Posts Tagged ‘ed lee’

Comments re: “Statement from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition on Mayor Ed Lee’s Veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law”

Wednesday, January 20th, 2016

Just posted.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition on Mayor Ed Lee’s Veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law Jan. 20, 2016 – Mayor Ed Lee’s veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law makes San Francisco the first U.S. city to take a major step away from its promise to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries.”

Hoo-boy, a lot to unpack already. OK, the universe is U.S. cities who (or that – I mean, do cities make promises?) have promised the impossible – eliminating ALL transportation mishaps starting on a date certain, in our case about four years after all pols concerned have termed out, aka January 1, 2024. And I’m thinking, has any other American city promised this? IDTS! And the other issue is if this is a step away from safety, which is highly debatable, of course. This is more of a rights issue rather than a safety issue.

“…Vision Zero…”Focus on the Five,” assuring the people of San Francisco that police would dedicate half of all traffic citations to the five violations that cause a majority of traffic deaths.

If we’re talking about CVC code sections, and we are, then three of the top five in SF are pedestrian-only violations. Sorry.

SFPD leadership is even erroneously adding those citations into their Focus on the Five data, and still falling short of dedicating half of all traffic citations to the five most dangerous traffic violations.

It’s not at all clear that rolling through a stop sign should be excluded from the poorly-written FOCUSONTHEFIVE initiative since that CVC section is specifically enumerated as one of the five. If SFGov meant to exclude cyclists (I’m sorry, “people biking” – that’s the new term for 2016, I guess for better “framing?”), then it should have excluded cyclists, right? Amend if you want to, right?

A majority of the Board of Supervisors and thousands of supporters sought to deliver safer streets by legislating smarter enforcement.

Again, that’s just your conclusion, man. “Safer,” “smarter?” Hey, how many local groups (think peds, think differently-abled) opposed this proposed change? Lots and lots. Do you want me to list them? I sure can.

The Bike Yield Law…

No more “Idaho Stop,” huh? More framing, yay! Why is Idaho Stop bad now? I have no idea.

Mayor Lee dishonored the lives lost in San Francisco crashes…

Holy shit, man! Really?

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has worked for over 40 years…

Uh nope. I’ve been around longer than it has. Sorry. Pretty much defunct/nowhere in the 1980’s. Sorry.

…London Breed…

Oh that’s right, she is running for reelection is a district what’s a touch too progressive for her record.

And on and on.

I’ll tell you, I’ve been California Stopping my way through stop signs in San Francisco since before the current SFBC even began. Like on  a daily basis. I’ve never been ticketed or even warned by anybody at the SFPD. Of course, I do this at a much slower speed than is typical on, say, the Wiggle bicycle route, where some routinely go across stop sign stop lines at 10 MPH plus, oh well. In any event, yes, enforcement is at a pretty low level already. Even in infamous Park Station, where in some recent monthly reports, it records zero (0) pedestrian / cyclist / people biking citations. I mean, you can’t get lower than zero, right? Of course, the SFPD also does enforcements actions on the Wiggle. (To me, that’s a message to stay away from the already-overburdened official exact Wiggle route (how about one block away from the Wiggle route instead – would that be so so hard for you all?)) These spates of enforcement catch even those who cross over stop lines at a reasonable pace – that’s unfortunate but oh well. The real targets of these actions are those who don’t pay attention and who California Stop at way too high a speed…

 

Unprecedented Density: Unpopular Mayor Ed Lee’s Under-the-Freeway Tent City – One After Another, Block After Block

Monday, December 28th, 2015

I’ve never seen it like this, during our Winter of ’15, not in all my years…

7J7C1705 copy

I remember Camp Agnos in Civic Center and of course we had Occupy SF back in aught-eleven, but I’ve never seen the streets of San Francisco like this, like this part of Ed Lee‘s Tent City, with one tent after the other stretching as far as the eye can see…

Presenting Unpopular Mayor Ed Lee’s Tent City: Hundreds of People Living on the Northern Sidewalks of 13th Street

Monday, December 14th, 2015

The north part of each block of the stretch of road underneath the I-80 from 11th Street (where Costco #144 is) to Valencia is now occupied by numerous tents.

