Now myself, I’m too rich to live in the PJs but too poor to be able to afford a nice toy like a newish Z-Car.
Click to expand
Oh, and look, free parking!
Remember, Transit First.
Here you go, here’s an expensive crib set what includes a crib with a drop side (which means it slides up and down) which you can’t sell in the United States anymore.
But can you sell it used on Craigslist? No. Hell no.
Loophole alert: Are you allowed to sell this crib not as a crib but as a convertible child’s bed?
Loophole alert: Are you allowed to throw away the drop side and sell the crib as a daybed, thusly?
“Beautiful, high quality solid wood Morigeau-Lepine crib converted to toddler day bed. Originally purchased for 850.00. Attached picture is of original drop-side crib which is now banned in the U.S. Drop side piece is not included in this sale to avoid possible danger.”
I don’t know. Maybe.
But what I do know is that you can’t sell drop side cribs no mo, even on Craigslist.
And yet people try to do that on Craigslist each and every day.
Just saying, ma’am.
What should you buy instead? How about a Sniglar* from IKEA? It costs just $69 (and it certainly looks like it costs just $69.)
And it will not impress any rich ladies in Russian Hill or anywhere else.
But, the Sniglar, she is legal, and that’s the thing.
Sorry for the hassle. Thank you, drive through.
“Morigeau Lepine (Canadian) WOODEN CRIB SET: $3250 VALUE — selling for $1000
Gorgeous Morigeau Lepine furniture in excellent condition. 2800 series collection. Used by one child only in smoke-free house. Can purchase individual pieces or all. Morigeau Lepine furniture is quality, Canadian crafted. Smooth to the touch, durable hardwood construction. It will stand the test of time and you will likely be able to pass down to others. All pieces match and are white with espresso (dark wood) detailing — SEE PHOTOS.
Crib – $550. Converts to a full-sized bed when child grows older! (Crib mattress can be added for additional $50)
Dresser – $300
Bookshelf – $200
$1,000 for all three”
*Wasn’t that Gollum’s name back when he was a Hobbit? Something like that.
“SHARP-AS-A-MARBLE, EX-JOCK, EVERYMAN NEWS COLUMNIST/QUASI SPORTSWRITER” or a
“BROWN-NOSING, OBSEQUIOUS KISS-ASS LICKSPITTLE TOADIE”
That’s what did it, one or the other, I figure.
So now I’m banned, for life, from the Twitterings of the The Neve.
Anyway, here’s what the Nevinator has to say today about the Central Subway boondoggle.
See? It doesn’t seem that the Nevemeister opposes the wasteful Subway to Nowhere.
But he does! Check it:
“There’s really only one question to ask about the proposal to bore a light-rail subway deep under the heart of downtown San Francisco. You’re kidding, right?“
“Just the initial math makes your head hurt. Basically it works out to somewhere between $1.22 billion and $1.4 billion for an underground railway that runs for less than two miles and has only three stops. That’s not a transit system, it’s a model railroad.“
“Throw in a few of the inevitable cost overruns and this could work out to a billion dollars a mile.”
“No matter. This is the kind of big, splashy project that city officials love to put their name on.”
“Basically, the argument seems to boil down to this - we’ve got the money (as if federal tax dollars grow on trees), the Chinatown community is behind it, why not build it? Oh, let me count some of the reasons.”
“But, critics say, a stop on Market beneath which BART and other Muni lines already run might have made this whole thing an easier sell. That would have created an opportunity for a single station where riders could make connections between regional and local trains, almost like Grand Central Terminal in New York. Instead, riders will have to walk all the way up to Union Square.”
“Oh, and did I mention that in order to get under the BART tube, the subway station at Union Square will have to be at least 95 feet below the surface. That’s nine stories.”
“What is it about that image of deep, underground dirt-munching machines in earthquake country that makes me wince?”
Of course that was from a half-decade back, but it shows how he actually felt about this boondoggly boondoggle, about Big Dig West.
