Posts Tagged ‘hotel’

A Rare Delivery in Frisco: Dominos Pizza in the Housing Projects of McAllister

Friday, September 16th, 2016

I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen this – a pizza delivery in the Western Addition flats, on McAllister near Fillmore. This has been a no-go area for some pizza places in Frisco for a long time. There’s a long history of this kind of delivery redlining  – see some of it here, or even more here.

(IMO, Friendship Village(s) = The Projects.)

7j7c1890-copy

Here’s one current delivery map. It’s a tad embarrassing, you know, for all of us in Frisco, so you now have to request persimmon (Mmmm… persimmon) from the owner/manager of Amici’s Pizza to see it – that’s how embarrassing it is.

I’m not saying that this part of McAllister Street is particularly dangerous and I’m also not saying that big-city pizza delivery is particularly safe, I’m just saying I can’t ever recall seeing a Domino’s delivery in this area, in all my years.

“Evening Flat Rate Parking” at a Skid Row Holiday Inn South of Market on 8th Street is Now $45

Friday, August 5th, 2016

South of Market skid row:

7J7C7291 copy

Vox Populi:

unsafe neighborhood

on the corner of Crack Den Ave, and Homeless Urine Drive

my car in a lot that states ‘DO NOT LEAVE VALUABLES IN CAR’ all over the place (which gives you an indication of how safe this part of town is)

A Quarter-Century of “Centerfolds,” the Former “High Class,” “Fine Dining” Strip Club at Broadway and Montgomery in North Beach

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Let’s see if I can remember from the pre-Internet days. So Centerfolds here at Broadway & Montgomery was supposed to be an “upscale dining” strip club. The cover charge was $20. IIRC, there had to be a “centerfold” stripper there on a daily basis, that was the rule. But I think it could be pretty much from any kind of publication, so a Miss January 1989 from Australian Playboy would qualify. And then the featured centerfold model would get put up at the Jack Tar / Cathedral Hill Hotel at Geary Van Ness. I bumped into a couple of them in the lobby, I’m srsly.

Anyway, it seemed like a crazy idea for Frisco, and the original concept didn’t last that long oh well. (See if you can find anybody reviewing the food on Yelp these days.) Here it is:

20160719_133012 copy

The oldest reference I can find:

1993: “Centerfolds, the upscale restaurant and bar that features topless dancers and a different Penthouse centerfold model each week, is putting the talents of French-born food and beverage director Pierre Bleuse to good use. Continuing its efforts to set itself apart from the seedy topless venues on Bawdyway, Centerfolds has good food and now a pretty decent wine list.”

But that was then and this is now.

Sic transit gloria Frisco…

Speaking of which, back in 2009 my bud from school wanted me to help him break into the shut down Cathedral Hill Hotel to find whichever room was used in The Conversation film from 1974. I declined. Anyway, enjoy:

Useful Press Release: “A New Day: Aramark Begins Concessions Operations at Yosemite National Park”

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

First of all, this is the best press release ever, because I know it comes from the Future of Yosemite and not the past. By that I mean that Delaware North is gone as of today, but search engines are still pointing people to Delaware North websites. (Aramark’s webpages aren’t fully up-to-speed yet, but I’m sure they will be soon. And let’s hope Delaware North will go away legally as well, so the names of places can get back to normal.)

And second of all, March and April look to be great months to visit Yosemite Valley this year, with a manageable amount of snow and visitors.

Oh, here’s the official site: www.travelyosemite.com.

Get all the deets below. Now, play us out, James Franco at the Ahwahnee:

A New Day: Aramark Begins Concessions Operations at Yosemite National Park – Yosemite’s new concessioner working to ensure a smooth transition for guests

Program enhancements and service upgrades on the horizon

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif., March 1, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Yosemite Hospitality, LLC, a subsidiary of Aramark (NYSE:ARMK), the award-winning food and hospitality partner for national and state parks, is pleased to announce today marks its first day as the new concessioner at Yosemite National Park. Last summer the National Park Service awarded Aramark the 15-year contract to manage Yosemite’s hospitality programs encompassing lodging, food & beverage, retail, recreational and transportation services.

