Posts Tagged ‘ed lee’

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee Sadly Caresses a Broken Smart Parking Meter, Or That’s What It Looks Like To Me

Monday, January 26th, 2015

Direct from the SFMTA:

Capturefsffggger copy

Here’s the caption:

Report Broken Meters and Faded Curbs
Where the curb has faded so badly as to be difficult to determine the curb color, it will be enforced for curb color violations. And while you may only park for the posted time limit at a broken meter, functioning meters guarantee better parking availability for everyone. Help us keep meters working and curb colors bright and up to date by calling 311. By calling 311 you’ll create a record so that the curb or meter will be evaluated.”

Actually, I’m still not sure it’s not him.

Here’s What San Francisco Chronicle Writer CW Nevius Gets Wrong About Our Failed Bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

Friday, January 16th, 2015

I guess this will close out SF’s attempt to host the 2024 Olympics.

The weird thing about San Francisco’s bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics was that the local committee was this close to pulling off a terrific plan.

The vote was Boston 15 and San Francisco (and the other two) 0, was it not? That’s not all that close, huh? Or does he mean that the bay area’s bid was sub-terrific, like it was just one unit below being terrific? One can’t tell what the Nevius is trying to say here. San Francisco always was a long shot, right? And if SF got picked by the USOC, then it would have been a long shot to get picked by the IOC. And if the corrupt IOC had selected SF, then there was always the chance of things not working out anyway, ala the inchoate Denver 1976 Olympics. So, was this thing “close” or actually far far away? I’ll tell you, if I were the USOC, I’d tell all the boosters from all the cities how close things were and if I were the spokesmodel for SF2024, I’d tell Larry Baer how close he almost came. (“We were this close Lare-Bear!) But I’m not so I won’t. OTOH, CW Nevius got paid by the Chronicle to publish, more or less, what Nate Ballard wanted published, so here we are. “So close!”

Let’s see a show of hands. How many of you thought a temporary, pop-up $350 million Olympic stadium in the Brisbane wind tunnel was a good idea? 

The IOC doesn’t want any more images of white elephants haunting them through the decades. So, in their opinion, which is the only one that matters, pop-ups might be a good thing. As far as Brisbane vs. Oakland is concerned, how could it matter? Our hosting would have ended up costing 5, 10, 15 billion dollars more than the “official” bid, right? Isn’t that the real issue?

More on Oakland:

It would not only have been a terrific solution for the Games — better weather, easy access, waterfront views — it would have penciled out financially.

This is the same Nevius who moved to town and then a few months later determined that the failed America’s Cup would come “without a downside.” But it did come with a downside, or two or three or four, right? Moving on.

And, by the way, don’t think the United States Olympic Committee wasn’t hoping to make San Francisco work. Conventional wisdom was that Los Angeles had the facilities, Boston and Washington had the East Coast bias, but San Francisco was “the sexiest.”

Why does the Nevius use the term “conventional wisdom” here? What does he mean? Is he suggesting that this view wasn’t accurate? I don’t think so.  And what’s “East Coast bias?” Have the Summer Olympics ever been held on the East Coast of the United States ever in history? Nope. So there doesn’t seem to be too much bias there. Our Summer Olympicses have been held in the West (twice), the South and the Midwest. So WTF. Now, time zone-wise I can certainly see how advertisers worldwide would strongly prefer the EDT for live events, and that certainly was a factor favoring Boston. And I’ll say, that DC had no chance at all, as the IOC hates DC and all it stands for. And then the Nevius puts quote marks around “the sexiest?” Is this a an actual quote or is it merely the conventional wisdom? Hmmm

So what happened? Well, San Francisco happened. Or more specifically, the Bay Area, and particularly the fractious shenanigans in Oakland, made everyone nervous.

So, nothing happened, right? The USOC did its own polling and figured out that we don’t really want the Olympics here. That’s what happened. I wouldn’t describe that as San Francisco happened since this was and is a known known, right?

Every time someone touted the Bay Area as a location, someone else cued up the video of the Oakland protesters trashing a Christmas tree.

Whoa, Nelly! Is this literally true? Like “every time?” No, so who was actually doing this at all? Like, even once? Is the Nevius aware of the non-disparagement agreements that all the bid cities signed on to? Is he suggesting that somebody from the Boston bid “cued up” some video literally or is this a Nevius tone poem? I can’t tell. Not at all.