I mean, the Central Subway proposal hasn’t gotten better the past five years, has it? Five years ago, the promise was that it would “make money” for MUNI, that it would subsidize other parts of the system by generating a surplus. But now we know that it will burden the SFMTA and the current projections for the number of riders per day is down dramatically from what people were promising back then.
So what’s a matter Neve? Why don’t you write things like this anymore? Cat got your tongue?
Pak got your tongue?
The Old Nevius wasn’t afraid to be labeled a racist who’s against “transit justice.”
The Old Nevius wasn’t so monomaniacally dedicated to write source greasers every chance he got.
So it’s only going to take 9,702 signatures to qualify the proposed “Fix MUNI First Initiative“ for the 2013 November ballot?
Those John Hancocks should be pretty easy to get, I think.
Yes, let’s let The People decide if it’s worth $40,000,000 a year to operate a pretty-much-useless subway shortline.
So maybe Chinatown power broker Rose Pak is smoking her celebratory cigar on the veranda of her taxpayer-funded luxury condo in District Six a touch too soon?
Let’s see how easy it will be for her to corral stencil voters outside of Chinatown…
All the deets of the Central Subway fiasco, after the jump.
Our National Park Service is thinking about moving the Alcatraz ferry landing from Fisherman’s Wharf to Fort Mason. And maybe they’d go to other places like the Marin Headlands or Sausalito.
Sounds all right to me, but the Marina Community Association is not pleased with the idea of all those non-white people messing things up in the Great White North of San Francisco.
Now, let’s hear from the King of the NIMBYs, District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell:
“Adding the potential of 5,000 visitors per day or 35,000 visitors per week will more than double the population of the Marina…”
Except that adding the potential of 5,000 visitors per day or 35,000 visitors per week would not more than double the population of the Marina.
So there’s that.
Anyway, go for it, Feds, go for Fort Mason, why not?
All the deets:
In accordance with § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-08), the National Park Service (NPS) is initiating the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process for the proposed establishment of a long-term ferry embarkation site for passenger ferry service between the northern San Francisco waterfront and Alcatraz Island. In addition to considering the Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation site, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will also evaluate potential for a secondary ferry transit service offering a cross-bay connection from the San Francisco embarkation site to Sausalito and/or Fort Baker. NPS is the lead federal agency for the environmental review under NEPA, and is developing the project in coordination with the Port of San Francisco (Port) and City and County of San Francisco (City) planning and transportation agencies.Show citation box
As set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NPS is also using the NEPA process to fulfill certain provisions of § 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act related to consultation and public involvement. In addition, the NPS has requested that the Port and the City be cooperating agencies for the EIS. In the event that a site on Port property is identified as the preferred alternative, environmental review of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required, and would be initiated at a later date.Show citation box
All scoping comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than July 31, 2012.Show citation box
Background: Alcatraz Island, the site of pre-Civil War fortifications, was the nation’s first military prison. It later became the most notorious maximum security penitentiary in the United States, and subsequently was the site of the occupation that helped ignite the movement for American Indian self-determination. Over 1.4 million people visit Alcatraz Island annually from the existing ferry embarkation site at Pier 311/2in San Francisco, managed by Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). The Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation EIS will build upon several studies completed by NPS, the Port, the City, the State of California, and the California Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA; formerly the Water Transit Authority).Show citation box
A 2011 draft feasibility study identified potential sites for consideration located among GGNRA, Fisherman’s Wharf, and the northern Embarcadero. The sites studied included Port piers 191/2, 291/2, 311/2, 41, and 45, and GGNRA piers 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Fort Mason. If suggested during scoping, other sites that meet the project purpose and need could also be considered. The draft feasibility study and subsequent investigations also analyzed the surrounding area, identified the programs and facilities needed to operate the sites, existing conditions at the sites, and criteria to evaluate the sites.Show citation box
The NPS seeks to secure a site on the northern San Francisco waterfront that provides for a long-term (50 years or more) orientation and ferry embarkation facility for visitors to Alcatraz Island. NPS desires an identifiable, adequate, and quality visitor welcome and support area that begins to connect visitors to Alcatraz history, GGNRA, and the national park system. The NPS also seeks to establish ferry connections between the embarkation site and existing piers at Sausalito and/or at Fort Baker, which is managed by GGNRA.Show citation box
