Posts Tagged ‘ed lee’

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.

Hagiography Watch: Did Interim Supervisor Julie Christensen Really “‘Design’ the KitchenAid Candy-Apple-Red Mixer?

Friday, October 9th, 2015

Here’s the oft-repeated contention about District 3’s gaffe-prone, appointed interim rookie Supervisor Julie Christensen – she:

…helped design the KitchenAid candy-apple-red mixer.

And that was her accomplishment what’s offered as a substitute for her not having elected experience. (NTTAWWT, I don’t oppose her for that reason. I oppose her for being a lackey (past, present, and future) of area billionaire Ron Conway. Incidentally, this lack of electoral experience explains why she didn’t learn lessons she should have learned (about how all mics are hot mics etc etc etc) almost a half-century ago, you know, as an intern…)

All right, SPOILER ALERT: Here’s the Model K from all the way back from 1937, from before when you, Gentle Reader, and even she were even born.

800px-KitchenAid_Model_K copy

There it is – it’s the same basic thing today as like seven decades ago, and look, it’s got the same accessories port (a kind of power takeoff (PTO)) up front such that accessories made for this Model K back in the 1930’s will work on your brand-new mixer.*

All right, turn out the lights, the party’s over… OH WHAT’S THAT, GENTLE READER? You say her claim to greatness was merely that she “helped design” the particular candy-apple red model?

Well, let’s see, what you’re saying is that she was in some meeting and she said, “How about red?”

Does this kind of thing really make you a Designer?

Mmmm….

Hey, colors! When did KitchenAid get lots of colors? It was the 1950’s, I’m srsly.

So she “designed” our KA mixers by suggesting not the idea of various colors, but one particular shade like decades and decades after all the real work was done and that’s her experience what’s going to empower her to enact the longtime Republican Ron Conway (oh yes, Ron Conway, right away, Ron Conway, oh it’s an honor to finally meet you, Ron Conway, oh you’re so clever, Ron Conway) Agenda for all of Frisco?

IDK.

Hey, look. I’m going to design a KitchenAid, like right now. Here’s my mock-up. Isn’t it bold and brassy and oh so au courant and won’t the young hipsters love it?

CopperKitchenaidK-3C1955 copy

SURPRISE! I didn’t greenlight this metal finish at all. But it’s a real thing, born in the, ahem, fifties.

Perhaps JC can come up with another way to impress the soccer moms of D3?

Just asking…

Oh, no matter, Aaron the Giant has a Posse, see?

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

We’ll just have to wait and see if they‘ll turn out, on and before Election Day…

*It’s kind of an amazing company – KA sends all its returned items back to the factory to see what went wrong (there’s your quality) and then they offer it for sale at a discount. I bought mine new from the Costco – I think it was $100 off or something, you can’t beat that. The one on sale now** is tiny – doesn’t seem all that good a deal, oh well.

**Yes it’s bright red but not even Ron Conway hisself would claim that JC invented / designed the color Admiral Red

Life in Ed Lee’s San Francisco, Fixie Bike Edition

Monday, September 28th, 2015

Powerless

7J7C6500 copy

Ed Lee’s Frisco, 2015: “I Heart SF, I Can’t Afford SF”

Tuesday, August 11th, 2015

$26:

Capturefhhhh

Get yours at DSF

“PRESIDENT LONDON BREED’S STATEMENT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS FROM RAYMOND CHOW”

Tuesday, August 4th, 2015

“PRESIDENT LONDON BREED’S STATEMENT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS FROM RAYMOND CHOW

I learned long ago that you can’t control what other people say about you. And that’s especially true when you serve in public office.

Today, the attorneys for a man who’s facing multiple felony charges tried get him off the hook by making baseless allegations against many other people, including a number of local African American leaders. The attorneys wrote:

Reverend Amos Brown, Reverend Arnold Townsend, Derf Butler, Malia Cohen, and London Breed [all African American] were all implicated in dramatic pay to play schemes including calling into doubt the efficiency and real purpose of the One Stop Career Center in the Fillmore…London Breed who is a supervisor in a district where young children join gangs and are murdered before they can ever ‘pay to play.’ Butler allegedly takes Breed shopping for clothes and touts himself as something akin to a pimp explaining to Jackson that you have to teach an official how to be corrupt.

The One Stop Center exists to help people in my community find stable, quality jobs. The statement about children being murdered is as callous as it is offensive. And the only thing I’ve learned from this sad episode is that you should be very skeptical of what you read in the news, especially when it comes from an accused felon looking for anyone but himself to blame.