“Aramark has a long history with the National Park Service and we are excited to be partnering with them to create great new memories for Yosemite’s many enthusiasts who hold the park so near and dear to their hearts,” said Bruce W. Fears, President of Aramark’s Leisure Division and longtime park industry thought leader. “I also have a deep appreciation for Yosemite and am proud of the tireless effort and commitment our team has undertaken, in conjunction with the National Park Service, to prepare for a smooth opening and transition for guests. As part of our Park stewardship, we look forward to introducing innovative programs and experiences that further shape the legacy of this awe-inspiring and iconic Park.”

Today also marks the official debut of www.travelyosemite.com, Yosemite Hospitality’s online destination for lodging, activity and tour information for Yosemite National Park. Visitors can also connect with Aramark on Facebook: Facebook.com/TravelYosemite, Instagram: @TravelYosemite, and Twitter: @TravelAramark.

Guest Experience Enhancements
While future plans include upgrading and improving facilities and enhancing existing programming around the Park, Yosemite Hospitality’s immediate focus during the transition period is to ensure a seamless transition for guests, assimilate and onboard employees and acclimate new personnel to the Park.

Early on, the emphasis will be on enhancements to customer service as well as dining service. Later this year, Degnan’s Deli and Loft is scheduled to be renovated. Longer term plans include remodeling the food court at Yosemite Valley Lodge and the dining areas at Half Dome Village. The transformation of these locations is designed to modernize their look, improve efficiency and increase speed of service.

Future improvements to guest rooms throughout Yosemite’s lodgings, including new in-room amenities, furnishings and accessibility, will also be part of Aramark’s overall investment in the guest experience. Technology upgrades and improvements are also on the horizon. Guests will eventually be able to use smart phones for making reservations and placing and paying for orders. Food ordering kiosks will allow visitors to place and pay for orders without having to enter dining facilities until orders are ready.

All of these efforts will enhance the guest experience at Yosemite, allowing visitors to experience the full majesty of Yosemite while also enjoying the comfort, convenience, and service Aramark is known for providing.

Workforce Transition
Aramark has a long track record of successfully managing concessions within the National Park system, however, the company recognizes the people most responsible for impacting the guest experience are the front line associates.

While the hiring process is ongoing, over 95 percent of the workforce is expected to transition to Aramark. Nearly every one of these employees worked at Yosemite previously, and they join Aramark with invaluable experience.

Yosemite’s front line associates are personally and passionately dedicated to the Park and to the guests who visit. While Aramark may be the new concessioner, I’m pleased that so many of the names and faces of the staff remain the same,” said Bob Concienne, Vice President of Operations for Aramark at Yosemite National Park. “I’m excited to welcome them to the Aramark family and look forward to working with them to create a lifetime of memories for Yosemite’s visitors.”

Guest Reservations
All reservations and group contracts booked prior to March 1, 2016 will be honored.  Shortly, Aramark’s Central Reservations team will begin contacting guests to confirm existing reservations within the Park for future dates.  To make, change or update a reservation, guests may call 888-413-8869 or visit www.travelyosemite.com for additional information.

Environmental Stewardship
Environmental sustainability is a fundamental part of Aramark’s mission, with a strategic focus on reducing the company’s environmental impact through innovative solutions that promote responsible sourcing, waste minimization, energy and water conservation, and transportation efficiencies.

As part of Aramark’s stewardship of Yosemite, steps are being taken to reduce the company’s impact on the Yosemite Valley. One of the more noticeable changes guests will encounter is the removal of plastic bottled water for sale on store shelves and within dining areas. In its place, Aramark has committed to installing and increasing accessibility to filtered water dispensers and bottle filling stations; boxed and canned water, benefiting “Canned Water 4 Kids1” and which is easier and less labor intensive to recycle, are also being introduced.

Yosemite Hospitality will further reduce its carbon footprint in the Park by maximizing operational efficiency, including reducing service vehicle traffic, installing a visitor vehicle charging station and minimizing food waste. Learn more about Aramark’s Leisure Division’s environmental practices and programs here.