The need for the project is driven by the following factors:Show citation box
The objectives for this project include creating a ferry embarkation site that:Show citation box
Public Scoping Comments and Further Information: This notice serves to formally open the agency and public scoping comment phase for this EIS. Key impact topics which are expected to be addressed in the EIS include transportation, visitor experience, aesthetics, economics, cultural resources, natural resources, and air quality—however, agencies, members of the public, and interested organizations are encouraged to provide any comments on the spectrum of issues and concerns that should be addressed. Respondents will also assist with defining a suitable range of alternatives; advise on the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts, including natural, cultural, socioeconomic and other topics; and suggest possible mitigation strategies that would reduce potential impacts from project development.Show citation box
Several public scoping meetings will be scheduled in San Francisco and Marin Counties. Meeting dates, times, and locations will be publicized through local and regional news media, by email to the park mailing list (to be included on the EIS email list, please visit: www.nps.gov/goga and click the “Join the Mailing List” link), and via the project Web site http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ALCAembarkation. This Web site will also provide relevant information, including the project description, planning process updates, meeting notices, reports and documents, and useful links associated with the project. You may also contact theGGNRA Planning Division at firstname.lastname@example.org or (415) 561-4700 for further information.Show citation box
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to the following address: Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Attn: Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation EIS, Fort Mason, Bldg. 201, San Francisco, CA 94123. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.Show citation box
Decision Process: At this time, it is anticipated that the Draft EIS will be available for public review in mid-2013. Availability of the document for review will be announced by the publication of a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, through local and regional news media, via the project Web site, and by email to project email recipients. Additional public meetings will be held after the Draft EIS is distributed to provide further opportunities to comment on the proposed project. Following due consideration of all comments received on the Draft EIS, preparation of the Final EIS is anticipated to be completed in 2014. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision regarding the proposed ferry embarkation site is the NPS Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently, the official responsible for implementation will be the GGNRA Superintendent.Show citation box
Dated: April 6, 2012.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
So, Kipahulu: The Seven Pools of O’heo might not be on the agenda. See below.
No judges here. See?
Click to expand
“July 13, 2012 / Ninth Circuit Public Information Office – The Ninth Circuit will reschedule its 2013 Circuit Conference to 2014 in Monterey, California. The postponement responds to the current budget constraints facing the federal judiciary and the federal government in general. The decision was reached earlier this week after consultation with the host hotel in Monterey, the Hyatt Regency.
“We firmly believe in the importance of the Conference in educating the federal bench and bar and in advancing governance of the Circuit. But we also recognize the need to conserve financial resources during the present fiscal crisis,” said Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive. “We think this approach will meet both goals.”
The Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference has been held annually since 1944. Conferees include federal judges, lawyers, court staff, academics and government officials. The event provides a rich educational program and the opportunity to hold numerous business meetings.”
And Zumba, always with the Zumba. No matter, all this might be canceled:
“Saturday, August 11
12:00 p.m. – Conference Registration desk opens
Sunday, August 12
5:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Sport Fishing
12:00 p.m. – Golf Tournament
Monday, August 13
9:00 a.m. – Yoga
9:00 a.m. – Surfing Lessons
9:00 a.m. – Stand-up Paddle Board Lessons
12:00 p.m. – Welcome Luncheon & Book Review for Spouses & Guests
2:00 p.m. – Zumba
4:30 p.m. – Opening Program
6:00 p.m. – No-host Cocktail Reception
7:00 p.m. – Maui Dine Around
Tuesday, August 14
9:00 a.m. – Yoga
9:00 a.m. – Surfing Lessons
9:00 a.m. – Stand-up Paddle Board Lessons
1:00 p.m. – Tennis Tournament
2:00 p.m. – Floral Design Workshop (includes flowers & supplies)
7:00 p.m. – District Dinners
Wednesday, August 15
9:00 a.m. – Yoga
9:00 a.m. – Surfing Lessons
9:00 a.m. – Stand-up Paddle Board Lessons
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. – Day Trip and Tour of Upcountry Maui
11:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. – Gemini Catamaran Snorkel Trip (includes gear & lunch)
2:45 p.m. – A special treat! Ice Cream Social
6:00 p.m. – The Aloha Experience
Thursday, August 16
9:00 a.m. – Yoga
9:00 a.m. – Stand-up Paddle Board Lessons”
OMG, TMI TMI!
