Posts Tagged ‘la’

Stumptown 94108: Palm Trees Belong in L.A., Not Frisco, Ch. CLXVII

Friday, December 22nd, 2017

To wit:

7J7C3761 copy

Oh, here’s another:

7J7C3762 copy

As seen in Union Square.

(Yet oddly, parrots from South America, as seen from the Filbert Steps, DO belong in SF, go figure.)

go8f7630a1a

I want to live in Los Angeles
OK by me in Los Angeles
No, not the one in South California
They got one in South Patagonia

THIS is Why City Attorney Dennis Herrera Goes After Corporate Sidewalk Chalk Ads – Still Visible after 8 Months

Thursday, December 14th, 2017

That was then and this is now:

20171214_090819 copy

The pink part is gone, but the black lettering is still there – this June 6, 2017 concert will live in infamy, looks like….

How Los Angeles Does It: Corporate-Sponsored Lifeguard Vehicles – LA has TOYOTA, SF has FORD

Wednesday, October 4th, 2017

Here’s your LAFD on patrol, complete with a giant Toyota logo:

20170806_123217 copy

Here in Frisco, we now have thousands of smaller-but-still-quite-prominent FORD logos all over the place for Ford Motor Company’s FordGoBike rental bike service. I think I’d rather have a beefed up patrol at Ocean Beach, where sometimes a half dozen people drown in a year.

Anyway, this is How Los Angeles Does It.

Cadillac Ranch, Los Angeles County

Wednesday, August 9th, 2017

As seen from the I-5:

7J7C7410 copy

A paintball range

7J7C7409 copy

THEORY: If a Corporation Illegally Markets on the Sidewalks of Frisco, It Will be Coerced Into Buying SFMTA MUNI Bus Ads

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

So here’s the theory. Say your marketing people go hog-wild with the chalk ads on the Streets of San Francisco, like this:

7J7C0902-copy

So then somebody calls 311 or somebody else posts a photo on the Twitter and then an investigator at the City Attorney’s Office takes a look at things and then the people at Parlophone / Warner Bros. get a jingle and then somehow things get smoothed over by the Brothers Warner or somebody else making at buy at the SFMTA MUNI for some hastily-created and more or less useless ads such as:

7J7C2628 copy

Cf. the Blue Wolf at a Dream Force about 1.5 years ago:

Capturefsff-copy

And then these hastily-created and more or less useless ads started to appear:

7J7C7595-copy

Just a theory, man.

And here’s the thing about chalk. You can’t scrub it off your car tires to avoid a citation and you can’t scuff into Frisco’s sidewalks, I’m srsly. What’s that, UBER, Microsoft, Verizon, et al, it’s “only temporary?” Well, yeah, sure, that’s what I’m talking about, it’s agin the rules, temporary or not.

Learn about all the horrible things people do with chalk about town right here – just keep on scrolling, next page etc

Ever More Illegal Sidewalk Chalk Advertising: “Gorillaz Humanz 04.28.2017”

Monday, April 24th, 2017

7J7C0902 copy

Located on the same block of Ashbury as this

Yet Another Illegal Sidewalk Advertisement on the Streets of San Francisco: “BAG RAIDERS SF 6.9” – Don’t Tell Dennis

Monday, April 10th, 2017

As seen on Ashbury, promoting this event:

7J7C0017 copy

City Attorney Dennis Herrera does NOT appreciate this kind of thing.

Scenario: The City of Boston Makes Even More Mistakes and Then the USOC Decides to Bid a California City for the 2024 Olympics

Monday, January 26th, 2015

Well, here’s the news:

Boston’s 2024 Olympics Bid Thrown Into Doubt – Mayor Says He Wouldn’t Oppose a Referendum, Which Could Complicate or Endanger City’s Bid

And here’s your nut graf:

“Kamp and Futterman say, ‘The USOC would likely view even the prospect of a referendum as a major obstacle to the U.S. hosting the Summer Games for the first time since 1996 and could decide to nominate another city.’ The pair add, “USOC officials fear even a nonbinding referendum could signal a lack of public support to the international community.'”

Figure that the USOC has about six months to ponder matters.

