Posts Tagged ‘election’

Horrible SPUR Organization Supports the Billion Dollar “Prop A 2014,” But How Did “Prop A 2007″ Work Out?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2014

Work with me here, people.

Here’s what SPUR, San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal, promised for Prop A 2007

“…the strengthening of the MTA’s independence, the included labor reforms, the infusion of cash and the mandate to address global warming all make this a very important reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency and a positive step toward the improvement of Muni service. SPUR recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. A.

But here’s how things worked out IRL:

Muni’s mismanagement of Prop. A may hurt future funding tries by Will Reisman

Where the SFMTA’s Prop. A money has gone by Will Reisman

Now here we are in 2014. Here’s what SPUR, those horrible people behind Redevelopment, is saying about Prop A 2014:

“The city has done the hard work to gather stakeholders, assess needs and prioritize transportation expenditures.”

So, handing a blank check to the SFMTA for it to waste has something to do with “hard work?”

Really?

Hey SPUR, what about Prop A 2007? Weren’t you all wrong, so very wrong, about that?

So why would you expect Prop A 2014 to work out any better?

“FIREWALL” Starring Political Operative Nicole Derse, AirBNB, and Supervisor David Chiu – FIREWALL. FIREWALL, FIREWALL

Monday, October 20th, 2014

Messrs. Matier and Ross once again, Automatic For The People, Baby:

“Now we’ve learned that Chiu’s campaign consultant, Nicole Derse, is a partner in the consulting firm 50 + 1 Strategies. The firm was hired by Airbnb to recruit people who rent out their homes to lobby supervisors to support a bill friendly to the company. Derse tells us she’s never discussed Airbnb with Chiu and didn’t work on the lobbying effort. “We have a firewall between the two operations,” she said. For his part, Chiu said that “50 + 1 are not lobbyists. Early on, we sat down and set up a firewall…”

And here’s the movie poster:

Firewal

Today’s post was brought to you by the letter “F” (which stands for … FIREWALL. FIREWALL, FIREWALL, FIREWALL. FIREWALL, FIREWALL!)

Your new mantra is … FIREWALL!

Not “Chinese Wall,” oh no, that phrase is out with the trash, which was fucking news to me back in the Aughts, back about ten years ago. You see, it’s considered racist because, you know, I still don’t get why. The Great Wall of China stood the test of time right? Cf. Maginot Line, right? Oh, now I see why – it’s cause one judge decided to go off on the issue about a decade ago. Hey, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, now I can see how that was racist, you know some policy instigated by the SF Board of Supervisors because it was politically expedient, something David Chiu might sympathize with, but anyway. Actually, I still don’t get why Chinese Wall is racist.)

So fine, pick a different phrase. ANYTHING BUT “FIREWALL.” When you’re colluding about the Message of the Day, about How To Deal With Matier And Ross, work it out so that PERSON A says firewall and PERSON B says, I don’t know, ethics wall or sacred division, or something.

Just saying.

(Also, “50 + 1 Strategies” should probably change its name to 51 Strategies - why make people do math unnecessarily?)

Now, Ode to Firewall, that magical cure-all word what makes the pain go away

In India we`re all the rave
Discovered that its great as aftershave
Dropped in the sea just off Japan
Swapped 20 bottles for an aqua-walkman
Immunity from ridicule
Improves your brains if you`re a fool
And I read in the Middle East
They traded some for a hostage release
Now if you`re bald it`ll give you hair
If you got straight trousers it`ll give you flares
Feeling up you`ll get depressed
Out of style here`s a brand new dress

It was really vile weather
When we got to tarred and feathered
You could hear the six guns sound
As they chased us out of town

The stuff we sell is just the best
Passing all consumer test
Days of heaven nights of sin
Voodoo stick and sharks fin
When all around you seems like hell
Just one sip will make you well
Multipurpose in a jar
If you ain`t ill it`ll fix your car
In days of yore for all bad feelings
Washing socks and stripping ceilings
Nowadays its used medicinally
For all known human malady

It was really vile weather
When we got to tarred and feathered
You could hear the six guns sound
As they chased us out of town

Guaranteed don`t you know
Money back?
You`ll get a no!
It`s the one and only medicine show

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Dishonest Approach to Lauding Props A and B and Decrying Prop L

Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

Here we go:

Understanding This Year’s Transportation Ballot Measures by Tyler Frisbee

Proposition A, Proposition B and Proposition L present stark contrasts for our city’s future, and the November elections will give voters a chance to weigh in on whether they want to move our transportation system forwards or backwards.