As one local Olympic insider suggested: “We are like the hot, crazy girl that everyone wants to sleep with. You never know what you’re going to get when you wake up in the morning.”

This quote is from Nate Ballard but he doesn’t want to own up to it? Weak. I’ll note that Nate Ballard isn’t quoted anywhere else in the Nevius bit. And did Larry Baer’s money go to somebody getting paid to talk about hot, crazy “girls” everybody wants to sleep with? That’s amazing. Anyway, this came from Nate Ballard – prove me wrong! I won’t disagree with the sentiment though. Yes, SF was the most “appealing” bid city, the city that the corrupt IOC would have the warmest feelings for, most likely.

Now make no mistake. It wasn’t just Oakland. Accounts of the years of debate and acrimony over the harmless Beach Chalet soccer fields in Golden Gate Park made the national news.

OK, so what are you saying here, Nevius? That spending money and effort trying to get the Olympics to come here is/was a bad idea, you know, considering? Is that what you mean to say, Nevius?

Nor was it helpful to hear that collecting enough signatures to get an initiative on the San Francisco ballot is incredibly easy.

So, CW Nevius from Walnut Creek doesn’t want the people of SF to be able to weigh in on spending 10, 15, 20 billion on an Olympic-sized boondoggle? Mmmm…

Suppose, for example, an initiative was passed that said no public money could be used for the Games.

Yep, that was what was coming, no doubt.

Would that mean no increase in funding for public transportation, which would be stressed for the Games? Or police and emergency services.

The answer to this question is that it doesn’t matter as such a vote would be more than enough to scare away the corrupt IOC and why would you continue along the boondoggle path after the People voted thumbs down? I mean, what kind of monster would do that? Here’s the thing – this is the IOC:

Capturesfffs

That’s in terms that CW Nevius, that white, wizened, wine-drinking, Walnut Creekian Downton Abbey fan can appreciate. In fact, the IOC is like 10-15% royal blooded, like literally. The IOC has lots of ideas about how best to spend Other People’s Money on projects to glorify the IOC. But the IOC itself can’t afford to put on the show. That’s why it forces cities to guarantee the games with taxpayer money. There’s no way ’round this. So the IOC will not grant the Games to any city that doesn’t have a guarantee that the bill for the inevitable overruns will get sent to taxpayers. This is the Denver 1976 situation. It doesn’t take all that much to scare away the IOC.

Would we ever be able to get this together? Sure. It’s possible. The timing couldn’t have been much worse this year to put something together.

So, our bid was All About Oakland? I don’t think so. Perhaps this notion is comforting to Larry Baer, but I don’t think so. Perhaps SF bidding on the Olympics is fun, but it’s a bad idea? Perhaps?

But don’t think Boston is a slam dunk to win the international bid.

Who thinks Boston is a “slam dunk?” Where does this come from?

If anything, the anti-Olympics political forces in Boston — there’s a “No Boston Olympics” coalition — are more organized and more vociferous than the little band of naysayers here. 

Well, Nevius, the USOC did its own polling and it concluded that the political environment was worse here in SF. The reason why Boston’s citizen effort had a higher profile is that the bid in Boston had a higher profile, for whatever reason. And if a “little band” of naysayers would have had a very easy time winning its no-taxpayer-funds-for-the-Olympics vote, then they aren’t such a little band, right? Maybe SF doesn’t want to pay for the Olympics to come here – is that a possibility?

So now Nevius is rooting for Boston to lose the 2024 Olympics so that we can get the 2028 Olympics – that’s what Larry Baer and Nate Ballard are thinking?

OK fine, but I don’t think that’s going to work either.

CW Nevius should be able to do a better job than this.

A Couple Things Wrong with “Mayor Lee’s SHOP & DINE in the 49″ Initiative – Is SF Really 49 Square Miles?

Wednesday, December 31st, 2014

Well, no it’s not. Add together all the land of San Francisco County, even including all the landfill and the Farallones and Alcatraz and even including the slivers of islands we only have small parts of, like Angel Island and Red Rock Island and Alameda Island, all of it, is only just 46 point something square miles.

Don’t you people know that?