I’m not angry. It’s just very sad.”

There’s also this:

Serial entrepreneur Derf Butler, purportedly told an FBI agent he “pays Supervisor [London] Breed with untraceable debit cards for clothing and trips in exchange for advantages on contracts in San Francisco.” She denied this claim to the Examiner.

Opposition to SF’s Plan to Destroy 26 Healthy Hardwoods at Geary & Masonic: “SAVE OUR TREES From DEVELOPERS”

Monday, August 3rd, 2015

Here’s the word on the street, from fliers posted all over:

P1280808 copy

Get up to speed on the coming ARBOR-GEDDON here.

I’m not sure about the reference to “DEVELOPERS.” SFGov is fixing on taking out two lanes of parking / rush-hour lanes betwixt Geary and Masonic. It’s not like they’re cutting down these trees to put up a condo building.

Here’s the proposal for after these old trees get cut down – it’s another “street art” project, complete with new, transplanted palm trees. Kind of an L.A. look.

Here’s what it looks like now – not an “urban forest” but this stand does have an actual “canopy,” which, of course, is unusual since forests, by definition, aren’t urban.

P1200957-copy

I can’t see anything online yet, but the flier says Judgment Day will be on September 2nd, 2015 – 5:00 PM in Room 416 at City Hall.

Uh Oh: “New Violations Escalate Mel Murphy Case” – “Yet Another Illegal Conversion” – More Trouble in the Troubled Mission District

Tuesday, July 28th, 2015

Oh, this guy is still a Port Commissioner?

(Oh fuck, Man.)

Hey, I’ll give you just one guess as to who wrote this mini-hagiography:

“Mel Murphy, Commissioner 

Commissioner Mel Murphy is a licensed California Real Estate Broker, Licensed California General Contractor and successful real estate developer in San Francisco and Scottsdale, Arizona. Commissioner Murphy manages Pattani Construction, a development property management firm. He is also the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Murphy & O’Brien Real Estate Investments.

Commissioner Murphy was appointed to the Port Commission by Mayor Edwin Lee in March 2013. He previously served on the San Francisco Building Inspection Commission from 2006 to 2012. Appointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, Commissioner Murphy served two terms as President and two terms as Vice President of the Commission. Commissioner Murphy is a founding member of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth, a group that has a mission to promote public policies which will provide responsible growth and rational community development in San Francisco.

Commissioner Murphy was born in Westmeath and educated with the Christian Brothers and St. Mel’s College of Technology in Longford, Ireland, where he developed a lifelong interest in construction engineering and management.

In the early 1970’s he moved to San Francisco where he was headhunted by Bechtel Corporation who appointed him to manage large construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Commissioner Murphy’s technical and managerial competencies were further recognized and he was selected for other projects including the Alaskan pipeline and oil rigs in the North Sea and Chile. Commissioner Murphy returned to San Francisco in 1976.

News from Dennis Herrera’s City Attorney’s Office:

“New violations escalate Mel Murphy case. – Yet another illegal conversion of a residential development by city commissioner demonstrates ‘a pattern that is well-devised, carefully-executed and, above all, willful’

“SAN FRANCISCO (July 28, 2015) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has amended his civil suit against city commissioner Mel Murphy to include another residential property that the veteran developer converted in violation of state and local laws, and then deliberately concealed for years from his annual disclosures to the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

(more…)

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy” – Requests BoS Hearing

Thursday, July 16th, 2015

A new release:

“San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responds to Mayor Ed Lee’s Call to Rescind ICE Contact Policy

San Francisco, CA ― San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today delivered his response to Mayor Ed Lee’s July 14, 2015, letter [referenced here in the Examiner] calling on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to rescind its policy regarding contact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“This tragedy spotlights the need for legal clarity at every government level,” stated Sheriff Mirkarimi. “This matter requires an open and honest conversation about the legislative intent and meaning of San Francisco’s ordinances and how they comport with everyday enforcement of laws leading to deportations.”

In his response, printed in its entirety below, the Sheriff asserts that the Mayor’s request raises legal conflicts; the Sheriff asks for an open and immediate discussion, via a Board of Supervisors committee hearing, to resolve the conflicts, provide clarity, and produce a workable and fair ordinance.