So, what about the three Loser Cities?

DC: AHAHAHHAHAHAHA! Get crucial, Dude. That’s never going to happen. The USOC was just being nice to throw DC into the Final Four. DC could bribe 30% of the IOC and still lose the vote for any future Olympic Games.

SF:  Nope. The USOC knows that the opposition here in the bay area is even higher than in Boston. So it wouldn’t make sense to kick Boston to the curb over the unpopularity issue only to get it back three times worse in Frisco.

LA: Ding ding ding!

And I shouldn’t say LA, I should say DTLA, baby! The IOC thinks that LA is old hat, you know, now, but we’ve never had an Olympics in newfangled DTLA, the “urbanist’s” dream, as seen in that Her movie.

Anyway, that’s the scenario.

So, we Californians aren’t out of the woods yet…

 

 

Here’s What San Francisco Chronicle Writer CW Nevius Gets Wrong About Our Failed Bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

Friday, January 16th, 2015

I guess this will close out SF’s attempt to host the 2024 Olympics.

The weird thing about San Francisco’s bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics was that the local committee was this close to pulling off a terrific plan.

The vote was Boston 15 and San Francisco (and the other two) 0, was it not? That’s not all that close, huh? Or does he mean that the bay area’s bid was sub-terrific, like it was just one unit below being terrific? One can’t tell what the Nevius is trying to say here. San Francisco always was a long shot, right? And if SF got picked by the USOC, then it would have been a long shot to get picked by the IOC. And if the corrupt IOC had selected SF, then there was always the chance of things not working out anyway, ala the inchoate Denver 1976 Olympics. So, was this thing “close” or actually far far away? I’ll tell you, if I were the USOC, I’d tell all the boosters from all the cities how close things were and if I were the spokesmodel for SF2024, I’d tell Larry Baer how close he almost came. (“We were this close Lare-Bear!) But I’m not so I won’t. OTOH, CW Nevius got paid by the Chronicle to publish, more or less, what Nate Ballard wanted published, so here we are. “So close!”

Let’s see a show of hands. How many of you thought a temporary, pop-up $350 million Olympic stadium in the Brisbane wind tunnel was a good idea? 

The IOC doesn’t want any more images of white elephants haunting them through the decades. So, in their opinion, which is the only one that matters, pop-ups might be a good thing. As far as Brisbane vs. Oakland is concerned, how could it matter? Our hosting would have ended up costing 5, 10, 15 billion dollars more than the “official” bid, right? Isn’t that the real issue?

More on Oakland:

It would not only have been a terrific solution for the Games — better weather, easy access, waterfront views — it would have penciled out financially.

This is the same Nevius who moved to town and then a few months later determined that the failed America’s Cup would come “without a downside.” But it did come with a downside, or two or three or four, right? Moving on.

And, by the way, don’t think the United States Olympic Committee wasn’t hoping to make San Francisco work. Conventional wisdom was that Los Angeles had the facilities, Boston and Washington had the East Coast bias, but San Francisco was “the sexiest.”

Why does the Nevius use the term “conventional wisdom” here? What does he mean? Is he suggesting that this view wasn’t accurate? I don’t think so.  And what’s “East Coast bias?” Have the Summer Olympics ever been held on the East Coast of the United States ever in history? Nope. So there doesn’t seem to be too much bias there. Our Summer Olympicses have been held in the West (twice), the South and the Midwest. So WTF. Now, time zone-wise I can certainly see how advertisers worldwide would strongly prefer the EDT for live events, and that certainly was a factor favoring Boston. And I’ll say, that DC had no chance at all, as the IOC hates DC and all it stands for. And then the Nevius puts quote marks around “the sexiest?” Is this a an actual quote or is it merely the conventional wisdom? Hmmm

So what happened? Well, San Francisco happened. Or more specifically, the Bay Area, and particularly the fractious shenanigans in Oakland, made everyone nervous.

So, nothing happened, right? The USOC did its own polling and figured out that we don’t really want the Olympics here. That’s what happened. I wouldn’t describe that as San Francisco happened since this was and is a known known, right?

