Posts Tagged ‘election’

The Unpopular SFMTA Used to Poll Neighbors Before Permanently Installing Traffic Circles, But Not Anymore – Why’s That?

Thursday, July 24th, 2014

I’ll tell you why.

It’s because the SFMTA dramatically overestimated its popularity and the popularity of traffic circles being plopped down in the middle of intersections.

Isn’t that pathetic? It held all these mini-elections and it lost every last one.

So these days, there are no more mini-elections and the SFMTA is free to spin however it wants.

Actually, this new one on Anza is more of a traffic oval:

Here we go:

Traffic Circles Then & Now – In 2003, the SFMTA experimented with removing stop signs and  installing traffic circles at several locations along Page Street. Many residents complained that the circles were unsightly and deprioritized pedestrians, and they were removed. However, in recent years the SFMTA has installed traffic circles with success and community support, using improved outreach, design, and signage.”

See how that works? Instead of trying to win community support the way it did ten years ago, today’s SFMTA simply assumes whatever it does has “community support.” ‘Cause if the SFMTA had any more neighborhood plebiscites about traffic circles, it knows that it would lose once again.

The SFMTA lost those traffic circle votes of a decade ago by like about two to one or three to one. If it wants to say that the reason why it lost so badly had to do with aesthetics or “outreach,” well, that’s one viewpoint. But, gee, maybe the SFMTA simply had/has a bad idea?

The traffic circles the SFMTA installed on Page and Waller were simply horrible from a pedestrian’s perspective. You could hear a car coming from almost a block away, but you wouldn’t know how fast the driver would go through the intersection. You’d count on the driver seeing you and reacting as opposed to the driver knowing that a stop sign’s there and stopping / California stopping.

Traffic circles or rotaries or whatever you want to call them might work in some locations, but plopping them down onto random intersections SFMTA-style so that the SFMTA has yet another project to spend money on was and is a bad idea.

8 Washington and the Infinite Sadness – These People Against the “Wall on the Waterfront” Were on the Cusp of Victory in 2012

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

But they sure didn’t look it back in 2012.

They looked so, so sad.

Click to expand

I hadn’t realized the intensity of their movement until this night at the  San Francisco Public Library on Page Street in the Upper Haight area.

And then, in 2013, they won, big-time.

So what’s next for 8 Washington – what’ll happen with the parcel?

I know not.

Oh, so here’s what the national media doesn’t know about the sainted San Francisco Planning Commission:

It’s a political organization run by the Mayor of San Francisco.

So, is it  really”thoughtful,” “considered,” and “professional?”

Perhaps not.

Here’s an example for you, national MSM.

The SFMTA is similar to Planning Commission except the SFMTA takes care of transit in SF.

The SFMTA recently had a big push to turn on parking meters on Sundays instead of having them flash “FREE PARKING” from Saturday night to Monday morning every week. (They had studies and everything.) So then people had to pay for parking meters on Sundays. Fine.

But then the Mayor of San Francisco said he didn’t like having meters charge for parking on Sundays. And then the SFMTA voted, unanimously, to make Sunday parking free again less than a year after deciding to charge for Sunday parking.

So similar things happen with the Planning Commish? Yes – it;s the same dynamic.

So, IRL, the SFMTA and the Planning Commission are captives of the Mayor of San Francisco. So that’s why builders donate money to and say nice things about the Mayor of San Francisco.

If you aren’t aware of this, national MSM, then you don’t understand what happened with the 8 Washington proposal, just saying.

Mayors Behaving Badly: How This Photo from KRON’s Stanley Roberts Doesn’t Necessarily Show Oakland Mayor Illegally Texting

Monday, June 2nd, 2014

All the deets from Channel 4′s Stanley Roberts, he of People Behaving Badly fame.

If she was texting, then that against CA law, but if she was using her iPhone(?) as a wayfinding device, then this starring performance might not have been against the law.

Here it is:

You Make The Call

San Francisco’s Appointed Mayor Ed Lee Talks About Raising the Minimum Wage, But Election Day Poll Workers Make Less Than That – Why?

Wednesday, May 14th, 2014

All right, c’mon, “Apply to be a Poll Worker!

Attend one training class that will clearly explain Poll Worker duties.”

“All Poll Workers must arrive at the polling place no later than 6:00 a.m. on Election Day. Although the polls officially close at 8:00 p.m., Election Day does not end until all materials have been picked up (usually around 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m.). There will be meal breaks during the day. 

