Posts Tagged ‘David Chiu’

Just 14 Points About Kara Swisher’s Fawning Interview / Prop F Victory Lap with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky

Monday, November 30th, 2015

Here you go, a podcast from yesterday:

November 29, 2015 | Re/code Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher – Brian Chesky, Airbnb CEO; Holiday Gift Guide

“Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky talks with Kara Swisher about the attacks in Paris, raising “a couple billion” and the future of…”

Start at 14:00:

  1. No Airbnb, you can’t really say you had a recent “victory” in SF. A pyrrhic victory, maybe. (But your $8+ million helped to defeat Prop F, I’ll concede that.)
  2. “It’s hard to be a tech company in SF.” What on Earth does this mean? Why don’t you leave then, if things are so, so hard (but not really, not IRL) here?
  3. Oh, so using SF’s direct democracy ballot system when, as in this case, we have regulatory capture of the $F Democratic Party (and other$) is not only immature but “ridiculously immature?” Again, one wonders why Airbnb chose to come here to this horrible, horrible place.
  4. In regard to the “Airbnb Law,” didn’t Airbnb meet with then-Supervisor David Chiu something on the order of sixty (60) (!) times to craft regs as favorable to Airbnb as practically possible? I think so. Am I wrong on this? David Chiu was/is a partner of Airbnb, non? David Chiu is now in the Assembly thanks, in part, to Airbnb, non? So that’s what some people mean by the term Airbnb Law. (And incidentally, it was/is an unworkable mess, with a very low compliance rate, so far.)
  5. No, Airbnb, Prop F would not have “ban[ned] in-law units.”
  6. No, Airbnb, Prop F would not “have created a private right of action,” for the simple reason that Prop F didn’t pass and yet San Franciscans have a private right of action right now.
  7. Let’s stop now to ponder – does Kara Swisher know any of this stuff? She’s not up-to-speed, apparently, or she is and she wants to conduct a fawning interview. I’ll tell you, so far so good, KS. Mission accomplished.
  8. Does one need to be “against Airbnb” to approve of regulating Airbnb?
  9. “Even the San Francisco Chronicle…” I don’t know what this means. Was this editorial from the Publisher a surprise? Not at all. Also note that the Chron calls for changes to the regs cooked up by Airbnb and David Chiu…
  10. “[T]here’s this notion that we aren’t paying our share of taxes.” Well, here’s where that comes from. How much in hotel taxes should Airbnb have remitted as opposed to the mystery amount that it actually did – well, that’s not really knowable from outside of Airbnb.
  11. “We’re not jerks.” So why not explain what happened with the bus ads? Your choice, Airbnb. Are the people down in Socal who made the ads jerks? What did you do, just throw money around and say, oh don’t bother us, just make a contract with ClearChannel after you run it by a solitary Airbnber – that’ll be fine. We like surprises! And of course, this ad campaign was totally totally independent of anything having to do with Prop F. Of course.
  12. “Volunteers” knocking on 285,000 doors? Weren’t some of those “volunteers” actually paid, like with cash money? Yep. You want to get into this? We can get into this.
  13. Reference to “party houses.” I don’t think this issue was addressed. Or Airbnb Hotel, neither – these We Heart Airbnb podcast people didn’t have time to get into these things. I guess they were too busy with the “Holiday Gift Guide,” IDK.
  14. And what’s this – “I think the vast, vast majority of people are renting the homes they live in.” So what’s that as a number, is it 51%? IDK. Doesn’t Airbnb know this stat for San Francisco, like down to five significant digits? I think so. And how about this – most Airbnb units in SF are being rented out by people who rent out multiple Airbnb units. Is that true? Isn’t that a problem?

I think we’re at 24:00 now, so that’s ten minutes of audio for you to listen to.

(I don’t think I could have handled much more anyway.)

I leave you with this – here’s how one City Hall insider viewed things last summer:

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

Airbnb don’t want no Prop F, so one assumes it’s all prepared for City Hall to take a fresh look at this regulatory mess (that Airbnb helped create) come 2016. Fine.