So 7×7 = 49, yeah sure, that’s a good start, but what about the Great San Francisco Bight? (Or bite, either way.) A big part of our Upper Left is missing, right?

get-involved copy

So you’re the great cheerleaders for the City and County but you don’t even know what it looks like, right?

Is this pedantry what I’m committing? Well, you tell me, babe. Hey, let’s talk about the other Mayor who got appointed by Mayor Willie Brown – let’s hear something from Gavin Newsom:

We can sue – we’re a 49 square mile city, founded in 1849, by the 49’ers. The city [Santa Clara] can’t take the name 49’ers.”  

Well leaving aside the facts that SF wasn’t founded in 1849 and it wasn’t founded by 49’ers (who actually lived far to the east of SF in 1849), and that  some 49’ers settled in Santa Clara as well, leaving all that aside, we’re not a 49 square mile city, right? So that shouldn’t be a any part of a legal argument about where any NFL stadium should be, right? Until at least one of our Mayors gets things right, this pattern will continue. Right?

(And check the video – if that’s what he’s like post-“rehab,” what was he like before?)

Anyway, how about Get Your Kicks in the 46, you know, instead? I’m sure our NikeTown would like that one. Or, rounding up, you could go with Shopping Heaven in the 47?

Oh, and the other thing is that telling people to only shop in the county where they reside, which is more or less what we’re doing here, is a baaaaaad idea for a tourist town like Frisco.

Oh, and another thing is, gee, is this kind of feel-good thing effective? No, but you’re trying to throw struggling boutiques a bone? OK. But with stuff like this?

“Suggested posts:

Having breakfast/lunch/dinner @__________, my favorite place to #shopdine49

I’m making a difference by shopping and dining in the 49 this holiday season #shopdine49

I support local businesses and I love my neighborhood. #shopdine49″

Why would a normal person follow any of these suggestions?

Just asking…

Bold Move: SF Business Times Prints Shame List of “Restaurants with High-Risk Health Code Violations”

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014

Seems a long time ago now, but back eight years the spouse of a County Supervisor had this to say:

“To those mother fuckers at the Golden Gate Restaurant Association: FUCK YOU!”

And I thought, what an odd thing to say, but yeah, I can see where that comes from.

(Here’s just one example – this place is a member. Like, it even gets promoted by the GGRA.)

Anyway, the GGRA spends its time doing things like lobbying against simple letter grades for restaurants, ala San Diego. Which is funny, because posting simple letter grades up front has lots of benefits – like it lowers food poisoning incidents at ER’s in the surrounding area and other good stuff like that. Check it:

“A 2003 study by two economists [Yay, Stanfoo!] found that after letter grades were introduced in Los Angeles, there was a 20 percent decline in hospital admissions for food-borne illness.

But the SF Bidness Times, well, the people there must bump into officers of the GGRA all the time. And yet here it is, the SFBT now has a naughty list a mile long.

Here’s part of it – let’s start with the beginning of the alphabet

Arizmendi Bakery
1331 9th Ave.
08/28/2014: Unclean hands or improper use of gloves (Score: 73)

Ouch. If I were Arizmendi, I’d spend more time striving to get a triple digit score and less time working on buying a “parklet” from the City.

And hey, who’s in charge of AT&T these days? Is it Olympian Larry Baer? I think so:

AT&T – Cable Car Bar (Promenade) [146520]
24 Willie Mays Plaza
09/14/14: No hot water or running water (Score: 93)

AT&T – Say Hey Sausage-Room 5319 [145157]
24 Willie Mays Plaza 5.15.01
09/14/14: High-risk food holding temperature (Score: 93)

AT&T Park – Food Cart
24 Willie Mays Plaza
09/14/14: Sewage or wastewater contamination (Score: 93)

AT&T Park – Garden Table Stand
24 Willie Mays Plaza
09/14/14: High-risk food holding temperature (Score: 93)

AT&T PARK – Gotham Kitchen
24 Wilie Mays Plaza
09/14/14: Unclean or unsanitary food contact surfaces (Score: 91)

AT&T PARK – Hearth Table Stand
24 Willie Mays Plaza
09/14/14: High-risk food holding temperature (Score: 93)

And yet, all the scores appear to be similar? I’m sure there’s a reason for that, but I don’t know the reason. (Are some of these violations no biggee? I don’t know. Which violations are important and which are less so? IDK.)