Every time someone touted the Bay Area as a location, someone else cued up the video of the Oakland protesters trashing a Christmas tree.

Whoa, Nelly! Is this literally true? Like “every time?” No, so who was actually doing this at all? Like, even once? Is the Nevius aware of the non-disparagement agreements that all the bid cities signed on to? Is he suggesting that somebody from the Boston bid “cued up” some video literally or is this a Nevius tone poem? I can’t tell. Not at all.

As one local Olympic insider suggested: “We are like the hot, crazy girl that everyone wants to sleep with. You never know what you’re going to get when you wake up in the morning.”

This quote is from Nate Ballard but he doesn’t want to own up to it? Weak. I’ll note that Nate Ballard isn’t quoted anywhere else in the Nevius bit. And did Larry Baer’s money go to somebody getting paid to talk about hot, crazy “girls” everybody wants to sleep with? That’s amazing. Anyway, this came from Nate Ballard – prove me wrong! I won’t disagree with the sentiment though. Yes, SF was the most “appealing” bid city, the city that the corrupt IOC would have the warmest feelings for, most likely.

Now make no mistake. It wasn’t just Oakland. Accounts of the years of debate and acrimony over the harmless Beach Chalet soccer fields in Golden Gate Park made the national news.

OK, so what are you saying here, Nevius? That spending money and effort trying to get the Olympics to come here is/was a bad idea, you know, considering? Is that what you mean to say, Nevius?

Nor was it helpful to hear that collecting enough signatures to get an initiative on the San Francisco ballot is incredibly easy.

So, CW Nevius from Walnut Creek doesn’t want the people of SF to be able to weigh in on spending 10, 15, 20 billion on an Olympic-sized boondoggle? Mmmm…

Suppose, for example, an initiative was passed that said no public money could be used for the Games.

Yep, that was what was coming, no doubt.

Would that mean no increase in funding for public transportation, which would be stressed for the Games? Or police and emergency services.

The answer to this question is that it doesn’t matter as such a vote would be more than enough to scare away the corrupt IOC and why would you continue along the boondoggle path after the People voted thumbs down? I mean, what kind of monster would do that? Here’s the thing – this is the IOC:

Capturesfffs

That’s in terms that CW Nevius, that white, wizened, wine-drinking, Walnut Creekian Downton Abbey fan can appreciate. In fact, the IOC is like 10-15% royal blooded, like literally. The IOC has lots of ideas about how best to spend Other People’s Money on projects to glorify the IOC. But the IOC itself can’t afford to put on the show. That’s why it forces cities to guarantee the games with taxpayer money. There’s no way ’round this. So the IOC will not grant the Games to any city that doesn’t have a guarantee that the bill for the inevitable overruns will get sent to taxpayers. This is the Denver 1976 situation. It doesn’t take all that much to scare away the IOC.

Would we ever be able to get this together? Sure. It’s possible. The timing couldn’t have been much worse this year to put something together.

So, our bid was All About Oakland? I don’t think so. Perhaps this notion is comforting to Larry Baer, but I don’t think so. Perhaps SF bidding on the Olympics is fun, but it’s a bad idea? Perhaps?

But don’t think Boston is a slam dunk to win the international bid.

Who thinks Boston is a “slam dunk?” Where does this come from?

If anything, the anti-Olympics political forces in Boston — there’s a “No Boston Olympics” coalition — are more organized and more vociferous than the little band of naysayers here. 

Well, Nevius, the USOC did its own polling and it concluded that the political environment was worse here in SF. The reason why Boston’s citizen effort had a higher profile is that the bid in Boston had a higher profile, for whatever reason. And if a “little band” of naysayers would have had a very easy time winning its no-taxpayer-funds-for-the-Olympics vote, then they aren’t such a little band, right? Maybe SF doesn’t want to pay for the Olympics to come here – is that a possibility?

So now Nevius is rooting for Boston to lose the 2024 Olympics so that we can get the 2028 Olympics – that’s what Larry Baer and Nate Ballard are thinking?

OK fine, but I don’t think that’s going to work either.

CW Nevius should be able to do a better job than this.