Oh, and just One More Thing:

andre-the-giant-has-a-posse-copy

Sometimes when you win, you also lose…

An Annual Tradition: “Union Square Ice Rink Opening Wednesday with Assemblemember David Chiu and SNOOP from The Peanuts Movie

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015

The famous rink returns tomorrow:

The Safeway Holiday Ice Rink in Union Square presented by Bank of the West
celebrates opening with special ceremony this Wednesday

WHAT: The Safeway Holiday Ice Rink in Union Square presented by Bank of the West celebrates its opening this holiday season with a special “ice-breaking” ceremony featuring Assemblymember David Chiu, SNOOPY from The Peanuts Movie and a special performance by San Francisco Tremors Synchronized Skating Teams with Special Guest Georgia Achilles.

WHO: Assemblymember David Chiu; SNOOPY from The Peanuts Movie; San Francisco Tremors Synchronized Skating Teams with Special Guest Georgia Achilles; Wendy Gutshall, Safeway’s Communications Manager, Northern California Division; Dan Osipow, Executive VP & Corporate Sponsorship Manager at Bank of the West; Karin Flood, Executive Director of the Union Square Business Improvement District; open to the public;

WHEN: (UPDATED) Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

WHERE: Union Square, San Francisco.

About the Safeway Holiday Ice Rink:

Since 2007, the Safeway Holiday Ice Rink has delighted children and adults with a holiday-themed ice park located in San Francisco’s Union Square. Ticket prices are $11 for regular admission and $7 for children eight years old and under. Ice skate and hockey skate rentals are $6. Ice rink hours are from 10 a.m. – 11:30 p.m. daily. A portion of ticket proceeds benefit the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. For tickets or more information, please visit www.unionsquareicerink.com or call 415-781-2688.

 

Whoo Boy: “LEGAL REVIEW FINDS PROP. F LAWSUITS MAY RESULT IN $435,000 AWARD FOR MINOR, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS”

Friday, October 2nd, 2015

Airbnb is pulling out all the stops here.

Let me just say that first of all, no “minor” violations of San Francisco’s short term rental laws will result in anything like a $435K award. Sorry. And also, by the time any “awards” are handed out, said violations are no longer merely “alleged,” but actually proven.

And now, on with the show:

“Noted Law Firm Browne George Ross LLP Provides Review of Legal Impacts of San Francisco’s Prop. F

Proposition F creates a profit-motivated private right of action even if the City and County of San Francisco finds no violation.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? YEP. WHAT PROP F ADDS ON TOP OF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF $250-$1000 A DAY, ASSUMING THAT THE RESIDENTS BRINGING SUIT ACTUALLY WIN. THE REASON THAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SFGOV DOES IS THAT SOMETIMES SFGOV LIKES TO SIT ON ITS HANDS AND DO NOTHING, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IT’S DONE VERY LITTLE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THE LIKES OF WHICH WE’VE BEEN SEEING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND, IN FACT, THE LITTLE THAT SFGOV HAS BEEN DOING LATELY WAS SPURRED ON BY THE PROSPECT OF PROP F. SO ACTUALLY, PROP F IS GOOD BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY PAYING OFF. AND, AS FAR AS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED” IS CONCERNED, SOMETHING SIMILAR IS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING LANDLORD REFUNDS OF RENTAL DEPOSITS. SO IF A LANDLORD IMPROPERLY RETAINS AN APARTMENT SECURITY DEPOSIT, THE TENANT CAN SUE FOR NOT ONLY THE WRONGFULLY RETAINED PART BUT ALSO AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE DEPOSIT AS A KIND OF SPECIAL DAMAGES. SO A LANDLORD’S MOUTHPIECE COULD ARGUE THAT THE TENANT SUING IS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED,” BUT THAT WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE TRUE, RIGHT? AND IN FACT, THIS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND LAW SCARES LANDLORDS INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO THAT NO LEGAL ACTION EVER NEEDS TO GET KICKED INTO ACTION. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

In other words if someone wishes to sue their neighbor even after the city and County of San Francisco has determined there is no violation, an unscrupulous individual can still file a lawsuit and simply claim damages amounting to as much as $435,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

WELL, THIS LOS ANGELES-BASED LAW FIRM IS SIMPLY ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER USING AIRBNB OR WHATEVER TO VIOLATE OUR LAWS WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AFFECTED. BUT LOTS OF AIRBNBERS DON’T EVEN LIVE IN SF, RIGHT? SO IT’S RATHER MORE RESIDENT SUING AIRBNBER AS OPPOSED TO “NEIGHBOR SUING NEIGHBOR,” RIGHT? AND HEY, HOW CAN AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL” GET AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? AND HEY, “NOTED” LA LAW FIRM WHAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF AFORE, HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER REPRESENTED AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL?” HMMM… THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ON. IN ANY EVENT, UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS  WITH WORTHLESS CASES WON’T WIN AT COURT SO THEY WON’T GET ANY DAMAGES AT ALL, RIGHT? AND LET ME JUST SAY, ANY AIRBNBER WHO ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING $435K PLUS HAS REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWED UP. THESE WILL BE UNIQUE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY.