Community Partnerships
Aramark’s community involvement and philanthropic efforts leverage the unique skills and expertise of its employees who have a passion for service and volunteerism and contribute their time, expertise and resources through Aramark Building Community which is focused on fostering strong, vibrant, successful communities in local neighborhoods.

At Yosemite, Aramark looks forward to establishing a meaningful community presence and positively impacting the community by partnering with local organizations, working with business leaders and participating in community-wide projects. Aramark is also excited to be working with and supporting Yosemite Conservancy and Yosemite’s Gateway Partners.

About Aramark’s Leisure Division
Aramark’s Leisure division delivers authentic and memorable experiences at 60 national and state parks, national forests, conference centers, specialty hotels, museums and other tourist destinations throughout the United States. In partnership with its clients, Aramark seeks to enhance the guest experience by offering industry-leading hospitality, environmental stewardship, recreational and interpretive programs. Connect with us on Twitter at @TravelAramark.

In 2015, Aramark hosted more than 22 million visitors at more than 15 national, state and local parks it serves. With today’s announcement, Aramark now holds nine contracts with the NPS, including Denali National Park & Preserve and Glacier Bay Park & Preserve, Mesa Verde National Park, Olympic National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

As a longtime supporter of the NPS and America’s national parks, Aramark is proud to be a sponsor of the National Park Foundation’s Centennial Campaign, celebrating the National Park Service’s 100th anniversary, this year. The sponsorship will help reintroduce the national parks and the work of the National Park Service to a new generation of Americans, inviting them to visit and get involved. For more information about the National Park Service’s Centennial, visit www.nationalparks.org/centennial.

About Aramark
Aramark (NYSE: ARMK) delivers experiences that enrich and nourish people’s lives through innovative services in food, facilities management, and uniforms. United by a passion to serve, our 270,000 employees make a meaningful difference each day for millions of people in 21 countries around the world. Aramark is recognized as one of the World’s Most Admired Companiesby FORTUNE, rated number one among Diversified Outsourcing Companies, as well as among the World’s Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute. Learn more at www.aramark.com or connect with us on Facebook and Twitter

Our Union Square Hilton Reminds Us All We’re Hosting Part of Super Bowl 50 – Big Gold Letters – Super Classy!

Tuesday, January 19th, 2016

Oh so classy!

7J7C9765 copy

I mean, what could be classier?

Take that, Paris!

Whoo Boy: “LEGAL REVIEW FINDS PROP. F LAWSUITS MAY RESULT IN $435,000 AWARD FOR MINOR, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS”

Friday, October 2nd, 2015

Airbnb is pulling out all the stops here.

Let me just say that first of all, no “minor” violations of San Francisco’s short term rental laws will result in anything like a $435K award. Sorry. And also, by the time any “awards” are handed out, said violations are no longer merely “alleged,” but actually proven.

And now, on with the show:

“Noted Law Firm Browne George Ross LLP Provides Review of Legal Impacts of San Francisco’s Prop. F

Proposition F creates a profit-motivated private right of action even if the City and County of San Francisco finds no violation.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? YEP. WHAT PROP F ADDS ON TOP OF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF $250-$1000 A DAY, ASSUMING THAT THE RESIDENTS BRINGING SUIT ACTUALLY WIN. THE REASON THAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SFGOV DOES IS THAT SOMETIMES SFGOV LIKES TO SIT ON ITS HANDS AND DO NOTHING, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IT’S DONE VERY LITTLE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THE LIKES OF WHICH WE’VE BEEN SEEING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND, IN FACT, THE LITTLE THAT SFGOV HAS BEEN DOING LATELY WAS SPURRED ON BY THE PROSPECT OF PROP F. SO ACTUALLY, PROP F IS GOOD BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY PAYING OFF. AND, AS FAR AS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED” IS CONCERNED, SOMETHING SIMILAR IS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING LANDLORD REFUNDS OF RENTAL DEPOSITS. SO IF A LANDLORD IMPROPERLY RETAINS AN APARTMENT SECURITY DEPOSIT, THE TENANT CAN SUE FOR NOT ONLY THE WRONGFULLY RETAINED PART BUT ALSO AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE DEPOSIT AS A KIND OF SPECIAL DAMAGES. SO A LANDLORD’S MOUTHPIECE COULD ARGUE THAT THE TENANT SUING IS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED,” BUT THAT WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE TRUE, RIGHT? AND IN FACT, THIS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND LAW SCARES LANDLORDS INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO THAT NO LEGAL ACTION EVER NEEDS TO GET KICKED INTO ACTION. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

