you get from your mailbox, you get to see David Chiu staring at you from an anti-Chiu attack ad, which wouldn’t be an attack ad at all in the places where The Davids grew up…
Whoo wee, where to begin here? Apparently, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition thinks Supervisor David Chiu is the Great Enemy of Cyclists in San Francisco County. Read on, below.
And this is sort of funny because I’ve never ever seen him in a car. I’ve seen him walking in the Financh, I’ve seen him getting on a bus on Market, and I’ve seen him many many times wearing a dark suit while riding a bicycle, but I’ve never seen him in a car. Isn’t that funny?
All right, a couple opening matters here. Cyclist Chris Bucchere, who actually is responsible for death on the streets of San Francisco has gotten praised, defended and ignored by zealous cycling advocacy crowd of San Francisco.
Praised: Oh, Chris Bucchere is a “good guy.” Oh, Chris Bucchere didn’t do anything at all wrong because he “entered the intersection [of Market and Castro] legally.”
Defended: Oh, Chris Bucchere had a concussion when he wrote all those things. Oh, the people who saw him blowing stop signs before the accident are car drivers so of course what they say is unreliable.
Ignored: I’ll tell you, I don’t think the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has ever used his name – he’s become an unperson, basically. He’s bad for business, of course.
So that sets the bar pretty low, but here comes David Chiu, who, apparently, deserves his own body count webpage, you know, on account of all the people he’s killed on just one street over the years. See below, I’m srsly.
And the other thing is this. You might not know this and it might not look like it but, I have:
More years, and
on a bicycle in San Francisco County than anybody at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, at WalkSF, and at the StreetsBlog (And to that tally you can also add driving vehicles and walking around and, perhaps, riding transit but I’m not regularly on MUNI anymore.)
Now, on with the show. This kind of stuff just showed up in my reader about a couple of weeks late. Check it:
Leave us begin
“Why are David Chiu and the SFMTA Turning Their Backs on Your Safety?”
ALL RIGHT, YOU’RE STARTING OFF JUST ASSUMING THAT SUPERVISOR CHIU AND THE SFMTA ARE TURNING THEIR BACKS ON SAFETY, RIGHT? IS THIS HOW YOU ROLL, SFBC? WE GIVE YOU ALL THIS TAX AND FEE PAYER MONEY, HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR TO DO WHAT? TO PAY YOUR SALARIES, TO PAY THE RENT ON YOUR OFFICE. TO ENDORSE THE ELECTION OF ED LEE SO THAT YOU CAN GET MORE MONEY TO PAY YOUR SALARIES? OK FINE. BUT SINCE I’M BEING TAXED AND FEE’D TO PAY YOUR BUDGET, I’LL SUGGEST A BETTER HEADLINE FOR THIS SCREED – HOW ABOUT, “HERE’S WHY WE THINK SUPERVISOR CHIU AND THE SFMTA ARE TURNING THEIR BACKS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF USERS OF ONE STREET IN SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY?”
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, March 27th, 2014. David Chiu’s Injury Counter – Collision history from Update to the MTA Board of Directors PAG Committee. Visit sfbike.org/polk for live injury counter. We are deeply troubled to see that Supervisor David Chiu and the decisionmakers at the SF Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) are turning their backs on your safety on Polk Street. Facts are facts: Polk Street is the second most dangerous corridor in San Francisco, according to the City’s official data.
UH, ISN’T MISSION A MORE “DANGEROUS CORRIDOR” THAN POLK? AND ISN’T THE LOWER THIRD? I THINK SO.
Yet Supervisor Chiu and the city’s transportation agency officials are ignoring these facts by promoting a watered-down design for Polk Street that is light years behind what is needed to make bicycling and walking a safe, comfortable experience for all.
HOO BOY. UH, BICYCLING AND WALKING ARE NEVER GOING TO BE “SAFE” AND “COMFORTABLE” EXPERIENCES “FOR ALL.” SORRY. SO S.F. DOING WHATEVER YOU WANT S.F. TO DO ON JUST ONE STREET IN THE CITY ISN’T GOING TO ATTAIN YOUR GRAND GOAL.
And they are ignoring their recent votes and public pronouncements supporting Vision Zero — apparently your safety on our streets is not such a high priority after all.