So let’s do the math:

Training in Civic Center before the election: 3 hours or so.

Game Day: 15.5 hours, less breaks = 8 hours straight time and let’s say 6.5 hours of OT at time-and-a-half

So what’s that, 3+8+6.5+3.25 = 20.75 effective hours of work?

Multiplying by the official City and County minimum wage of $10.74 yields $222.86 total pay.

And using the vaunted $15 per hour minimum promised by quasi-governmental spokesperson and noted Berkeleyite Randy Shaw, we arrive at $311.25.

And what is appointed Mayor Ed Lee offering these poor souls? Well apparently no pay at all for the mandatory training, and then:

“Depending on your assignment, Poll Workers are paid between $142 and $195  for working on Election Day.”

Is this a joke, you ask?

No, Gentle Reader, it’s not. They’re srsly.

I cry foul.

In any event, if you’re an inspector you can make  a bit more, but then you gotta deal with high school seniors with their Katy Perry and cell phones and whathaveyou. They’re intelligent, you know, but lazy. And if their work doesn’t add up the way it should shortly after 8 PM, well that’s tough cookies – you’ll hear the beep beeps from the waiting cars and then the kids are gone and you, the vaunted elections inspector, will be left to fix things up.

Anyway, you get something like this for your troubles …

…but you won’t get minimum wage.

Now why is that?

San Francisco Chronicle Writer CW Nevius, Who Claimed to Want “Closure” on the Ross Mirkarimi Case, Brings It Up Yet Again

Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

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.

I Never Realized What a Big Sack of Crap David Chiu Is Until I Saw This David Campos Attack Ad: “Raised in Massachusetts …Harvard”

Monday, April 28th, 2014

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…

District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Crows About Raising $200K for Re-Election

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

Gentle Reader, did you have the foresight to be born in San Francisco? No? I thought not.

Well, that’s why your campaign to unseat incumbent Mark Farrell won’t work.

BTW, did you know that he’s a ”native San Franciscan who grew up in District 2?” And now that you know, he’ll never let you forget it.

The news of the day:

“Supervisor Mark Farrell Reports Raising Over $200,000 for Re-Election Campaign

San Francisco – District 2 Supervisor Mark Farrell announced he has raised over $200,000 in his campaign for re-election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  As of December 31, 2013 Supervisor Farrell reported raising $199,602 from more than 550 donors, representing a wide breadth of supporters from District 2, small business owners, labor leaders and a wide group of San Francisco residents.

 “As a native San Franciscan who grew up in District 2, it is an incredible honor to represent the neighborhoods and residents of District 2 on the Board of Supervisors,” stated Supervisor Farrell.  “I am excited about the success of our fundraising efforts, but I do not take anything for granted, and will continue to work hard and actively engage with the neighborhoods and residents of District 2 throughout the campaign and my tenure in office.” 

 “I am incredibly grateful to everyone who donated to my campaign, no matter how big or small their contributions, and I am humbled by the large number of constituents who have already signed up to support my re-election campaign,” continued Farrell. 

Approximately half of Supervisor Farrell’s contributors are District 2 residents.  Other notable contributors include local political leaders from Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom to Small Business Commission President Steven Adams, labor organizations including Firefighters Local 798 and Laborers Local 261, and civic leaders including Walter and Julia Haas and Diane Wilsey.

 “As we head toward the November election, I look forward to beginning our house party program and connecting in smaller settings with the residents of District 2, sharing ideas and concerns, and working together to make the neighborhoods of District 2 the most vibrant part of our City,” continued Farrell. “My campaign held over 100 house parties in 2010 and I look forward to 100 more in 2014.”

Supervisor Mark Farrell represents District 2 in San Francisco, which includes the Presidio, Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Anza Vista, Laurel Heights, Jordan Park, the Lake Street corridor, Sea Cliff and parts of Russian Hill.

First elected in November 2010, Supervisor Farrell currently serves as Chair of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee, a founding member of the 2016-2017 Super Bowl Bid Committee, and also serves on eight other local and state Boards and Committees.

Supervisor Farrell’s legislative priorities include advancing policies and projects that boost local economic development, ensure neighborhood vitality, and enhance public safety and quality of life issues that affect all San Franciscans. For more information please visit www.markfarrell.com.

