Posts Tagged ‘illegal’

Good SCOOT Parking vs. Bad SCOOT Parking

Monday, October 16th, 2017

Good:

7J7C0632 copy

Bad:

7J7C0679 copy

The Failure of the Federally-Funded SFPark Program is Shown on Clement – Saturdays v. Sundays

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

Was this shot of Clement taken on a recent Saturday or a recent Sunday? Well, IDK, as the parking / double-parking / handicap placard free parking abusing looks pretty much the same to me:

7J7C1282 copy

This is despite the fact that Saturdays reflect implementation of the more market-rate SFPark approach but Sundays, well Sundays are ANYTHING GOES DAYS, due to our SFMTA board deciding that FREE SUNDAY PARKING was GOOD, and then DECIDING THE FREE SUNDAY PARKING was BAD, but then deciding that FREE SUNDAY PARKING was GOOD once again.

Myself, I’m not the kind to max out a parking meter and then lollygag about tending to bidness, as that (along with taxis, UBER, Lyft) is for non-cheap people, right?

Anyway, in part due to an extremely high amount of handicapped placards issued about town, the parking sitch looks pretty much the same from Saturday to Sunday.

If our SFMTA was really serious about increasing “parking availability” here, it’d jack up meter prices and then institute charging for parking on Sundays again. We’ll have to wait and see when that will happen.

Random Right-Turn-Only Requirement for Drivers and Bike Riders at 9th and California?

Monday, October 2nd, 2017

On 9th Ave looking north:

7J7C0934 copy

I don’t see any other markings or signs, except for some official-looking painted-on arrow and a similar sign / street arrow  for southbound traffic.

One wonders, is this real life? You can’t simply drive north on 9th, or even turn left?

One wonders if these are real SFMTA signs…

Double Illegal Parking, in Golden Gate Park

Thursday, September 28th, 2017

The first problem is that the car is pointing the wrong way. The second problem is that you can’t park here on JFK:

7J7C0555 copy

It’s going to take a looooong time before people figure this out, maybe a few decades…

Frisco’s Horrible Pedestrians vs. the Geary Expressway

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

Here’s how people react to our needlessly-wide Geary Expressway:

7J7C9069 copy

I think Buchanan Street will make a comeback one of these days, in the form of a marked crosswalk, allowing peds to once again legally cross in this area.

The HEY BUDDY Note You WOULDN’T Mind Getting – A NON Passive-Aggressive Message

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

Mischief managed, easy peasy, by these note writers:

7J7C8769 copy

(If this were my car, I’d slink away and then make sure that I’d NEVER park there again. But this aint my car. Anyway, this note is a GOOD thing, IMO, in that it’s much better than footing the bill for a tow job.)

And let’s file “buddy” under Somewhat Disrespectful Terms For People Whose Names You Don’t Know, along with Chief

The Drone Bros of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA)

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

Agin the rules this is:

IMG_5151a copy

Sorry, Bros.

IMG_5156a copy

Still, mad props for the state of drones these days, able to hover in like 30 MPH gusts – I thought it could have been a hawk at first.

Choose wisely, else you might get cited

ATTENTION FRISCO LANDLORDS: You Can’t Charge a $49.50 Application Fee – Take a Look at This Example on Page

Friday, August 11th, 2017

Here we go:

7J7C7509 copy

Now let’s hear from the California Apartment Association:

“As you consider prospective renters in 2017, remember that your applicant screening fee can only cover the expenses you incur in the process. This includes the actual money spent gathering information, as well as time spent by you or your staff. But no matter how much you pay for tenant screening, your fee to applicants may not exceed $47.72. That figure represents this year’s maximum applicant-screening charge. Each December, the state of California adjusts its cap on applicant-screening fees based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. This year’s adjustment amounted to an increase of $1.05.”

A landlord not following what the CAA says is a bad sign from the get-go.

The kind of people who overcharge on the application fee are the kind of people who do other things wrong as landlords as well.

(OTOH, I’m sure many landlords would prefer naive, moneyed tenants who say, “Take my money, take my money,” as they are less likely to complain about other issues.)

Anyway, the cost of doing a background check has come down over the years, non? So why not just charge prospective tenants the eight dollars or whatever you are out of pocket? Cause I’ll tell you, this isn’t a good look, this nickel-and-diming at the start of a potential $40-something thousand dollar land deal.

Speaking of which, back in the day, Before the Aughts, back during DotCom 1.0, let’s say 1998 or so, you’d see 50 people showing up at open houses. They’d each pay an application fee of $50 or so and then the manager / landlord / agent would have a nice multi-thousand dollar tax-free payday just by depositing a bunch of checks at the bank. Not bad for a few hours “work.” And they wouldn’t even do a background check on you, the sucker prospective tenant, ’cause that would increase costs.

A cite from that era:

“Some landlords in the San Francisco Bay Area were found guilty of charging application fees of $50 or more and/or collecting application fees when no rentals were even available.”

That’s what happens when people treat the application process as a profit center.

Anyway, choose wisely, tenants.

(more…)

If You’re Going to be a Bicycle Bandit in Marin County, This is How You Should Do It – Speeding Down Hill 88

Friday, July 28th, 2017

I don’t know what you’d call this area – Hill 88 is to the right, so I guess you could say Wolf Ridge or Tennessee Valley, and Bro ended up at the saddle with Gerbode Valley. Speaking of which, Where’s Waldo?

IMG_7469 copy

Oh there he is, way down there, speeding along the Miwok Trail, the part what’s not allowed for bike riders.

But he could see that nobody had just started down and that nobody had started coming up, because he waited for a while.

Why are bikes banned on this one section? IDK. Prolly because it’s Steeper Than Average. And it’s narrow in parts, let’s call it singletrack.

But it’s in good shape, as a trail. So I guess all that makes it A Challenge…

EITHER SFGov Authorized a Procter & Gamble Commercial what Encourages Bad Behavior of Youth OR It was Filmed Without Permits

Friday, July 28th, 2017

Where to start here? OK, so you gotta watch an ad before you can watch the content, which of course is an ad, for Gillette, which of course is owned by P&G (NYSEPG DJIA Component S&P 100 Component). And you can really tell* this is in 8K:

So let’s say that the production of this commercial for Gillette, The Best A Man Can Get, was fully authorized. That means that there would have been buy-in from RPD, The Waterfront, SFPD you name it, an alphabet soup of SFGov.

Now I know what that kind of thing looks like, it looks like this. See all those Financial District drones (ahem) laboring on a Saturday, well they were quite entertained:

And it resulted in this, an ad for Ford, more or less. It’s fantastic, with like 100,000,000 Views so far:

BUT, if the Skateboard Parkour ad was authorized, then it’s showing its star breaking the law, breaking the law, non? Like this scene might be in South San Francisco, but we have No Skateboarding signs up in Frisco as well, right?

Capturesdsssss

SO, it’s one way or another:

EITHER SFGov is selling out the goals that many area department heads claim to have OR P&G is marketing to yoots in an unauthorized fashion.

*J/K. My monitor is not even close to being able to display 8K. But hey, 8K video. What’s next, 10K? Yep. You’ll see.