HOO BOY. UH, VISION ZERO IS WHAT, NOW? IT’S SAYING WE’RE GOING TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE, WE’RE GOING TO ELIMINATE ALL TRANSPORTATION DEATHS IN SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY IN A DECADE, BY 2024. VISION ZERO IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. SORRY. DON’T YOU KNOW THIS, SFBC? OH YOU DO BUT YOU WANT TO PRETEND TO BELIEVE IN VISION ZERO SO YOU CAN BE DISAPPOINTED WHEN SFGOV DOESN’T DO EVERYTHING YOU WANT IT TO DO EACH AND EVERY MONTH OF 2014-2024? FOR WHAT, FOR BEING ABLE TO RAISE MONEY TO PAY SALARIES, FOR FUNDRAISING? OH, BUT YOUR MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS ARE DOWN LATELY? WHY’S THAT? AND YOU MAKE FAR MORE MONEY FROM SFGOV GIVING YOU MONEY THAN FROM SFBC MEMBERS PAYING DUES? ISN’T THAT BACKWARDS? I THINK SO.
This is not acceptable.
OH, OK, SO WHY DON’T GIVE BACK ALL THE MONEY WE’VE GIVEN YOU OVER THE YEARS? AREN’T YOU A GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED INSTITUTION NOW? SO WHY DO YOU TAKE ANY MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESPISE SO?
To hold these City leaders accountable, we launch the David Chiu/MTA Polk Street Body Count clock, tracking the number of people hurt on Polk Street on their watch.
SO IF DAVID CHIU DOESN’T BEHAVE EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WANT HIM TO, THEN HE’S RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION DEATHS ON ONE RANDOM STREET IN SF? HAHAHA! ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? HAVE YOU ALL THOUGHT THIS THROUGH? SO LIKE WE’RE LIVING IN “STRONG MAYOR POLITICAL SYSTEM,” SO WHY NOT CALL IT THE “ED LEE / SFMTA POLK STREET BODY COUNT CLOCK” INSTEAD? AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT A “BODY COUNT” IS? IT’S, “The number of people killed in a war, disaster, etc.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body%20count SO I THINK YOUR HYSTERICAL “COUNT” IS OFF BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. AND ACTUALLY, DAVID CHIU DIDN’T KILL ANYBODY ON POLK STREET.
We will keep this clock up until Chiu and the MTA get serious about safety by bringing to the MTA Board of Directors a true safety-first Polk Street proposal of separated bikeways the entire project length.
I SEE, SO DAVID CHIU, THE BIKE-RIDINGEST SUPERVISOR EVER, THE DUDE YOU SEE ALL THE TIME ON A BIKE WEARING A GOD-DAMNED PIN-STRIPED BLUE SUIT, THAT GUY, HE’S THE GREAT EVIL OF CYCLING IN SF? HAVE YOU ALL THOUGHT THIS ONE THROUGH? I DON’T THINK YOU HAVE, SFBC.
We are hearing from Chiu that he believes the watered-down design shared publicly this week is a compromise that is “good enough.” But have no doubt: the only thing this proposal compromises is YOUR SAFETY.
WHOA, ALL CAPS. “SO ANGRY.” BUT IRL, THE WAY TO INCREASE THE COMMONWEAL IS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF EVERYBODY. THE WAY TO DEACREASE THE COMMONWEAL IS TO GIVE IN TO NARROW, GOVERNMENT-FUNDED, MONOMANIACAL PRESSURE GROUPS.
Hundreds of people have reviewed the lackluster design and voiced their concerns to Chiu and the MTA, but to no avail.
WELL, TO _SOME_ AVAIL, RIGHT? AND IF THAT FIGURE WERE THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER, LET’S SAY SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF HUNDREDS _OF THOUSANDS_ OF PEOPLE, WELL, IF THEY ALL WANTED THE EXACT SAME PLAN FOR THIS ONE STREET, THEN THEY’D GET IT, RIGHT? BUT JUST HUNDREDS ON ONE SIDE AGAINST THE WHOLE REST OF THE CITY, WELL, THAT’S NOT MUCH A OF A FIGHT, RIGHT?
Instead, they are responding to a vocal minority of people opposing bicycle safety improvements on the street.
UH, I THINK _YOU’RE_ THE VOCAL MINORITY, SFBC, RIGHT?
The resounding message from people who bike and walk on Polk Street is that the current design is a recipe for mass confusion and dangerous conflict.