Because litigation is so incredibly expensive, time consuming and stressful many people will pay to get out of suits even though they have done nothing wrong.

BOY, WHAT A PITCH FROM A LAW FIRM – YOU DON’T NEED US, JUST PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYBODY EVER ASKS FOR AND THEN WAIT FOR THE NEWS TO SPREAD AND THEN GET SUED AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND NOTE HERE, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR AIRBNBERS (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR SOME) – I’M SAYING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR SAN FRANCISCO. AND ACTUALLY, PROP F WOULD BE GOOD FOR LOS ANGELES LAW FIRMS, POSSIBLY, IF LA-BASED AIRBNBERS GET SUED IN SF AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL ATTORNEY, THEN MAYBE EVEN THIS LA FIRM COULD GET IN ON THE ACTION.

Proposition F will exponentially exacerbate the problem by encouraging an untold number of new lawsuits, thus delaying even more those who appropriately seek justice through San Francisco Superior Court

WELL LET’S SEE HERE. PROP F WILL BE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS SF SUP CT IS CONCERNED. IT’S NOT GOING TO EXPONENTIALLY DO ANYTHING.

FIN.

SURPRISE! Local Airbnb-Type Room Letter OPPOSES Prop F – Let’s Read “Emey” Meyerson’s Take on SF’s Airbnb Mess

Thursday, September 24th, 2015

[UPDATE: Another reaction here. Oh, and another reaction here, from Sara Shortt.]

I don’t know who Medium Corporation‘s Emey is – what, a Scott Wiener fan, an Airbnb room/unit letter, a person who also makes money from “marketing, politics?”

Anywho, I sort of asked for somebody to tell me why Prop F is bad right here, so I’ll read through this and respond, you know, in real time.

1. So Prop F is worse than I think? So you think I think it’s bad, but you’re here on Medium telling me that it’s even worse than I think it is? Well, that’s not right at all. I think Prop F is great.

2. So like I’m not responsible for what signature gatherers say, right? ‘Nough said. Should I point out how Airbnb says/does similar things? OK then.

3. Yes, STR’s are already regulated by SFGov, but poorly. That’s why we have the Prop F, to fix what they call regulatory capture.

4. Airbnb-type outfits are the primary problem, right? I’ll concede that there are others out there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regulate Airbnb, right? Airbnbers oppose Prop F because, unlike the current regs, it wasn’t written with input from Airbnb itself. Like, should VW write our air pollution laws?

5. Well, Prop F isn’t the worst way to go about things. A worser way to regulate Airbnb is to have Airbnb write the rules what cover Airbnb’s business, right? What we’ve had so far from Supervisor Chiu has been a disaster, right? And then our dominant political faction assumed that something like Prop F wouldn’t make the ballot. And that takes us up to now. Hey, let’s take a look:

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

6. Uh, is it “really hard to find the text online,” like actually? Uh no. Google “PROP F SF” and then after you click on the first hit, click on THE MEASURE. Easy peasy, huh, LIAR?

7. “It’ll blow your mind.” O rly? We’ll see. Hey, you know, my mind’s already blown by the number of meetings that David Chiu’s office had with Airbnb reps to create the first unworkable regs – is it 60 fucking meetings? 60 meetings to create an unworkable mess? Mind blown. Already.

8. So, you promise us Prop F but now you’re coming in with how it’s existing hotels what don’t want private Airbnb hotels in the Parkside. Let’s see, who’s against Prop F – it’s Airbnb and the superhosts, right? As expected, right? (And I’m thinking your hotel worker union types would be big Prop F boosters as well.)

9. You know, some Airbnbers who let out rooms support Prop F, right? Are they crazy?

10. I’ll field this one. Cleaning a house before guests arrive is not assisting anyone to offer a short term rental.

11. Well, if your neighbor “prevails,” then your neighbor gets money. If you neighbor doesn’t prevail, then not. Simple. You’re missing the “prevailing” part, Mediumer.