In other words if someone wishes to sue their neighbor even after the city and County of San Francisco has determined there is no violation, an unscrupulous individual can still file a lawsuit and simply claim damages amounting to as much as $435,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

WELL, THIS LOS ANGELES-BASED LAW FIRM IS SIMPLY ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER USING AIRBNB OR WHATEVER TO VIOLATE OUR LAWS WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AFFECTED. BUT LOTS OF AIRBNBERS DON’T EVEN LIVE IN SF, RIGHT? SO IT’S RATHER MORE RESIDENT SUING AIRBNBER AS OPPOSED TO “NEIGHBOR SUING NEIGHBOR,” RIGHT? AND HEY, HOW CAN AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL” GET AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? AND HEY, “NOTED” LA LAW FIRM WHAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF AFORE, HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER REPRESENTED AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL?” HMMM… THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ON. IN ANY EVENT, UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS  WITH WORTHLESS CASES WON’T WIN AT COURT SO THEY WON’T GET ANY DAMAGES AT ALL, RIGHT? AND LET ME JUST SAY, ANY AIRBNBER WHO ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING $435K PLUS HAS REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWED UP. THESE WILL BE UNIQUE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY.

Because litigation is so incredibly expensive, time consuming and stressful many people will pay to get out of suits even though they have done nothing wrong.

BOY, WHAT A PITCH FROM A LAW FIRM – YOU DON’T NEED US, JUST PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYBODY EVER ASKS FOR AND THEN WAIT FOR THE NEWS TO SPREAD AND THEN GET SUED AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND NOTE HERE, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR AIRBNBERS (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR SOME) – I’M SAYING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR SAN FRANCISCO. AND ACTUALLY, PROP F WOULD BE GOOD FOR LOS ANGELES LAW FIRMS, POSSIBLY, IF LA-BASED AIRBNBERS GET SUED IN SF AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL ATTORNEY, THEN MAYBE EVEN THIS LA FIRM COULD GET IN ON THE ACTION.

Proposition F will exponentially exacerbate the problem by encouraging an untold number of new lawsuits, thus delaying even more those who appropriately seek justice through San Francisco Superior Court

WELL LET’S SEE HERE. PROP F WILL BE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS SF SUP CT IS CONCERNED. IT’S NOT GOING TO EXPONENTIALLY DO ANYTHING.

FIN.

SURPRISE! Local Airbnb-Type Room Letter OPPOSES Prop F – Let’s Read “Emey” Meyerson’s Take on SF’s Airbnb Mess

Thursday, September 24th, 2015

[UPDATE: Another reaction here. Oh, and another reaction here, from Sara Shortt.]

I don’t know who Medium Corporation‘s Emey is – what, a Scott Wiener fan, an Airbnb room/unit letter, a person who also makes money from “marketing, politics?”

Anywho, I sort of asked for somebody to tell me why Prop F is bad right here, so I’ll read through this and respond, you know, in real time.

1. So Prop F is worse than I think? So you think I think it’s bad, but you’re here on Medium telling me that it’s even worse than I think it is? Well, that’s not right at all. I think Prop F is great.

2. So like I’m not responsible for what signature gatherers say, right? ‘Nough said. Should I point out how Airbnb says/does similar things? OK then.

3. Yes, STR’s are already regulated by SFGov, but poorly. That’s why we have the Prop F, to fix what they call regulatory capture.

4. Airbnb-type outfits are the primary problem, right? I’ll concede that there are others out there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regulate Airbnb, right? Airbnbers oppose Prop F because, unlike the current regs, it wasn’t written with input from Airbnb itself. Like, should VW write our air pollution laws?