YOU’RE ATTEMPTING TO SPEAK FOR A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO LACK YOUR MONOMANIACAL VISION, SFBC.
The proposed bikeway zig zags between parked cars and the curb, stops and starts, sometimes completely disappearing for blocks at a time, leaving you hanging while biking and leaving drivers confused and stressed out.
WELL GEE, WHY NOT LEAVE POLK STREET THE WAY IT IS THEN? OR JUST REPAVE IT AND CALL IT A DAY – IS THAT AN OPTION? ACTUALLY, THE BULK OF SAN FRANCISCO JUST MIGHT PREFER EXACTLY THAT. WHAT IF THAT WERE THE CASE? MMMM… AND WOULD DRIVERS GET MORE “STRESSED OUT” BY HAVING SOME PARKING OR NO PARKING ON POLK STREET? IF YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT DRIVER STRESS, THEN YOU’D KEEP TYHE EXISTING LAYOUT OR GO BACK TO PREVIOUS DESIGNS, ACTUALLY.
We’ve heard loud and clear that all road users desire orderly, predictable street designs that minimize opportunities for conflict.
WHO TOLD YOU WHAT NOW? DOES THE SFBC NOW SPEAK FOR “ALL ROAD USERS?” I DON’T THINK SO. HAS THE SFBC EVEN HEARD FROM “ALL ROAD USERS?” I DON’T THINK SO. IN FACT, MANY PEOPLE PREFER WHAT DAVID CHIU PREFERS. AND ACTUALLY, THAT’S THE VERY REASON HE DOESN’T DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT HIM TO DO 100% OF THE TIME. OR DO YOU ALL THINK THAT DAVID CHIU IS IRRATIONAL?
So we ask: Do David Chiu and Ed Reiskin really imagine that parents will guide their child through this proposed biking slalom course that disappears entirely at times?
HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE I SEEN RIDING BIKE ON POLK IN MY LIFE? MMMMM… I KNOW THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A FEW, BUT I CAN’T RECALL ANY. AND WOULD THE SFBC THEN PREFER THE CURRENT NON-SLALOM SET-UP? OR PERHAPS SFGOV NEEDS TO GIVE SFBC ALL THE MONEY IT WANTS AND, IN EXCHANGE, SFGOV SHOULD IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD TO GIVE THE SFBC EVERYTHING ELSE IT WANTS, SFGOV SHOULD IGNORE ALL OTHER MONOMANIACAL PRESSURE GROUPS IN THE CITY AND GIVE IN TO JUST ONE, FOR SOME REASON.
Is this their vision for a bicycle-friendly San Francisco?
YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET A BICYCLE-FRIENDLY SAN FRANCISCO, SFBC. YOUR GOAL WILL NEVER BE ATTAINED.
What happened to Chiu’s call for 20% of trips by bike by 2020?!
WELL, AGAIN, JUST AS WITH VISION ZERO, THE 20% BY 2020 GOAL WON’T BE ATTAINED. AND WASN’T THE SFBC ITSELF THE PARTY THAT WAS CALLING FOR THIS PIE IN THE SKY? I THINK SO. HOW MUCH ARE POLITICAL PROMISES WORTH IF EVERYBODY KNOWS FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY WON’T BE ATTAINED? AND WHY ARE THE TIME-FRAMES FOR THESE GRAND FLOURISHES ALWAYS ENDING IN THE 2020’S, BY WHICH TIME ALL OF THE IMPORTANT POLS WILL HAVE BEEN TERMED OUT? MMMM…
Do they think that drivers of delivery vehicles want to do a new round of mental math every block to figure out where it’s OK to park?
SO DELIVERY DRIVERS WOULD PREFER ZERO PLACES TO PARK OVER SOME PLACES TO PARK? IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE ACTUALLY SAYING, SFBC? I THINK DELIVERY DRIVERS WILL DO JUST FINE FIGURING OUT WHERE TO PARK WHETHER IT’S LEGAL OR NOT – THERE’S NO MATH REQUIRED.
Do they think that San Franciscans will welcome confusing and antagonistic conditions on the city’s official north/south bike route, which is already experiencing a record-number of injuries among people biking and walking?