12. And if a taxi driver refuses to pick you up because s/he doesn’t like your color, creed, whathaveyou, that’s a misdemeanor too, right? Laws need to have teeth, right?

13. Yep, a quarterly report. No biggee, it would seem.

14. So let’s see here, illegal in-law units shouldn’t be on Airbnb, right? Is this so surprising?

15. What Airbnb should do is keep track of its own rentals, for a start, huh? Shouldn’t be too hard.

16. People will still be able to Airbnb after Prop F passes, right? But Prop F should really put the hurt on Airbnb hotel buildings.

17. Prop F can totally be fixed, if necessary, by a judge or two or more, or by a vote of The People. Yes, we can visit this issue again later.

18. What’s this?! “I have been a part-time homesharer in SF since last year.” This should have been the first line of your bit, non? Ah, man, I don’t think I would have read your whole bit if you had been upfront about your conflict of interest. And why is my Google Chrome underlining “homesharer?” Oh that’s right, it’s because you made it up. Let’s try something else, something honest, like “room letter.” See? No underlining. Case closed.

19. Oh, this Medium bit is ending abruptly, after the Big Reveal. All right, yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

YES ON PROP F Fever Sweeps Over Frisco (AFAIK) – Spotting New Posters About Town – “FIX THE AIRBNB MESS”

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

I looked for signs like these afore, but didn’t see them.

Now, in mid-September, I’m seeing them – that’s the update:

7J7C4995 copy

Here’s a nice write-up from a neutral source:

“Prior to February 2015, the city banned private, short-term rentals, but did not dedicate sufficient resources to fully enforce the law.”

Yep, pretty much.

Prop F Update: Let’s Look at Both Sides of SF Proposition F (2015), the Airbnb Law – Fixing Frisco’s Broken Short-Term Rental Mess

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015

(I’ll tell you, I don’t care what you do or where you rest your noggin at night. Fundamentally, I’m not a NIMBY – I don’t care what you do. I’ll admit I think it’s noteworthy when I spot Airbnb users in the Western Addition or the Sunset or wherever, ’cause they stand out (without realizing it) like a sore thumb, but I don’t have anything against tourists milling about, you know, per se. It’s funny, they ask me about parking laws. I try to help out. I tell them which way to curb their tires, ’cause a lot of them just don’t get it. And I’ll add that I know people who use Airbnb, and I know people who make some money letting rooms and units via Airbnb and the VRBO. But obvs I don’t own Airbnb options or anything and I’ll also note that I don’t own any hotels or anything.)

So that’s where I stand. No conflicts of interest – how refreshing, non? Now let’s take a look at Prop F via ShareBetterSF:

1. Limits short-term rentals to 75 nights per year, regardless of whether a ‘host’ is present

THIS LOOKS GOOD TO ME. THE WHOLE “HOST PRESENT” THING APPEARS TO BE A GIANT LOOPHOLE COOKED UP BY AIRBNB ITSELF IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OFFICE OF SUPERVISOR DAVID CHIU. THE RULES THAT HE AND AIRBNB CAME UP WITH ARE A HUGE, UNWORKABLE MESS, IMO.

2. Requires quarterly reports to the Planning Department on the number of nights a unit is rented to tourists

IF YOU’RE RENTING OUT A ROOM OR A UNIT, YOU’D NEED A REGISTRATION NUMBER AND YOU’D NEED TO REPORT HOW MANY TIMES YOU DID IT EVERY THREE MONTHS. SOUNDS PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME. SOUNDS A LOT SIMPLER THAN, SAY, THE EXTRA WORK YOU’LL HAVE TO DO WHEN ANNUAL TAX TIME COMES. IF THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON YOU, THE PERSON RENTING OUT ROOMS, PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN’T BE IN THIS BIDNESS?

3. Fines ‘hosting platforms’ (like Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway) for listing unregistered units

BAM. IF YOU HAVE A REG. NUMBER, YOU CAN LIST. IF YOU DON’T, YOU CAN’T.

4. Provides other building tenants, neighbors and neighborhood associations with notice when a unit is registered as a short-term rental

SO SFGOV WOULD SEND OUT A BRACE OF LETTERS EVERY TIME A UNIT GETS REGISTERED – THIS IS A ONE-TIME DEAL, RIGHT? AGAIN, DOES THIS SEEM SO UNREASONABLE?