I’ve seen four in a row before but this kind of thing is unprecedented, IMO:

IMG_9243 copy

Some blocks might have 15 tents, one after the other, these days? I’ll check next time I’m down there.

In other news:

Lee’s approval ratings plunge as voters sour on S.F.’s direction

Notice of Meeting to Enshrine the “SFMTA COMMUTER SHUTTLE PROGRAM” – Nov. 17th, 2015 – List of All the Permanent Corporate Bus Stops

Friday, November 13th, 2015

Donna pilota – she is over, after 18 months.

So now comes time to make things permanent – here are the affected intersections:

7J7C8919 copy

I expected to see a few places that I didn’t on this list, for whatever reason.

Here’s the link to the official SFMTA posting – you can use it until the SFMTA rejiggers its site, and after that the Wayback Machine should help you.

Here is The Future:

(more…)

Turns Out That You Can’t Win a District Election by Handing Out Cooking Oil in Chinatown – An Unforced Error

Friday, November 13th, 2015

Here’s the scene some ten days after November Election Day, 2015:

7J7C9356 copy

You’d think Ron Conway would have enough money to clean up quickly after losing an election…

7J7C9317 copy

…but you’d be wrong.

Somebody should go out into the field and remove any last vestiges of this failure.

“Per witnesses, Conway said, “Well, I think we heard it pretty clear from the mayor. We’d better not have anybody here give to Aaron Peskin, or there’ll be problems with Ed Lee.” Conway then purportedly confided that he had contributed heavily to swamp David Campos’s 2014 assembly run, but feared that if he did the same for Christensen, it would bounce back on both of them. Conway then allegedly informed the assembled movers and shakers that they must pony up for Christensen. He would in turn make them whole by giving to their preferred causes.”

Life in Ed Lee’s San Francisco: Parking in the Only Space Still Available, the One with All the Broken Glass from Last Night

Wednesday, November 4th, 2015

People tend to park a little way from the curb in these situations.

7J7C9796 copy

Oh well.

Word on the Street: “EVICT ED LEE” – All Over Town – From Smeagol to Gollum in Just a Few Decades

Monday, November 2nd, 2015

The thing is, he used to be a hobbit.

7J7C9992 copy

“Arguably the most significant development is his relationship with tech mogul Ron Conway, an early investor in Airbnb, the short-term vacation rental company. Sources say Lee and his staff have sometimes chafed at Conway’s repeated boasts about his influence with the mayor, but couldn’t refuse his money.”

Corporate Buses Have Few Places to Legally Park in San Francisco, So They Illegally Double-Park, Like This – The Problem with “Staging”

Wednesday, October 21st, 2015

Get up-to-speed on “staging” here – just keep reading down.

So, our SFMTA is giving out favorable reviews of its corporate shuttle bus trial these days? Is that so surprising? Not really.

But one question remains: Where are these big buses going to wait before the next run starts? Obviously, the slow lane of Masonic Avenue between Fell and Oak isn’t going to work, but what about the wide streets of West NoPA?*

7J7C8980 copy

Actually, this isn’t all that bad a place to hang out – this is a pretty out of the way place, and yet it’s very close to the designated stops for this particular bus.

Anyway, I don’t work for the SFMTA kicking back and making hundred of thousands of dollars per year (we’re talking TCOE (Total Cost Of Employment) here), so this isn’t really my thing to worry about.

BUT, it’s an issue for The Future, just saying.

