Posts Tagged ‘law’

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

Just posted.

“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.

…London Breed…

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…

 

A Few Points About the Proposed “Idaho Stop” “Bike Yield Law” Before Our Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, December 1st, 2015

SF’S BIKE YIELD LAW BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ COMMITTEE BY CHRIS CASSIDY ON NOVEMBER 30, 2015

…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.

ONE WONDERS…

*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.

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.

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.

Here’s What It Looks Like When the SFPD Hands Out a Bunch of Sit/Lie-Type Tickets in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle

Tuesday, April 28th, 2015

I suppose these people were in sleeping bags like at 11:00 AM or so and that attracted some attention from the SFPD?

Does our newish sit-lie law even apply to this location at this time of day? IDK.

But once you start accumulating these kinds of nuisance citations, you might start thinking about moving on down the road to a new town…

7J7C5915 copy

A sleepy napper in the lower right corner:

7J7C5920 copy

A U-turn:

7J7C5921 copy

And cold busted – sign here please, Ma’am:

7J7C5927 copy

On It Goes in the 94117

The Best Stunt Uber Has Ever Pulled: Basically Giving Away Nutcase Bike Helmets in Philly Today

Thursday, April 23rd, 2015

It seems odd how hostile our local San Francisco and state California Bike Coalitions are in regards to head buckets. The idea of requiring the use of helmets is a real Membership splitter, something like 50-50, so it’s best not to spoken of, one supposes.

OTOH, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and Uber are offering up $60-something bike helmets for ten dollars today, instant delivery included:

Capturefsfsggg copy

I think I got me a first-generation Nutcase, the kind will the less-sophisticated latch. I think I’d install the Uber app to get in on this deal, were it offered in Frisco…

Anyway, pretty good, Uber!

“RIDE SAFELY: GET A BIKE HELMET ON DEMAND

APRIL 21, 2015 POSTED BY PHILLY
Uber is committed to connecting Philadelphia with safe, reliable, and affordable transportation options. And with this week’s launch of Indego, Philly’s new bike share program, we’re extending that commitment to bicycle safety.

Request HELMET in the Uber app to receive a Nutcase Metroride commuter helmet on demand in exchange for a $10 donation, which will go to the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, a champion of Indego.
HOW IT WORKS

On April 23 at 11am, open the app and request HELMET
A driver-partner will arrive in minutes with your Nutcase Metroride commuter helmet*
You will be charged a $10 donation per helmet, which Uber will match and donate to the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia
Limit of two helmets per request. Available while supplies last or 4pm, whichever comes first
The Metroride adjustable helmet fits most S/M and M/L head sizes (21 5/8″ – 22 3/4″ or 55 – 59cm)—it may not fit heads outside of this size range
The HELMET option will be available in the Philadelphia area, from 63rd Street to the Delaware River from West to East, and Lehigh Avenue to Pattison Avenue from North to South.

Interested in donating more than $10? Visit the Bicycle Coalition’s website.
ABOUT THE METRORIDE HELMET & NUTCASE
Style meets safety with “The Original” Metroride commuter helmet from Nutcase. Designed with commuting in mind, the Metroride features a lightweight frame, ventilation for a cooler ride, and a removable visor for sun and rain protection. The Metroride is one size fist most (S/M and M/L; 21 5/8″ — 22 3/4″ or 55 — 59cm) and comes with an adjustable spin dial, as well as foam padding for a customized fit. The Metroride is certified CPSC/CE/ASNZS for bicycle riding.

Portland-based Nutcase has been designing innovative and stylish bike, skate, snow, water, and motorcycle helmets for the past seven years.

Lawyer’s Corner: RPD Says Slacklines and Hammocks Violate the Park Code, But Do They Really?

Friday, April 10th, 2015

Here you go, this was just the other day in GGP:

7J7C5075 copy

RPD calls this kind of thing “affixing items to trees” on their newish signs, but I don’t see where this language comes from, you know, in the SF Park Code.

So yeah, if you cut down a big tree to have some fun with the stump, I can see how that’d be citeable.

But I don’t see how slacklining or romantic hammocking is an automatic violation of the SF Park Code.

So, I’m saying the newish signs from RPD are incorrect.

So I’m saying that the RPD should go to the BOS to fix this sitch,

JMO

UC Hastings Dean Frank Wu Has Become the J. Peterman of SF – Here’s His Pre-Apology for Snubbing You at the Gym

Monday, August 11th, 2014

I’ll tell you, I never before have encountered an entity the likes of UC Hastings Dean Frank Wu.

So that’s the baseline, but now he’s just kicked things up a notch (BAM!) with:

Why I Might Not Say Hello to You at the Gym

And here’s one reaction from the peanut gallery:

The Tens @thetens · Just RTing this to remember the ridiculousness RT @uchastingslaw Why I Might Not Say Hello to You @ the Gym @FrankHWuhttp://ow.ly/3o8yn3 

Feel free to read Dean Wu’s bits from LinkedIn and the HuffPo, linked below.

Hey, what about this:

Wu’s a talker more than a listener and his in-your-face style is not always welcome.

Yeah, I hear you, Daily Recorder.

All right, enjoy. I can’t say I’ve read all these bits linked below, but, at the very least,  some of the titles are amusing.

Actually, I’m surprised he hasn’t already been profiled by our local MSM, you know, with photos of him riding to school through the TL on one of his motorcycles, that kind of thing. There’s a lot of material to work from, what with his relentless columns with writings on all topics ala Larry King or, indeed, Hastings alum and Mayor of San Francisco for the past two decades Willie Brown.

To repeat, I never before have encountered an entity the likes of UC Hastings Dean Frank Wu.

Take Charge — Nobody Else Is Going To