5. Allows other building tenants & neighbors to go to court to protect their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their homes when the City fails to enforce the law

SO THERE ARE YOUR TEETH. THIS IS WHY AIRBNBER’S WILL ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO SF PROP F 2015.

[INTERMISSION]

NOW LET’S HEAR FROM AIRBNB::

CaptureFSFFHH

1. WELL, YEAH, I GUESS, AIRBNB – YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE THINGS THAT WAY. BUT LET’S SAY AN AIRBNBER FROM WALNUT CREEK BUYS A BUILDING IN SF AND THEN AIRBNBS ALL THE UNITS 365/366 DAYS A YEAR – THIS IS WHAT THE PROP F PEOPLE WOULD CALL “RUNNING A HOTEL.” IF I WERE SAID BUILDING OWNER LIVING IN WALNUT CREEK, I’D BE VERY AFRAID OF PROP F, SO I’D FOLLOW THE NEW RULES, RIGHT? IS THAT SO BAD?

2. WELL, I LIVE IN SF, AIRBNB. SO I DON’T THINK YOU’RE TALKING TO ME. BUT i’LL SAY THAT I THINK THE “DATA” WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS HOW MANY TIMES A QUARTER AIRBNBERS ARE IN BUSINESS, SO NO BIG DEAL, RIGHT? SO FAR, YOU’RE NOT REALLY SCARING ME AWAY FROM PROP F HERE, AIRBNB. LET’S SOLDIER ON…

3. SFGOV AND AIRBNB HAVE MADE A HASH OF THIS PROCESS SO FAR. THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN’T WORKING, SORRY. THIS IS WHY PROP F QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT, RIGHT?

4. HEY, AREN’T MOST IN-LAW UNITS IN TOWN ALREADY “BANNED?” I THINK SO. I THINK IT’S BECAUSE THEY AREN’T CODE COMPLIANT. WHY SHOULDN’T WE LEGALIZE THESE UNITS FIRST, IF THAT’S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, AFORE WE START WORRYING ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN MAKE OFF OF THEM? AND IF THIS IN-LAW ISSUE IS SUCH A BIG CONCERN A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AFTER THE POSSIBLE LEGALIZATION OF THESE UNITS, WELL, THEN WE CAN VOTE AGAIN, RIGHT? PERHAPS THIS WILL BE A BIT CUMBERSOME, BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU HAVE A REGULATORY CAPTURE SUCH AS THE ONE WE’RE IN.  

So, IDK, am I missing something here? What am I missing? Any beef anybody has against Prop F is displaced anger – the people who created the current situation are the ones responsible. Oh what’s that, Airbnb, you say the rules from Prop F are “too extreme?” Well, that’s because, unlike the current regs,  you didn’t write them. See how that works, Airbnb? Perhaps you should have cooked up a fairer set of rules for yourself, and then Prop F never would never have gone on the ballot, right?

So tell me, Gentle Reader, what am I missing here?

Otherwise, I’m a-voting YES ON PROP F.

Is David Chiu Really This Orange? The Challenges of White Balance at the Chambers of the Board of Superviors – Desaturation = Win

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

The offending photo, reposted today.

That’s over the line, IMO.

Here’s a two-step fix – tone down the Saturation by sliding left and then brighten up the remaining sunburned-looking patch on the forehead using Replace Color:

920x920 copy

JMO.

Is this impermissible photo manipulation?

IDK, but it’s certainly closer to IRL than what I started with…

Board of Supervisors President Game of Thrones: Mark Farrell as King Joffrey, London Breed as Khaleesi

Tuesday, November 18th, 2014

Who will ascend the Iron Throne?

7J7C7335-copy

Mark Farrell as King Joffrey:

game-of-thrones-season-2-joffrey copy

Joe Eskenazi of SFWeekly has all your Board of Supervisors President handicapping needs met right here.

London Breed as Khaleesi, Mother of Dragons:

imagesssf copy

Is “Techies Who Vote” a Real Website? Like, Is This Real Life? – Here’s Its Hilarious Call To Action for Election Day

Tuesday, November 4th, 2014

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…

Campaign 2014: Here’s What 3.3 Pounds of Mail in a Mailbox Looks Like – Plus, David Chiu is Very Very Evil

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

(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:

P1160921 copy

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?]