I don’t get it, man:
Posts Tagged ‘law’
“Affected members of the UC Hastings Public Safety officer’s unit have been presented various employment options if they meet required qualifications, as police officers, security guards, or security guard supervisors for the UCSF Police Department. For officers who do not qualify (or elect to not apply) for jobs with the UCSF Police Department or alternative positions with UC Hastings, the College will offer conscientious separation terms.”
So that’s that – the oldest and largest law school in the West is now a little closer to the UC Family.
An Endangered Species: The Solitary Squad Car Used by UC Hastings Law School “Public Safety Officers” in the TwitterloinWednesday, May 18th, 2016
This is it – they have just this one, as seen on McAllister:
“UC Hastings-UCSF Public Safety Partnership Proposal – Presenting the initial UC Hastings proposal to replace the college’s Public Safety Department with the University of California San Francisco Police Department.
A Public Meeting was held this morning to present the initial UC Hastings proposal to replace the college’s Public Safety Department with the University of California San Francisco Police Department (UCSFPD). All UC Hastings students, faculty, and staff were invited to attend.
UC Hastings General Counsel Elise Traynum welcomed attendees and introduced the proposal.
“The UC Hastings community is in need of additional protection which can only be provided by a police department,” said Traynum. “An advantage to entering into an agreement with UCSFPD is access to a broad array of basic police services and support services that the college cannot fund.”
“It is proposed that UCSFPD would handle all street patrols, investigations, and crime prevention services, emergency management functions in the event of life-threatening disasters, homeland security and related community policing responsibilities,” said Traynum.
Traynum also outlined options for the five affected UC Hastings Public Safety officer’s unit members, listing four possibilities: 1) Officers may be hired as police officers for UCSFPD if they meet requisite qualifications; or 2) Officers may be hired as security guards, or security guard supervisors, for UCSFPD if they meet required qualifications; or, 3) Officers may be hired for positions at UC Hastings if they meet requisite qualifications; or, 4) for Officers who do not qualify for jobs with the UCSFPD or alternative position with UC Hastings, or officers who elect to not apply for these, the College would consider buying them out, at an amount to be determined.
Finally, Traynum underscored that reducing labor costs is not the motivation for contracting out public safety. “The motivation for contracting out public safety is to give the UC Hastings community access to a broad array of basic police services and support services that the college could not fund.”
UCSFPD Chief Mike Denson then presented “A Study of a Public Safety Partnership” (click here to view), and highlighted the department’s commitment to safety and security externally and internally, including the physical and emotional well-being of students.
Time for public comment was provided following the presentation, and the UC Hastings Public Safety Officers Association (PSOA) and representatives were also offered the opportunity to present a counter proposal at the meeting.
Acting Chancellor & Dean David Faigman called the input “enormously helpful” and laid out two basic principles he and the college will follow in making this decision. First, that any change would be to create a more secure and safer campus. Second, that UC Hastings will do the best we can for our current officers. He also noted that UC Hastings does not plan to raise tuition to improve safety and security. “If in the end it doesn’t make sense for our campus, we’re not going to do it,” concluded Faigman. “And if it does, we’ll do so in a conscientious manner.”
The college will hold a follow-up public meeting in April to present its final proposal. Details will be publicized widely.
Alex A.G. Shapiro
Director of External Relations
UC Hastings College of the Law
Office: (415) 581-8842
Cell: (415) 813-9214
Press Release: “Board of Supervisors President London Breed Introduces Toughest Styrofoam Ban Law in the Country”Tuesday, April 19th, 2016
“Board of Supervisors President London Breed Introduces Toughest Styrofoam Ban Law in the Country
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 19, 2016
SAN FRANCISCO— Board of Supervisors President London Breed today introduced legislation to create the most expansive Styrofoam prohibitions in the country including a ban on the sale of Styrofoam: 1) cups, plates, clamshells, meat trays, egg cartons, and other food ware; 2) packing materials, including packing peanuts; 3) coolers; 4) pool and beach toys; and 5) dock floats, buoys, and other marine products, as well as a ban on the use of Styrofoam packing material for items packaged in San Francisco.