IRL, POLK STREET IS PRETTY SIMPLE. IRL, POLK STREET ISN’T “CONFUSING.” IRL, IF YOU WANT A “CONFUSING” STRETCH OF ROAD, LOOK TO THE EASTERN SECTION OF SFBC-APPROVED JFK DRIVE IN GOLDEN GATE PARK. IRL, IF SOMEBODY DIES AFTER GETTING HIT BY A MUNI BUS OR A CYCLIST GOING FOR A STRAVA KOM ON POLK STREET, IT’S NOT ACTUALLY DAVID CHIU’S FAULT.
But it’s not too late to steer the Polk Street project back to safety.
UM, IF BY “SAFETY” YOU MEAN WHICHEVER PLAN YOU’VE DREAMED UP, SFBC, THEN YES IT IS TOO LATE. YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET ALL THAT YOU WANT, SFBC.
We ask you to join us now to stand up to David Chiu and let him know that cowardly decisions today have direct, life-and-death impacts on real people like us.
Hold David Chiu (who represents much of Polk Street and is running for State Assembly this Fall) and MTA decisionmakers accountable by telling them loud and clear that they cannot not continue to turn their backs on your safety.
OH, I SEE, THIS IS A FUNDRAISING APPEAL TO STAVE OFF THE DECLINING MEMBERSHIP ROLLS, I SEE.
Call Supervisor David Chiu’s Office: 415-554-7450
OH, SO WHO’S THE “VOCAL MINORITY” NOW?
Call MTA Director Ed Reiskin’s Office (leave a message at the general front desk): 415-701-4500
AND ED REISKIN WORKS FOR ED LEE, RIGHT? WHY NOT INSTEAD JUST CALL YOUR BODY CLOUNT CLOCK THE ED LEE BODY COUNT CLOCK AND BE DONE WITH IT?
Tagged as: Connecting the City, David Chiu, Polk Street, Safety, SFMTA, Vision Zero
PERHAPS YOU’VE LOST YOUR WAY, SFBC…
Gaia bless state and federal investigators in their efforts to clean up this town.
(If Rose Pak had a gift for me, I’d turn her down…)
Anyway, here’s the pdf from two point something years ago.
And here’s the OCR (but as you can see from the link, this evidence of wrongdoing is fading from the Web, at least in OCR form).
“Contents : FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION 428 J Street Suite 620 Sacramento CA 958I4 2329 !916 322 5660 Fax t9!b) 322 0886 August 22 2011
Ms. Rose Pak o/b/o Chinese New Year Festival Committee REDACTED Letter Re: FPPC No. 11/081 Carmen Chu, David Chiu and Eric Mar
Dear Ms. Pak: The Fair Political Practices Commission (the “FPPC”) enforces the provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”) found in Government Code section 81000 et seq. As you may be aware the Commission has undertaken an investigation into gifts of travel to southern China from November Ii. 2009 through November 16 2009 provided by the Chinese New Year Festival Committee to Supervisors Carmen Chu David Chiu and Eric Mar.
The Act places limitations on the acceptance of gifts by certain public officials including city supervisors. Section 89503(a) prohibits these public officials from accepting gifts from any single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than the applicable gift limit. The $250 gift limit is adjusted biennially to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index pursuant to Section 89503 subdivision (t). The gift limit in 2009 was $420. (Regulation 18940.2.)
Under specific circumstances payments for transportation lodging and subsistence may be exempt from the definition of “gift.” Section 89506(a)(2) provides that travel expenses reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose or to an issue of state national or international policy are not prohibited or limited if they are provided by certain specified sources such as governmental agencies bona fide public or private educational institutions or non-profit 50 I (c)(3) organizations. During the course of our investigation we reviewed documents obtained from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) concerning the Chinese New YearFestival Committee’s tax exempt status.
According to these documents which included copies of IRS filings and The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations unless otherwise indicated. FPPC Case No. 11/081 Page 2 01’2 Articles of incorporation originally filed with theCalifornia Secretary of State the Chinese New Year Festival Committee is registered as a 501 (c)(6) chamber of commerce organization. It has never been registered as a 50J(c)(3) organization. Therefore the requirements under Section 89506(a)(2) for an exception to the gift limit are not met and any gift including those of travel are subject to gift limits. Please be advised that since the Chinese New Year Festival Committee is not an organization that falls under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code no public official may accept gifts of any type from this organization valued in excess of the applicable limit. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding this letter. Sincerely REDACTED ‘-iachary ‘ II. Norton Commission Counsel Enforcement Division”