5. Well, Prop F isn’t the worst way to go about things. A worser way to regulate Airbnb is to have Airbnb write the rules what cover Airbnb’s business, right? What we’ve had so far from Supervisor Chiu has been a disaster, right? And then our dominant political faction assumed that something like Prop F wouldn’t make the ballot. And that takes us up to now. Hey, let’s take a look:

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

6. Uh, is it “really hard to find the text online,” like actually? Uh no. Google “PROP F SF” and then after you click on the first hit, click on THE MEASURE. Easy peasy, huh, LIAR?

7. “It’ll blow your mind.” O rly? We’ll see. Hey, you know, my mind’s already blown by the number of meetings that David Chiu’s office had with Airbnb reps to create the first unworkable regs – is it 60 fucking meetings? 60 meetings to create an unworkable mess? Mind blown. Already.

8. So, you promise us Prop F but now you’re coming in with how it’s existing hotels what don’t want private Airbnb hotels in the Parkside. Let’s see, who’s against Prop F – it’s Airbnb and the superhosts, right? As expected, right? (And I’m thinking your hotel worker union types would be big Prop F boosters as well.)

9. You know, some Airbnbers who let out rooms support Prop F, right? Are they crazy?

10. I’ll field this one. Cleaning a house before guests arrive is not assisting anyone to offer a short term rental.

11. Well, if your neighbor “prevails,” then your neighbor gets money. If you neighbor doesn’t prevail, then not. Simple. You’re missing the “prevailing” part, Mediumer.

12. And if a taxi driver refuses to pick you up because s/he doesn’t like your color, creed, whathaveyou, that’s a misdemeanor too, right? Laws need to have teeth, right?

13. Yep, a quarterly report. No biggee, it would seem.

14. So let’s see here, illegal in-law units shouldn’t be on Airbnb, right? Is this so surprising?

15. What Airbnb should do is keep track of its own rentals, for a start, huh? Shouldn’t be too hard.

16. People will still be able to Airbnb after Prop F passes, right? But Prop F should really put the hurt on Airbnb hotel buildings.

17. Prop F can totally be fixed, if necessary, by a judge or two or more, or by a vote of The People. Yes, we can visit this issue again later.

18. What’s this?! “I have been a part-time homesharer in SF since last year.” This should have been the first line of your bit, non? Ah, man, I don’t think I would have read your whole bit if you had been upfront about your conflict of interest. And why is my Google Chrome underlining “homesharer?” Oh that’s right, it’s because you made it up. Let’s try something else, something honest, like “room letter.” See? No underlining. Case closed.

19. Oh, this Medium bit is ending abruptly, after the Big Reveal. All right, yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

YES ON PROP F Fever Sweeps Over Frisco (AFAIK) – Spotting New Posters About Town – “FIX THE AIRBNB MESS”

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

I looked for signs like these afore, but didn’t see them.

Now, in mid-September, I’m seeing them – that’s the update:

7J7C4995 copy

Here’s a nice write-up from a neutral source:

“Prior to February 2015, the city banned private, short-term rentals, but did not dedicate sufficient resources to fully enforce the law.”

Yep, pretty much.

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Cracking Down on Developer Angelo Sangiacomo – TRINITY APTS / “SOMA SUITES HOTEL”

Tuesday, September 8th, 2015

Here’s a new update on this sitch.

“Herrera subpoenas Trinity over rent-controlled apartments used as ‘SOMA Suites Hotel’

“After request for cooperation is met ‘with obfuscation and deflection of responsibility,’ City Attorney moves to compel production of evidence in housing investigation

“SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 8, 2015) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today formally subpoenaed documents and information relating to the apparently illegal use of Trinity Place residential units — including at least 16 rent-controlled apartments — for tourist accommodations as “The SOMA Suites Hotel.” The administrative subpoenas served on Trinity’s ownership and a single lessee of some 23 dwellings comes after a month of “repeated, unsuccessful attempts” by Herrera’s office to gain voluntary cooperation in a City Attorney investigation of potentially unlawful and unauthorized uses of the properties at 1188 and 1190 Mission Street.

