Posts Tagged ‘exception’

San Francisco is a “Transit First” City Except When It Comes to … Subsidized Housing Projects – Free Parking!

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Loads of free parking, actually.

This used to be Octavia, BTW, before they paved commuter paradise and put up a parking lot:

Click to expand

It’s your very own gated community* in the otherwise high-rent* eastern Western Addition / western Civic Center / North of Hayes Valley area what’s just a five-minute walk from City Hall.

And sometimes there are two security guards standing on either side of this gate to welcome you home.*

(Bonus: Back in the day, my then-girlfriend’s then-20-something then-roommate had sex* with then-married, then-Mayor Willie Brown, high up there in one of the two cylindrical-type high-rises you can see camera right in the background. Isn’t that funny?*)

Anyway, when you hear the phrase “Transt First,” be sure to realize it means “Transit First Except For…”

*Sort of.

Jerry Brown Says No to Concealing the Identities of Proposition 8 Donors

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

Some folks have been up in arms over the disclosure laws that apply to people who gave money promoting California’s recent Proposition 8. You know, the one about same-sex marriage. Donors might feel “exposed,” says the New York Times.

So of course there’s a lawsuit over this now. If you want, read what the Attorney General has to say himself. It’s a fairly accessible document. Or, take the easy way out, and read on, below.

California’s dogged AG:

via “Thomas Hawk’s” Photostream

Brown Moves to Block Effort to Conceal Proposition 8 Donors

“Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today filed a brief in federal court opposing a preliminary injunction that would conceal the identities of contributors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors,” Attorney General Brown said. “Backers of Proposition 8 should not be allowed to carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone.”

The opposition brief, filed today with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contends that Proposition 8 supporters do not meet the criteria for the limited exemption to valid campaign disclosure laws, an exemption developed by the Supreme Court to protect the ability of historically persecuted minority parties to engage in political speech. This limited exemption has applied to groups like the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio and the NAACP in Alabama in 1958, which both demonstrated that disclosure would result in significant harm and threaten the viability of their organizations.

By contrast, the supporters of Proposition 8 are a well-financed association of individuals who raised nearly $30 million in support of a ballot measure that received 52.3 percent of the vote. There is no risk that disclosure of donors will harm their ability to organize or otherwise pursue their political views.

Additionally, there is no justification to shield donors from post-election reporting requirements. Rather, these requirements help to prevent kickbacks, laundering, and other improper uses of campaign funds.

Any instances of violence or harassment against donors are deeply regrettable, but California’s civil and criminal justice systems are the appropriate venues to seek relief from potentially illegal conduct.

The bottom line is that the State’s campaign finance disclosure laws result in more speech, not less, and the public’s interest is better served in this case by requiring disclosure from those supporters of Proposition 8 who donated $100 or more.”