The Cover Story of Tomorrow’s Bay Guardian is a (Very) Left-Handed Endorsement of Tom Ammiano for Mayor of SF

Tuesday, December 31st, 2013

[UPDATE: An easier linkhttp://www.sfbg.com/2014/01/01/rise-candidate-x ]

I’m just at a loss over the cover story of the January 1-7, 2014 San Francisco Bay Guardian - “The Rise of Candidate X”

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

Comments:

- Whoo-boy, where to start? Does anybody at the SFBG really believe in this Robert Frost-y, fork-in-the-road, the-Mayor-makes-all-the-difference-in-SF theory? I can’t tell. IRL, there are institutional factors that push the two roads close together, sorry. The biggest difference would be for the actual people involved, like Ed Lee, and some department heads, and some commission members, and the SFGov nomenklatura. I don’t think the City itself would be changed all that much, sorry.

- Now if there’s a fake article from a real reporter on page 10 and a reference to a real article from the same reporter on page 6 and the reporter works for the same company as everybody at the SFBG, would that be cool? Or perhaps confusing to readers?

-Which of the real-life reporters should be most offended by the fake stories on pages 9-13? You Make The Call:

Phil Matier

Andrew Ross

Joe Eskenazi*

Jessica Kwong*

John Wildermuth

Ellen Cushing

Andrew Dalton

Steven T. Jones* (Yes, even STJ)

-Which one of the bits was even remotely entertaining/funny? IDK

-Is there even a remote chance that Scott Wiener or Mark Farrell will both lose reelection? Like IRL and not in a some fever dream prog circle jerk?

-And Candidate X is described as being a man but then also a man or a woman, like it was still unknown by the fake reporters? (I guess I there could be some sort of point here, but somebody’d have to explain it to me.)

-And then it turns out that Candidate X is (sort of) Assemblymember Tom Ammiano after all? I still have a button from his 1999 campaign - and he’s the heretofore unknown candidate?

I’ll be curious to see how people take this.

Appears to be a misfire, JMO

*All employed by “San Francisco Newspaper Company LLC”

 

The Bros of Proposition B, Haight and Divisadero – Harassing Passersby About Bypassing Height Limitations Older Than They Are

Monday, October 21st, 2013

The poor brocephuses – they aren’t going to win on the whole 8 Washington thing next month:

Click to expand

I myself am not a NIMBY, I’m a goo goo.

Ergo, I will unite with my NIMBY brothers and sisters on 8 Washington.

Yours, in struggle..

Haight Ashbury Street Festival Cavalcade of Photos

Sunday, June 9th, 2013

Well it’s the morning of the second Sunday of June, so that means it’s almost time for the Haight Ashbury Street Festival.

Lets take a look at some photos from recent years.

Look up…

Click to expand

…and down…

…and all around:

From Bluoz: Upper Haight is for Lovers:

Let your freak flag fly, baby. From the Eastern Stage:

From famous David Yu:

From Brian Brooks

And here’s one from Chris Witte:

There’s a feeling I get/

when I look to the West…

…and the East…

…on Haight Street on the Second Sunday in June.

At least the Yelpers like Frank:

This ganga guy in purple will sue you for $1000 if you take his photo, or something:

via Carnesuarus

And Obama in a Giants cap, just the way they had it at the recent Union Street Festival:

via Carnesaurus

You know who loves the Haight Street Fair? Parole agents

img_8254a.jpg

A mass of humanity:

img_8317a.jpg

Hookahs! Get your hookahs!  It’s Hookahs.com

img_8322a.jpg

A dancing baby grooving on Haight Street:

img_8310a.jpg

Can you see the superfluity of nuns in white approaching the Fair? Also note the F430 Ferrari supercar (sans license plates), one of many exoticars that made the journey to the Upper Haight today. Also note the sign: “No Open Containers of Alcohol.” Too bad.

IMG_7344 copy

Of course, all you need to get around the alcohol ban is a gallon jug of overproofed white rum and a giveaway “water” bottle. As seen on Ashbury.

IMG_7339 copy

Former District Five Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi on the scene

IMG_7361 copy

Poorbot looking for handouts:

IMG_7349 copy

“SHOW US YOUR BOOBS… please.” “FABULOUS PRIZES.” “DON’T WORRY (WE’RE GAY)” These inebriates residing above the Ben & Jerry’s at the corner of Ashbury were true to their word, tossing down trinkets to all flashers male and female.

IMG_7385 copy

You kmow why this San Francisco Native baby is better than you? Cause he had the foresight to be born in San Francisco, that’s why. He won the lottery/ when he was born.

IMG_7370 copy

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

IMG_7377 copy

And There You Have It.