“Three days before we celebrate the 47th Earth Day, I am excited to introduce some of the strongest environmental protection legislation in the country,” said President Breed. “We are a city prized for our natural beauty, surrounded by water on three sides. We have a moral, a public health, and frankly a financial responsibility to protect ourselves from pollutants like polystyrene foam.*”
Polystyrene cannot be recycled through San Francisco’s blue bin recycling collection program and essentially never decomposes. It is a significant source of litter on land and one of the most egregious elements of rising plastic pollution in the Bay and ocean.
Polystyrene breaks down into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that seabirds often mistake for fish eggs. And unlike harder plastics, polystyrene contains a chemical used in its production called “styrene” that is metabolized after ingestion and threatens the entire food chain, including humans who eat contaminated marine wildlife. Styrene is linked to cancer and developmental disorders, and according to the US FDA, it leaches into food and drink from polystyrene food ware.
“The science is clear: this stuff is an environmental and public health pollutant, and we have to reduce its use,” said President Breed. “There are ample cost effective alternatives to Styrofoam on the market.”
More than 100 US cities have ordinances restricting polystyrene food service ware and/or packaging materials. San Francisco itself has prohibited serving food in polystyrene since 2007. President Breed’s legislation is the next step, covering new uses that have never been regulated in other cities.
“San Francisco will once again be at the forefront,” said President Breed. “We will replace hazardous products with compostable, recyclable ones. We will continue our work toward Zero Waste. And we will protect the public health and the natural beauty of our waterways and wildlife.”
President Breed worked closely with the San Francisco Department of the Environment, the nonprofit Sustainable San Francisco, the California Grocers Association, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, as well as many local and international businesses. The legislation is designed to help businesses comply and accommodate those who cannot yet.
*Styrofoam is actually a brand name for polystyrene foam.
This Rolling Billboard-on-Wheels Truck is Unstoppable – SFGov is Powerless to Regulate – Guess Which Amendment Protects ThemFriday, March 25th, 2016
That’s right, our First Amendment prevents local regulation, pretty much.
So there’s nothing to stop the crush of these orange Boost ads from circling and circling during rush hour.
We would circle and we’d circle and we’d circle to stop and consider and centered on the pavement stacked up all the trucks jacked up and our wheels in slush and orange crush in pocket and all this here county, hell, any county, it’s just like heaven here, and I was remembering and I was just in a different county and all then this whirlybird that I headed for I had my goggles pulled off; I knew it all, I knew every back road and every truck stop…
Comments re: “Statement from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition on Mayor Ed Lee’s Veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law”Wednesday, January 20th, 2016
“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition on Mayor Ed Lee’s Veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law Jan. 20, 2016 – Mayor Ed Lee’s veto of SF’s Bike Yield Law makes San Francisco the first U.S. city to take a major step away from its promise to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries.”
Hoo-boy, a lot to unpack already. OK, the universe is U.S. cities who (or that – I mean, do cities make promises?) have promised the impossible – eliminating ALL transportation mishaps starting on a date certain, in our case about four years after all pols concerned have termed out, aka January 1, 2024. And I’m thinking, has any other American city promised this? IDTS! And the other issue is if this is a step away from safety, which is highly debatable, of course. This is more of a rights issue rather than a safety issue.
“…Vision Zero…”Focus on the Five,” assuring the people of San Francisco that police would dedicate half of all traffic citations to the five violations that cause a majority of traffic deaths.
If we’re talking about CVC code sections, and we are, then three of the top five in SF are pedestrian-only violations. Sorry.
SFPD leadership is even erroneously adding those citations into their Focus on the Five data, and still falling short of dedicating half of all traffic citations to the five most dangerous traffic violations.
It’s not at all clear that rolling through a stop sign should be excluded from the poorly-written FOCUSONTHEFIVE initiative since that CVC section is specifically enumerated as one of the five. If SFGov meant to exclude cyclists (I’m sorry, “people biking” – that’s the new term for 2016, I guess for better “framing?”), then it should have excluded cyclists, right? Amend if you want to, right?
A majority of the Board of Supervisors and thousands of supporters sought to deliver safer streets by legislating smarter enforcement.
Again, that’s just your conclusion, man. “Safer,” “smarter?” Hey, how many local groups (think peds, think differently-abled) opposed this proposed change? Lots and lots. Do you want me to list them? I sure can.
The Bike Yield Law…
No more “Idaho Stop,” huh? More framing, yay! Why is Idaho Stop bad now? I have no idea.