Herrera initially requested cooperation from developer Angelo Sangiacomo and his legal counsel in an Aug. 5, 2015 letter that sought a full account of the uses of residential units authorized under the city’s 2007 agreement for the Trinity Plaza Development Project (since renamed Trinity Place). But the request was instead met “with obfuscation and deflection of responsibility,” according to a letter from Herrera that accompanied his subpoena to compel Trinity’s production of requested evidence.

“I find your responses on behalf of your clients particularly difficult to accept given the nature and history of the properties,” Herrera wrote to Trinity’s attorney, Andrew Wiegel. “The Trinity Plaza Development Project permitted your client to build high-density, largely residential buildings that, among other things, would preserve 360 units of rent-controlled housing. The benefits of those units that your client committed to provide in the Development Agreement continue to be critically important to the City, especially at a time where the paucity of affordable housing is driving out long-term residents, disrupting communities, and altering the very fabric of our City. Leasing a number of those units to the same individual, under the facts and circumstances we believe to have been the case, violates the letter and spirit of the Development Agreement, and the conditions of approval for the Project.”

A primary focus of the investigation Herrera identified in his letter is the developer’s business relationship with Catherine Zhang and her company, LUMI Worldwide. According to evidence so far established in the City Attorney investigation, Trinity Management Services entered into leases with Zhang for 16 apartments, each subject to rent-control, and each exclusively intended for residential occupancy. Apart from recognizing the obvious — that a single individual can’t simultaneously reside in 16 apartments — Trinity’s management knew that Zhang was subleasing the rent-controlled units, according to Herrera, in apparent violation of its own lease provisions expressly forbidding subletting, and its development agreement with the city. The arrangement may also violate state and local law.

“Leasing a number of those units to the same individual, under the facts and circumstances we believe to have been the case, violates the letter and spirit of the Development Agreement, and the conditions of approval for the Project,” Herrera wrote. “For these reasons, you have left me no choice but to formally subpoena this information.”

Apart from the 16 rent-controlled apartments at 1188 Mission Street (where “The SOMA Suites Hotel” is located, according to its marketing content), another seven Trinity Place apartments at neighboring 1190 Mission Street were also leased to Zhang for concurrent and overlapping periods. Evidence indicates that Zhang similarly subleased those apartments to tourists for short-term stays. Although none of the apartments at 1190 Mission Street is subject to rent-control, the use of dwellings in both buildings is restricted to residential housing under terms of the 2007 development agreement and related City approvals. Herrera today served a similar administrative subpoena on Zhang and LUMI Worldwide.

Additional documentation from the City Attorney’s Office’s investigation is available at: http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.

Prop F Update: Let’s Look at Both Sides of SF Proposition F (2015), the Airbnb Law – Fixing Frisco’s Broken Short-Term Rental Mess

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015

(I’ll tell you, I don’t care what you do or where you rest your noggin at night. Fundamentally, I’m not a NIMBY – I don’t care what you do. I’ll admit I think it’s noteworthy when I spot Airbnb users in the Western Addition or the Sunset or wherever, ’cause they stand out (without realizing it) like a sore thumb, but I don’t have anything against tourists milling about, you know, per se. It’s funny, they ask me about parking laws. I try to help out. I tell them which way to curb their tires, ’cause a lot of them just don’t get it. And I’ll add that I know people who use Airbnb, and I know people who make some money letting rooms and units via Airbnb and the VRBO. But obvs I don’t own Airbnb options or anything and I’ll also note that I don’t own any hotels or anything.)

So that’s where I stand. No conflicts of interest – how refreshing, non? Now let’s take a look at Prop F via ShareBetterSF:

1. Limits short-term rentals to 75 nights per year, regardless of whether a ‘host’ is present

THIS LOOKS GOOD TO ME. THE WHOLE “HOST PRESENT” THING APPEARS TO BE A GIANT LOOPHOLE COOKED UP BY AIRBNB ITSELF IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OFFICE OF SUPERVISOR DAVID CHIU. THE RULES THAT HE AND AIRBNB CAME UP WITH ARE A HUGE, UNWORKABLE MESS, IMO.