EVERYTHING IN SF WILL BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL THESE PROPS FARE IN NOVEMBER – THIS IS A FACT. THERE ARE NO “STARK CONTRASTS FOR OUR CITY’S FUTURE.” I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE I’M NOT TRYING TO RAISE MONEY FROM YOU, GENTLE READER.

Proposition A renews current property bond taxes to fund over $52 million for better bikeways, including $22 million for Better Market Street, in addition to $68 million for pedestrian improvements, $22 million for signal upgrades, and $358 million to improve Muni. Since it’s simply renewing a current property bond, Proposition A won’t raise taxes, and it will result in a markedly better commute for all of us.

PROP A. AUTHORIZES “PASSTHROUGHS” SO IT WILL ALLOW YOUR LANDLORD TO RAISE YOUR RENT TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, RIGHT? NEGLECTING TO MENTION THIS POSSIBILITY IS DISHONEST.*

In the first year, Proposition B would mean an extra $6 million for Vision Zero projects and an additional $16 million to improve Muni.

AND IN ITS FIRST YEAR, PROP B WOULD MEAN _LESS_ MONEY FOR SAN FRANCISCO NON-PROFITS, RIGHT? DON’T YOU THINK YOUR MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW THAT? OH WHAT’S THAT, YOU’RE A MONOMANIACAL POLITICAL GROUP SO YOU DON’T CARE? OK FINE.

Proposition L is a policy declaration statement that rolls back San Francisco’s Transit-First policy, and would result in the City having to prioritize car traffic and parking above all other modes.

UH NOPE. ITS PASSAGE WOULD NOT FORCE THE CITY TO DO ANYTHING, IT’S BASICALLY A MEASURE OF HOW VOTERS ARE THINKING.

Proposition L would require the SFMTA to value “free-flowing traffic” as highly as human life when designing streets, and would take money away from Muni to build more parking garages.

AGAIN, THE SFMTA WILL BE “REQUIRED” TO DO NOTHING.

END OF LINE.

As for myself, I’m agin Prop A, as I want a better MUNI. Pouring more money down the SFMTA rat hole doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Hey, shouldn’t the head of MUNI be an elected position ala the DA’s Office? Where’s that proposition?

And I’m for Prop B. Some politically-connected non-profits are hopping mad about it, but I don’t care.

And Prop L doesn’t matter, so I don’t care about it. If it wins by a surprisingly large margin, it will end up being a face-punch to the SFMTA and its needy vassal, the SFBC.

*AND OH YEAH, THE SFMTA AND SFGOV PROVIDE THE SFBC WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR – DID YOU KNOW THAT, GENTLE READER? IT MIGHT BE NICE FOR THE SFBC TO POST A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT ON ITS OP-EDS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS ONE…

Will This Fall’s Half-Billion Transit Bond Allow Your Landlord to Raise Your Rent, Costing You Thousands? – “Pass-Throughs”

Friday, August 1st, 2014

I don’t know.

But check this out:

“Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the City and County: $500,000,000 to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation and transit related improvements, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of  the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37…”

All right kids – you do the math. Start with $850,000,000 and divide that up among the denizens of the 415 / 628.

I don’t know how to do that but when I tried, I came up with a $30 a month rent increase for you, Gentle Reader, for the next 7-10 years.

Would the average landlord take the trouble to do a pass-through? IDK. I’m thinking the typical rent-controlled renter in SF doesn’t have to deal with pass-throughs currently. But maybe this big old honking bond would be the trigger for a wave of passthroughs?

Here’s what former SFGov employee Howard Wong has to say:

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

What does the ballot measure do:

Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.

If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.

To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/Meeting_Information/BSC/agendas/2014/November/1-B%20Transportation%20Road%20Improvement%20GO.pdf

The SFMTA wants more money, certainly. But the question is what will the SFMTA do for us in order to get the money, right? Otherwise, we’re just shoveling more coal into a broken-down machine. Why not use the bond as a carrot to get the SFMTA to reform?

Perhaps our SFMTA doesn’t deserve this bond?

Anyway, if I were promoting this bond, I’d figure out what the odds are that landlords would pass through 50% of the burden and also how much rents would be increased, on average, and for how long. And then I’d say, well this is what the SFMTA is going to do with your money and this is how much it will cost you, the renter, or you, the owner.

Is this massive transit bond a good idea?

I don’t know.

Wow: San Jose Mayor and Democrat Chuck Reed Endorses Republican Ashley Swearengin for State Controller

Tuesday, July 29th, 2014

I don’t know what’s behind this:

Wow.

Joe Eskenazi and John Wildermuth weigh in.

(Yeah, but even so, you just do a “no endorsement” deal, right?)

And this is Chuck Reed’s daughter, the 39-year-old the Air Force Lt. Col? Hatchi matchi! 

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.