Mayor Lee dishonored the lives lost in San Francisco crashes…
Holy shit, man! Really?
The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has worked for over 40 years…
Uh nope. I’ve been around longer than it has. Sorry. Pretty much defunct/nowhere in the 1980’s. Sorry.
Oh that’s right, she is running for reelection is a district what’s a touch too progressive for her record.
And on and on.
I’ll tell you, I’ve been California Stopping my way through stop signs in San Francisco since before the current SFBC even began. Like on a daily basis. I’ve never been ticketed or even warned by anybody at the SFPD. Of course, I do this at a much slower speed than is typical on, say, the Wiggle bicycle route, where some routinely go across stop sign stop lines at 10 MPH plus, oh well. In any event, yes, enforcement is at a pretty low level already. Even in infamous Park Station, where in some recent monthly reports, it records zero (0) pedestrian / cyclist / people biking citations. I mean, you can’t get lower than zero, right? Of course, the SFPD also does enforcements actions on the Wiggle. (To me, that’s a message to stay away from the already-overburdened official exact Wiggle route (how about one block away from the Wiggle route instead – would that be so so hard for you all?)) These spates of enforcement catch even those who cross over stop lines at a reasonable pace – that’s unfortunate but oh well. The real targets of these actions are those who don’t pay attention and who California Stop at way too high a speed…
…it’s going to take all of us uniting and speaking in one diverse and clear voice.
WHAT? LET’S ALL JOIN IN LOCK STEP TO BECOME “DIVERSE?” WTF. (GET ME REWRITE.)
common-sense safety legislation
WELL THIS IS SOMEBODY’S CONCLUSION. OF COURSE IF THIS EFFORT DOESN’T END UP INCREASING SAFETY THEN IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN “SAFETY LEGISLATION,” AND I, FOR ONE, DON’T SEE THIS AS AN OBVIOUS, SIMPLE, “COMMON-SENSE” ISSUE. AVERAGE BIKE SPEED OVER STOP LINES ON THE VAUNTED “WIGGLE” ROUTE ARE ALREADY TOO HIGH, RIGHT? WOULD THIS LEGISLATION GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO MAKE IT HIGHER?
cautiously rolling through stop signs
I’LL TELL YOU, YOU CAN CAUTIOUSLY ROLL THROUGH STOP SIGNS LIKE EVERY DAY FOR DECADES AND YOU’LL GENERALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM FROM THE SFPD UNDER THE APPARENTLY NON-COMMON-SENSE RULES WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS KIND OF THING ALREADY IS A VERY LOW PRIORITY FOR THE SFPD EXCEPT IN PROBLEMATIC AREAS LIKE THE SO-CALLED WIGGLE ROUTE, WHICH ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD EITHER AVOID _OR_ WOULD USE MORE CAUTION THAN THE AVERAGE, TYPICAL WIGGLE RIDER. HERE’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN – THE SFPD IS GOING TO GET MORE COMPLAINTS FROM PEDS ON/NEAR THE WIGGLE. THIS INFO IS GOING TO GET TO THE MOTOR PATROL. THE MOTOR PATROL IS THEN GOING TO CAMP OUT ON THE WIGGLE. WHICH PART? WALLER AND STEINER, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS ALREADY. WHY SOME NON-PROFIT WOULD WANT TO FUNNEL MORE BICYCLE TRAFFIC THROUGH AN ALREADY OVERLOADED INTERSECTION IS A MYSTERY TO ME. IN ANY EVENT, YES, DURING THE RARE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PERIODS YOU WILL GET TICKETED FOR GOING OVER A STOP LINE EVEN AT A VERY LOW SPEED LIKE TWO MPH. SORRY. AS STATED, YOU CAN EASILY GET AROUND TOWN BY AVOIDING THIS SPECIFIC ROUTE, IF ONLY BY ONE BLOCK. AND IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COPS SITTING THERE, THEN YOU’RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION. AND IF YOU WANT A NON-WIGGLE ROUTE TO GET WHERE YOU’RE GOING, JUST ASK ME. MY ROUTE WILL HAVE FEWER TURNS TO BOOT. TURNS ARE BAD FOR SAFETY AND STRAIGHTER ROUTES ARE BETTER FOR SAFETY, RIGHT?
lowest traffic enforcement priority
I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU’D ENFORCE THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PEACE OFFICER – YOU KNOW THEY LEARNED US IN COLLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF MICROMANAGING INDIVIDUAL POPO. SO YES, OF COURSE, THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF TRYING TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION _DOES_ “SEND A MESSAGE” TO THE SFPD AS A WHOLE, BUT I WOULDN’T GET ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT’S NOT REALLY GOING TO MATTER IRL
The ordinance only applies to people biking through stop signs where others, including people walking, are not present at the intersection up their arrival.