In the Financh, not too far from the official recruiting station on Davis near Broadway:
Click to expand
Remember, “BRING IN THIS FLYER FOR A FREE GIFT!!!”
The Center for Biological Diversity is crowing about more room being designated for the Western Snowy Plover along the west coast.
San Francisco isn’t getting more space for these critters but they already have as much as they need here now, not that some area dog owners agree with the way things are these days.
Anyway, here are some San Francisco Snowy Plovers and the also the deets of the new agreement with the Feds are below.
(Oh, and remember, as always, plover rhymes with lover.)
A snowy plover on Ocean Beach _not_ being harassed by a dog:
Now, Ocean Beach Dog, ooh, somebody over there got an off-leash ticket from the Feds a looooong time ago. (Can you guess what year by looking at the website design? Sure you can.) Oh well. Well, the Feds don’t like Ocean Beach Dog and people what behave like Ocean Beach Dog. The Feds consider us Whacko City, USA because of outfits like OBD, oh well.
Most dogs don’t bother the boids, of course. Can you see the snowy plover?
But some dogs do harass the birds. (These aren’t actually snowy plovers near Lawton and the Great Highway but the dogs don’t know or care about that.)
(Get those Ocean Beach birds, good boy!)
And here’s the sitch up in Crissy Field:
See the birds, see the unleashed dog?
Is is surprising to you that an unleashed dog could find and chase these plovers? What was surprising to me was to hear that this particular boid flew up from Morro Bay (where it was banded and which is like way south of here) all the way up to the Marina District:
Keep on keeping on, plovers:
PORTLAND, Ore.— In response to a Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today designated 24,527 acres (38 square miles) of critical habitat to protect the Pacific Coast population of threatened western snowy plovers in Washington, Oregon and California.
“Protecting critical habitat will help this lovely shorebird continue on the path to recovery,” said Tierra Curry, a conservation biologist at the Center. “Species with federally protected habitat are more than twice as likely to be moving toward recovery than species without it, so this puts a big safety net between plovers and extinction.”
Western snowy plovers breed primarily on beaches in southern Washington, Oregon, California and Baja California. Today’s designation includes four critical habitat units in Washington (covering 6,077 acres), nine units in Oregon (covering 2,112 acres) and 47 units in California (covering 16,337 acres).
Snowy plovers were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, when the coastal population had dropped to 1,500 birds and plovers no longer bred at nearly two-thirds of their former nesting sites. That Endangered Species Act protection allowed the population to increase to more than 3,600 adults by 2010.
Plovers are recovering but still face many threats, including widespread and frequent disturbance of nesting sites by humans, vehicles and off-leash dogs; crushing by off-road vehicles; global climate change; pesticide use; and habitat loss.
The western snowy plover was first granted 19,474 acres of critical habitat in 1999. In 2005 the Bush administration illegally reduced the critical habitat to 12,145 acres, eliminating protection for thousands of acres scientists believed necessary for the snowy plover’s survival and abandoning key habitat areas crucial for recovery. In 2008 the Center sued over the unlawful reduction of the plover’s habitat protections, leading to a settlement agreement with the Service and today’s revised designation.
Today’s final rule includes the reinstatement of habitat areas identified by government scientists as essential that were improperly withdrawn in 2005; inclusion of some areas not currently occupied by plovers but important for their recovery; and addition of habitats such as back-dune systems in an attempt to offset anticipated effects of sea-level rise caused by climate change.