There’s lots I don’t understand about how SFGov does it restaurant health grading. Oh well.

Hey SFGov, can we get simple, effective letter grades posted out front, ala San Diego? Oh no, you just don’t feel like it? Oh what’s that, the GGRA doesn’t want you do it so you won’t?

OK fine.

So the San Francisco 2024 Olympics Bid is Based on London 2012, Which Ended with a “Surplus?” – Here’s Why That’s Wrong

Friday, December 19th, 2014

Well, here’s your set-up, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

“…San Francisco is trying to apply the model used in London in 2012. The games there were concentrated primarily in existing, temporary or shrinkable facilities and ended with a surplus…”

But that’s wrong, wrong, wrong.

Let’s travel back to 2007, via BBC News:

“The overall budget for the London Olympics submitted in the bid to the International Olympic Committee was £2.4bn.” [In Yankee Dollars, that’s $4 billion-something.]

Now let’s look at the official total of the actual cost, via BBC News:

£9.29bn  [In Yankee Dollars, that’s in the area of $14 billion-something.]

So, how can the boosters of London 2012 claim to have come in “under-budget?” Well, it’s because they simply boosted the budget almost 300% to get it above what they ended up spending, you know, Hollywood accounting* style:

“The budget was revised upwards after taking into account previously overlooked costs such as VAT, increased security… Addressing the original bid budget of £2.4bn, Sports Minister Hugh Robertson said there was a “recognition right from the word go that figure would have to change dramatically on the basis of delivering the Games”

Now let’s hear from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, to explain things for us:

“News that the Transbay Terminal is something like $300 million over budget should not come as a shock to anyone. We always knew the initial estimate was way under the real cost. Just like we never had a real cost for the Central Subway or the Bay Bridge or any other massive construction project. So get off it. In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment. If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.”

Also, how is building temporary stadia (stadiums?) cheaper than building permanent structures? Oh, it’s not, but at least the IOC won’t have to deal with crumbling infrastructure as an icon of the 2024 Summer Games? So, you build a white elephant, then tear it down, and then it’s like it wasn’t even there? OK fine.

I’ll tell you, there’s no way the IOC will agree to an Olympics in the Bay Area without taxpayers being on the hook for overruns. No way. The last time an Olympic City made a good deal was 1984, when Los Angeles didn’t really have to compete with a host of other potential host cities around the world. Just look at what the Mayor of Chicago had to agree to in order to just be considered for the 2016 Games. (Yes, he talked about insurance policies, actual policies from insurance companies, but those wouldn’t have worked out either, for various reasons, the taxpayers of Illinois would have been on the hook for billions, had Chicago “won” the right to host.)

Do you know what SFGov considers leadership to be? Something like this, something like what Chris Columbus showed on his First Voyage:

“Columbus kept two logs of the distance traveled. The one he showed to the crew showed they had not gone as far as Columbus believed. He did not want them to think that they were too far from home.

See how that works? If you’re honest with people, then you’ll never get anywhere So that’s why lying is necessary, the SFGov people feel. The problem is the question of whether The Journey is a good idea in the first place. IMO, they should say, sure, this will cost us an extra $10 billion or so in cost overruns, but here’s why it’ll be worth it.

Oh, and this is just in, here’s Mike Sugerman:

Vegas Odds Makers: Los Angeles, Boston Have Better Shot Than San Francisco To Host 2024 Olympics

If you do the math, our odds of “winning” the title of sole potential U.S. host of the 2024 Olympics are about 17%. (These Vegas odds certainly square with my understanding. IRL, the IOC hates, just hates, the idea of having Washington DC host, and IRL, the USOC is frightened, is horrified, of fractious Bay Area politics, and, frankly, Larry Baer is the last person you want herding cats, if said cats include any city in the South Bay, where, frankly, his name is mud.)

That’s your 2024 Olympics Update.

*In Hollywood, the goal is to make a profitable venture appear to be unprofitable, the better to lower costs for the studio. OTOH, in the world of the Olympics, the goal is to show a “profit” even though expenses exceeded income. 