OUR SFPD ALREADY DOES STING OPERATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE A FAKE PEDESTRIAN WAIT FOR A CAR AND THEN START CROSSING AN INTERSECTION TO SEE IF THE DRIVER WILL STOP. IF THIS LEG PASSES AND IF THE SFPD DECIDES TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY THEN THE SFPD WOULD NEED TO GET SOMEBODY TO START WALKING ACROSS, IDK, LET’S SAY WALLER AND STEINER, AND THEN IT WOULD BE FISH IN A BARREL TIME ONCE AGAIN.
The Bike Yield Law would be the first San Francisco law to codify that people walking always have the right of way…
OH GEEZ, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE – PEDESTRIANS IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE’S NOTHING A BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS CAN DO ABOUT THAT. (SORRY, COLLEDGE, REMEMBER?)
This is about keeping our streets safe…
UH, NO IT’S NOT. IT’S ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO RIDE ON BIKES.
ensuring that SFPD officers are free to focus their attention on the traffic violations known to cause the majority of traffic deaths and severe injuries in our city.
ALL RIGHT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO “FOCUS ON THE FIVE” CVC VIOLATIONS THAT KILL PEOPLE IN SF, THREE OF THEM ONLY APPLY TO PEDESTRIANS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT “FAILURE TO YIELD” APPLIES TO A LOT OF DRIVERS WHEN THEY HAVE ACCIDENTS WITH PEDS, SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM ON THE TOP FIVE LIST FOR BAD PED BEHAVIOR LIKE JAYWALKING VIOLATIONS, SORRY. THE WAY FOR SIMPLE-MINDED PR TYPES TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE TOP FIVE “DRIVING” BEHAVIORS THAT KILL PEOPLE. SORRY.
[LET’S OMIT A FEW MORE GRAFS WORTH OF FOCUS ON THE FIVE MISSTATEMENTS TO SAVE TIME]
Even after the events along the Wiggle this summer, SFPD leadership continues…
I’LL TELL YOU, SOME MONTHS, LATELY, SFPD’S PARK STATION HANDS OUT A TOTAL OF ZERO (0) TICKETS TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE RIDERS FOR ENTIRE CALENDAR MONTH. THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING YOU WANTED WITH ZERO FEAR OF GETTING TICKETED. ONLY JUST SAYING. SO, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, OUR SFPD HAS ALREADY LOWERED “ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY” ON BIKE RIDERS.
I’LL TELL YOU, FOR VARIOUS REASONS SFBC-ENDORSED MAYOR ED LEE (LIKE LITERALLY – BACK WHEN IT COUNTED, THIS ORG’S BOARD ACTUALLY ENDORSED HIS ELECTION) DOESN’T WANT TO VETO THIS IDAHO STOP* LEGISLATION AND FORCING HIM TO DO SO JUST MIGHT PISS HIM OFF. (HE’S ALREADY A LAME DUCK, WITH HIS SECOND TERM NOT HAVING EVEN STARTED YET?) ONE WONDERS WHY OUR SFGOV-FINANCED SFBC IS PUSHING SO HARD ON THIS NON-SAFETY NON-ISSUE AFTER GETTING A FAIRLY EXPLICIT PROMISE OF A VETO.
*I GUESS THE NUANCES OF IDEOLOGICAL “FRAMING” ARE LOST ON ME – WE DON’T CALL THIS CALIFORNIA STOP LEGISLATION IDAHO STOP LEGISLATION ANYMORE? OK FINE.
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.
SURPRISE! Local Airbnb-Type Room Letter OPPOSES Prop F – Let’s Read “Emey” Meyerson’s Take on SF’s Airbnb MessThursday, September 24th, 2015
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.