2. Requires quarterly reports to the Planning Department on the number of nights a unit is rented to tourists

IF YOU’RE RENTING OUT A ROOM OR A UNIT, YOU’D NEED A REGISTRATION NUMBER AND YOU’D NEED TO REPORT HOW MANY TIMES YOU DID IT EVERY THREE MONTHS. SOUNDS PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME. SOUNDS A LOT SIMPLER THAN, SAY, THE EXTRA WORK YOU’LL HAVE TO DO WHEN ANNUAL TAX TIME COMES. IF THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON YOU, THE PERSON RENTING OUT ROOMS, PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN’T BE IN THIS BIDNESS?

3. Fines ‘hosting platforms’ (like Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway) for listing unregistered units

BAM. IF YOU HAVE A REG. NUMBER, YOU CAN LIST. IF YOU DON’T, YOU CAN’T.

4. Provides other building tenants, neighbors and neighborhood associations with notice when a unit is registered as a short-term rental

SO SFGOV WOULD SEND OUT A BRACE OF LETTERS EVERY TIME A UNIT GETS REGISTERED – THIS IS A ONE-TIME DEAL, RIGHT? AGAIN, DOES THIS SEEM SO UNREASONABLE?

5. Allows other building tenants & neighbors to go to court to protect their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their homes when the City fails to enforce the law

SO THERE ARE YOUR TEETH. THIS IS WHY AIRBNBER’S WILL ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO SF PROP F 2015.

[INTERMISSION]

NOW LET’S HEAR FROM AIRBNB::

CaptureFSFFHH

1. WELL, YEAH, I GUESS, AIRBNB – YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE THINGS THAT WAY. BUT LET’S SAY AN AIRBNBER FROM WALNUT CREEK BUYS A BUILDING IN SF AND THEN AIRBNBS ALL THE UNITS 365/366 DAYS A YEAR – THIS IS WHAT THE PROP F PEOPLE WOULD CALL “RUNNING A HOTEL.” IF I WERE SAID BUILDING OWNER LIVING IN WALNUT CREEK, I’D BE VERY AFRAID OF PROP F, SO I’D FOLLOW THE NEW RULES, RIGHT? IS THAT SO BAD?

2. WELL, I LIVE IN SF, AIRBNB. SO I DON’T THINK YOU’RE TALKING TO ME. BUT i’LL SAY THAT I THINK THE “DATA” WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS HOW MANY TIMES A QUARTER AIRBNBERS ARE IN BUSINESS, SO NO BIG DEAL, RIGHT? SO FAR, YOU’RE NOT REALLY SCARING ME AWAY FROM PROP F HERE, AIRBNB. LET’S SOLDIER ON…

3. SFGOV AND AIRBNB HAVE MADE A HASH OF THIS PROCESS SO FAR. THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN’T WORKING, SORRY. THIS IS WHY PROP F QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT, RIGHT?

4. HEY, AREN’T MOST IN-LAW UNITS IN TOWN ALREADY “BANNED?” I THINK SO. I THINK IT’S BECAUSE THEY AREN’T CODE COMPLIANT. WHY SHOULDN’T WE LEGALIZE THESE UNITS FIRST, IF THAT’S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, AFORE WE START WORRYING ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN MAKE OFF OF THEM? AND IF THIS IN-LAW ISSUE IS SUCH A BIG CONCERN A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AFTER THE POSSIBLE LEGALIZATION OF THESE UNITS, WELL, THEN WE CAN VOTE AGAIN, RIGHT? PERHAPS THIS WILL BE A BIT CUMBERSOME, BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU HAVE A REGULATORY CAPTURE SUCH AS THE ONE WE’RE IN.  

So, IDK, am I missing something here? What am I missing? Any beef anybody has against Prop F is displaced anger – the people who created the current situation are the ones responsible. Oh what’s that, Airbnb, you say the rules from Prop F are “too extreme?” Well, that’s because, unlike the current regs,  you didn’t write them. See how that works, Airbnb? Perhaps you should have cooked up a fairer set of rules for yourself, and then Prop F never would never have gone on the ballot, right?

So tell me, Gentle Reader, what am I missing here?

Otherwise, I’m a-voting YES ON PROP F.