If District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Needs To Be Replaced Soon, Two People with Legitimacy are Abe Simmons and Kat Anderson

Monday, December 15th, 2014

First things first, you tell me how big a deal this is:

Supervisor Farrell directed to pay S.F. $190,000 for violation by John Coté

And don’t niss this part:

“Theoretically speaking, I think they then become the same campaign,” said John St. Croix, director of the Ethics Commission.

Kaboom. Did an effort (from Janet Reilly, or some other Reilly)…

FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order

…lead to this…

FPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.

…almost four long years later?

OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS:

1. Why does big news always seem to come out post meridiem on a Day of Frigg, you know, like on a Friday evening? Funny that.

2. Could this situation explain why Mark Farrell nominated (law student(!)) Katy Tang as interim Board of Supervisors President?

3. Is Mark Farrell going to serve out his second term? IDK.

4. If he doesn’t, who’s going to replace him? Mmmm…

The election that District 2 held four years ago was narrowly lost by Janet Reilly, but I can’t see her ever getting appointed D2 Supe in today’s political environment.

Now, what about the people who came in third and fourth, the people who myabe could have / should have formed an ANYBODY BUT JANET ranked-choice voting troika / three-way with Mark Farrell?

Meet Ivy Leaguer Abraham Simmons:

Does he still live in the District? IDK.

Now meet Stanfoo-educated Kat Anderson:

I’m thinking either of these two attorneys could slot right into the job.

You know, if necessary.

Here’s what people have been talking about over the weekend:

Agenda – December 16, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING and AGENDA
December 16, 2014, 5:00 P.M.
Room 400 City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco

[EXCERPT]

  • Discussion with City Attorney’s Office regarding potential litigation by the City Attorney’s Office against local committees, including Common Sense Voters, SF 2010; Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor, for violations of local campaign finance laws.  Possible Closed Session.  (Attachments: FPPC Stipulation, Decision and OrderFPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.)
    1. Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
    2. Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under California Government Code section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation:  San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114.  (Action.)
    3. Conference with Legal Counsel:  Anticipated litigation.  (Discussion.)
      Number of possible cases: 1
    4. If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.
    5. Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated litigation.   (Discussion and possible action.)
      Motion:  The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.

I suppose we’ll find out more tomorrow…

Floodland: San Francisco Can’t Handle a Little Rain, So It Awakes to Flooded Streets, Buildings and Cars

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014

Here’s how the east end of Cayuga looks this AM, near the 101:

X0Cgr1a copy

And here’s how people are reacting:

“I looked out front and the manhole in the street in front of our house was bubbling water a foot into the air. My neighbors were outside with flooding downstairs as well. I called 311 and was on hold for a while. During that time a fire truck went by and stopped at the other end of the block and stayed their for a while. Other people living down there were out on the sidewalks so I assume the whole street was flooding. Soon after the bubbling stopped. After like 20 minutes of being on hold I got a hold of an operator and reported the situation and she said they’re having flooding issues all across the city, but apparently they don’t coordinate with the fire department so they have no idea what they did.”

It’s Floodland!

What It’s Like to Stay at a Mid-Market Hotel for $60-Something per Night: “Budget Inn,” 1139 Market Street

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

Well, here’s an upbeat take:

Hotel Tour : Budget Inn San Francisco CA by DieselDucy:

Compare that with Yelp – a very low one-star rating:

“I want to leave, but it’s already 1am and we are both too afraid to leave our locked room. We get 4 hrs or interrupted sleep (the walls are paper thin and the doors have cracks in them), pray that we didn’t get exposed to tuberculosis, hepatitis and/or herpes and book it out of there. Trust me folks, this place isn’t worth the $60. I’ve stayed in $15 hostels while traveling though Europe that were both cleaner and safer than this place.”

And there’s this:

” If you have less than $150 night for a decent place to stay, youre actually safer just camping at golden gate park than any of these SROs…”

And there’s the bedbug allegations, natch.

Choose wisely…

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…

After the Airbnb Fiasco, Mayor Ed Lee Says Diane Feinstein is Giving “Enthusiastic Support” to the Assembly Campaign of David Chiu

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

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.”

See?

P1160922 copy

Now IRL, here’s DiFi herself on President Chiu’s Airbnb legislation from October 20th, 2014:

Don’t hand San Francisco over to Airbnb

And now Willie Brown is suggesting that DiFi is already on the list of those who are “joining Leno” against Ed Lee?

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…