Point Counterpoint on the 2024 Olympics, Since San Francisco’s Bid Will End Tomorrow, Probably

Wednesday, January 7th, 2015

Let’s start here:

“I truly believe this will advance our long-term interests,” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said. “We believe that San Francisco’s 2024 vision of the Olympics is 100 percent aligned with our priorities as we see them today, both as a city and as a region.”

Yeah, sure, hook Ed Lee up to a lie detector and you’d see that he actually believes this statement. Except that it’s not true. Unless he thinks that the 2024 Olympics are worth $10 billion or so of cost overruns. Some would benefit from those overruns but most would not. This process of exaggerating benefits and minimizing costs is what got us in trouble with the disastrous, expensive, deadly, scandal-marred America’s Cup, which, of course, San Francisco declined to repeat.

And I can’t help but think that “2024 vision” sounds a lot like Vision Zero 2024*, another promise that hasn’t a chance in the world of coming true.

“Our mantra really is, ‘Can we host an Olympics and leave the Bay Area better off for having done that?’ ” Strandberg said. “If we can’t, you should hold us to the standard. That’s what we think about every day as we lay out our plans.”

How on Earth would we be able to hold Mr. Strandberg “accountable” post 2024, when we’ll be billions and billions over $4.5 billion? How much skin does he have in the Game? Not much, not much at all.

“It’s not relevant to include Games that were put on by sovereign states like Russia or China and compare them to how you would do something in the United States,” he said. “We’d never look at the Chinese economic system or the Russian political system and say, ‘That’s how we do it here.’ So, why would we assume that is how we would do an Olympic Games here?”

(Sovereign states? Is that some kind of insult? Not really. I wonder what phrase he’s thinking about when he says sovereign state.) In any event, the better comparisons are with London 2012, which overran by about $10 billion and Chicago 2016, which would had overrun by a similar amount. Or Greece? Can we talk about Greece? No, all right. And the reason to include Russia and China has more to do with the IOC, which has a real problem dealing with democracies.

So that’s the SJMN bit. It’s well-written, by Elliott Almond and Mark Emmons

Moving on, to SF Moderates, which used to be called Plan C, which used to be a right side of the aisle political group for gay property owners. It’s expanded its membership lately, but it’s still decidedly on the right side of SF’s political aisle. Begin:

But what if we could defy the naysayers and make it happen? Mayor Ed Lee has initiated the effort, emphasizing that the $4.5 billion price tag will come from private donors. I learned from the Miracle on Ice and from the 2010 Giants and Ashkon that you don’t stop believing just because someone says you can’t win.

So why didn’t we sign up for another America’s Cup? Perhaps the naysayers were absolutely correct? Yep.

The issue for anti-Olympics lobbyists appears to be possible cost overruns, which have averaged over 200 percent per Olympics according to a recent study. The assumption is that taxpayers will be on the hook for the extra $9 billion in average cost overruns. That’s a fair concern.

Oh OK, well, yes, that’s the “concern.”

The requirement is a guarantee of public money to cover cost overruns. There are ways to deal with that if the final bill is the sole concern.

Uh, no there’s not. Are you talking about cost overrun insurance from that Aon company? That’s never going to work. If everybody thinks the taxpayers will be on the hook for $10 billion, then the premium for such a policy would be about $10 billion, right? And if it’s not, then it has a host of exceptions and deductibles and caps and then let’s have future taxpayers pay off the bill.

But, let’s consider another view. There are private donors ready to pump in $4.5 billion into our local economy. How often does that happen? If we say no to this money, are we in a better position to reduce poverty or curb homelessness?

Yes, without the 2024 Olympics, we’ll be in a better position. Were you born yesterday?

While the anti-Olympics lobby eagerly points to the America’s Cup as proof that the Olympics will be bad for San Francisco, what about the San Francisco Giants?

But that stadium was privately financed, right? The IOC would never allow a privately-financed 2024 Olympics.

I hope it doesn’t get derailed by another just say no campaign.

No no no no no. This deal will never work out in the long run. Let’s hope San Francisco loses tomorrow.

*With an admirable goal, but it’s never going to happen. Transportation deaths are a people problem, not an infrastructure problem. Fundamentally.