The western snowy plover is a shy, pocket-sized shorebird that weighs less than two ounces and lives for three years. Plovers forage for worms, insects and crustaceans in wet sand and in kelp that has washed ashore. The word “plover” is thought to come from the Old French”plovier” or “rain bird” because plovers were seen on sandy French beaches during spring rains.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.”
Oh, and also remember that San Francisco is for Plovers:
If San Francisco could magically get the “Subway to Nowhere” Central Subway installed today for free it would still be a bad deal for San Francisco, mostly owing the very small amount benefits it would provide to a very small number of people and the very large hole it would put into MUNI”s annual budget.
But unless the Feds help out San Francisco by cancelling funding, politically connected players such as AECOM are all set to make a mint off of this project. Oh well.
Anyway, San Francisco officials are still trying to reassure the Feds about how great this horrible project is going, so, as of tomorrow, we’ll be on the hook for another $100,000,000, or so, to make up for the fact that California doesn’t want to chip in the money.
Check it out, from SaveMuni.com:
“On May 1, 2012, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) Board will be asked to approve Central Subway revenue bonds, of undetermined amount, to plug a large hole that has developed in the Central Subway budget. This is a very risky course of action.
A shortfall of between $61.3 million and $140 million has now appeared in the project budget. In order to make up for this substantial loss of previously anticipated State of California funding, the MTA staff is asking its Board and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to approve a revenue bond sale of undetermined amount. On the agenda of the May 1, 2012 MTA Board meeting, the bond authorization is scheduled as Item 10.4 which is unaccountably included under the Board’s consent calendar rather than its regular calendar. In the Agenda packet, the staff attributes the need for the revenue bond sale to “uncertainty regarding HSR in California.” This statement is false and misleading, for the reasons set forth below.”
Here are the deets:
April 30, 2012
MTA’s Stealth Maneuver to Commit Additional City Funds to the Central Subway
On May 1, 2012, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) Board will be asked to approve Central Subway revenue bonds, of undetermined amount, to plug a large hole that has developed in the Central Subway budget. This is a very risky course of action.
MTA Board Agenda, Tuesday, May 1, 2012: See Item 10.4.
The cost of the MTA’s Central Subway project has ballooned from $647 million to the current estimate of $1.58 billion.i The original plan was for $983 million of this total to come from the federal government, $471 from the State of California and $124 million from San Francisco’s Prop K sales tax fund.
In attempting to sell the subway to the public, MTA has repeatedly called the public’s attention to its “success” in leveraging a mere $124 million City & County contribution into a $1.58 billion subway.ii However, a shortfall of between $61.3 million and $140 million has now appeared in the project budget.
In order to make up for this substantial loss of previously anticipated State of California funding, the MTA staff is asking its Board and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to approve a revenue bond sale of undetermined amount. On the agenda of the May 1, 2012 MTA Board meeting, the bond authorization is scheduled as Item 10.4 which is unaccountably included under the Board’s consent calendar rather than its regular calendar. In the Agenda packet, the staff attributes the need for the revenue bond sale to “uncertainty regarding HSR in California”. This statement is false and misleading, for the reasons set forth below.
The MTA is caught between a skittish Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) appropriately worried about the MTA’s financial ability to handle the Central Subway project and a huge shortfall in the non-federal share of the project budget. The MTA apparently believes the solution to this problem is to skim millions of dollars a year from already overburdened Muni revenues, in order to sell revenue bonds as necessary to make up for the loss in State capital—all in hopes that the action will reassure the feds and therefore put the hoped-for federal grant back on track.
The best that could be said of the MTA’s plan is that it is extremely risky. By far, the most important element of that risk is that the costs of servicing the revenue bonds, coupled with an indeterminate amount of project overrun (estimated by CGR Management Consultants to be as high as $422 million), could result in unacceptably high Muni fare increases and/or unacceptably damaging Muni service cuts.”
Ever more deets after the jump