FIN

*Here’s how this works. Go to the Panhandle. Then go east, to Divisadero. Then go north, IDK, up to Hayes or someplace. Then go back, go west. Now, you’re in “West NoPA.” What new name will our area realtors** come up with next? IDK. “North of NoPA” is already with us, I’m afraid. Hey, how about “South of West NoPA,” you know, to describe the Panhandle? Sure. Go east then north then west then south and you are back where you started…

**Always with a lower-case “r.” It’s kind of semi-genericized term now, like champagne or something…

Aaron Peskin, a Man of the People, Spotted Campaigning at the California and Hyde TJ’s, with Cable Cars Dinging By

Tuesday, October 20th, 2015

Via the Somewhat Fair Use Doctrine, let’s catch up with the Once and Future Supervisor of District 3:

Captureyddfg copy

Speaking of which, I got a little blowback from a couple people over this JULIE CHRISTENSEN DESIGNED THE CANDY-APPLE RED KITCHENAID MIXER business put forth by the Ron Conway Crew, but I’m not moved. I’ll say that I’m sure she had something to do with something, but she certainly didn’t “design” an appliance what’s fundamentally unchanged since the 1930’s AND she didn’t come up with the idea of making ’em various colors, which started up in the 1950’s afore she was even born. Now, if she picked one louder shade of red than what came before, well, maybe she did, but that don’t mean she “designed” no iconic kitchen appliance.

And also, wasn’t she FOR Aaron Peskin before she was against him? I think so. She herself seems like a prototypical Telegraph Hill Dweller, you know, herself.

And hey, here’s an idea, pick ANY RANDOM PERSON living in District Three and that person would do a better job for SF than JC – I’m 90% sure that would be an upgrade, I’m saying the odds would be in our favor.

All right, D3 residents, we’re counting on to vote for checks and balances in SFGov, for 2016, anyway…

7 copy

And best of all, as you can see, Aaron already has a posse.

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

So hop on the bandwagon, D3.

Interim Mayor Ed Lee Stars as a Menacing Celestial Body in This “Yes On Prop G” Flyer

Wednesday, October 14th, 2015

Hadn’t noticed this one before:

7J7C8052 copy

Take it away, BALLOTPEDIA:

“A City of San Francisco Transfer Tax on Residential Property Re-Sold in Five Years, Proposition G ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California. It was defeated.

Proposition G imposed an additional tax on the sale or transfer of multi-unit property that has been owned for less than five years. Details about the tax are in the San Francisco Ballot Simplification digest.

Election results

City of San Francisco, Proposition G
Result Votes Percentage
Defeated No 117,887 53.91%
Yes 100,776 46.09%

Election results via: City and County of San Francisco Registrar of Voters

The San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee provided the following digest for Proposition G:[1]

THE WAY IT IS NOW:The City collects a transfer tax on sales of most real property in San Francisco. The tax rate depends on the sale price of the property. The lowest tax rate is 0.5%, for property sold for $250,000 or less. The highest tax rate is 2.5%, for property sold for $10,000,000 or more. The tax rate is not affected by how long a property is owned.THE PROPOSAL:

Proposition G would impose an additional tax on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of purchase or transfer. The following table shows the tax rates that would apply:

Length of Time Seller Has Owned Property – Tax Rate:

Less than one year – 24 percent
One to two years – 22 percent
Two to three years – 20 percent
Three to four years – 18 percent
Four to five years – 14 percent

This additional tax would apply to sales occurring on or after January 1, 2015.

This additional tax would not apply in the following circumstances:

  • The property is a single-family house or condominium and does not include an in-law unit;
  • An owner of the property, including a tenancy-in-common unit, has used it as a primary residence for at least one year immediately before the sale;
  • The property contains more than 30 separate residential units;
  • The property is sold for an amount equal to or less than what the seller paid for the property;
  • The property is sold within one year of a property owner’s death;
  • The property is legally restricted to low- and middle-income households;
  • The property is newly built housing;
  • The property meets the following criteria: it contains no more than two dwelling units; the seller applied on or before July 1, 2014, for a building permit for a project with a total construction cost of $500,000 or more; and the last permit was issued no more than a year before the sale of the property; or
  • The sale of the property is exempt from the existing transfer tax.

This measure would also authorize the Board of Supervisors to create additional exemptions from both the existing transfer tax and this proposed additional tax for properties that are subject to affordability-based restrictions.

A “YES” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “yes,” you want the City to impose an additional tax of between 14% and 24% on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of purchase or transfer, subject to certain exceptions.

A “NO” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “no,” you do not want the City to impose this additional tax.