July 15, 2015
Reference: 2015-120

The Honorable Edwin Lee
Mayor
City Hall, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mayor Lee:

I received your July 14, 2015 letter regarding the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s (SFSD) Federal Immigration communications policy. Your letter does not provide legal clarity regarding my department’s duty under city law. Your request to immediately rescind the policy contributes to the confusion and conflict between the Sanctuary City Ordinance (Administrative Code 12H.2) and the Due Process For All Ordinance (Administrative Code 12I). I urge a resolution of these conflicts so that there is a consistent and uniform understanding of the laws.

Finger pointing around this tragedy serves no purpose other than election year politics. It would serve the public interest to have an immediate open discussion of the Sanctuary City Ordinance and the Due Process For All Ordinance. I propose that you and I and other stakeholders come before a committee hearing with the Board of Supervisors so that a resolution of the conflicts can be achieved in a meaningful and transparent way.

Your request to rescind the policy and require the SFSD to contact federal immigration officials would eviscerate the city’s Due Process For All Ordinance, an ordinance I supported and which you signed into law. Historically, the only reason for SFSD to notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release has been in relation to honoring an immigration detainer. This practice has been curtailed by the Due Process For All Ordinance and the federal court ruling that any detention for the release of an individual to federal immigration officials without probable cause violates the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

At present, the only request for notification SFSD has received from federal immigration officials is contained in the detainer form which the Due Process For All Ordinance prohibits SFSD from honoring, absent limited circumstances.

The only reason to now notify federal immigration officials of an individual’s release would be to facilitate the release of the individual to the federal immigration officials. This would completely circumvent the requirements and intent of the Sanctuary City Ordinance, the Due Process For All Ordinance and lead to unconstitutional detentions.

In 2013, my office worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office and the Board of Supervisors before and after the Due Process For All Ordinance was implemented to provide guidance on its provisions and effects. SFSD alerted representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and you of provisions of the Ordinance that posed operational and procedural problems. In early 2015, I met with the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of Homeland Security separately on two occasions to confirm San Francisco’s laws and procedures. I also expressed concern about the legality of the detainer/notification process.

I shall continue to ensure that SFSD policy as it relates to federal immigration issues is consistent with city, state, and federal laws. I therefore request legislative direction to reconcile the conflict inherent in your proposal versus city legislation prohibiting ICE detainers except in specific circumstances. Your request would require the Board of Supervisors to amend the Administrative Code as it relates to cooperation with federal immigration officials and honoring detainers.

In addition to clarifying city law, other solutions should be considered. One such solution is to propose that an Administrative Law Judge review immigration detainers and provide a warrant or finding of probable cause for those persons who federal immigration officials seek to detain.

I will continue to cooperate with any amendments to city legislation by the Board of Supervisors. I look forward to working with all city representatives including the Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney’s Office to provide legal clarity to these sensitive and complex issues.

Sincerely,

ROSS MIRKARIMI
Sheriff

cc London Breed, President of the Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors

“CAR FREE” & “CAR SHARE” – What SFGov _Really_ Means When It Uses These Terms – One Weird Trick!

Thursday, July 16th, 2015

Here you go – “CAR-FREE,” as seen at the western end of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park:

7J7C1011 copy

Is being without a car a good thing? IDK. The neutral approach would be something like NO CARS, or NO CAR DAY or NO CARS DAY. We should think about a befuddled foreigner in a rental car – what should be our message to him/her? Here’s how other cities do it, you know, in a politics-free manner:

no-cars

See how that works? Yeah, JFK is a road through GGP, and yeah, people have been driving cars on it for well-nigh more than a century, but today is different. Today, this particular day, cars are banned. It’s NO CARS DAY. That’s the message you want to send, IMO. How about instructing these poor souls to USE FULTON OR LINCOLN instead? I mean we know they want to go west, so why not ease their befuddlement? Moving on…

To this – “CAR SHARE.” Did you know that “the sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all?” Let’s check the Harvard Business Review:

“When ‘sharing’ is market-mediated — when a company is an intermediary between consumers who don’t know each other — it is no longer sharing at all.”

So “car share” should be rental car or rent-a-car or car hire or something like that. Just anything but this:

7J7C2797-copy

Now why should SFGov favor one rental car company over another, why it should actively be promoting the so-called “sharing economy” is a mystery to me, but oh well.

Oh, here’s something, from Gerry Shih of Reuters:

Conway and Lee have an exceptionally close relationship.”

That’s appointed Mayor Ed Lee and longtime Republican Ron Conway.

Perhaps whoever ordered these stencils was trying to please Ron Conway…