Posts Tagged ‘laws’

A Most Unwelcome Headline for SF’s Giant Law School: UC “Hastings Slips Again in U.S. News List”

Tuesday, March 10th, 2015

In-house legal reporter for The Recorder David Ruiz covers all the bases here:

Hastings Slips Again in U.S. News List

1. This is excellent coverage of what I used to consider an under-covered issue, with no paywall to boot. So huzzah for that.

2. The headline is a bit dramatic, but it gets to the heart of the matter. I already knew the new ranking number of 59*, but if I hadn’t, well that hed would have made me think the fall was to 80-something or, Heaven forfend, “Third Tier,” up (or down?) in Triple-Digit Country.

3. I”m not sure if this story is worthy of a general-interest publication, such as the now-frivolous(?) SFGate or the now-paywalled(?)-but-nevertheless-serious SF Chronicle. (Oh, but here’s a person who would be good for both: 3L student and Oak-Town resident Hali Ford on Survivor. That one would write itself. Yowzer.)

4. California law schools don’t appear to be the focus this year, since the punishment meted out by the Great Recession isn’t hitting all the Cali schools in one fell swoop the way it was doing the past few years.

5. I’m thinking maybe this post should have just been a Tweet, but it’s too late now, as I’m done already. Sorry for the nothingburger post. Anyway, here’s what the Tweet would have been, and I’ll repeat it for emphasis: This is excellent coverage of what I used to consider an under-covered issue, with no paywall to boot. So huzzah for that.

*US News appears to simply love it when schools tie in the rankings, so that’s why you’ll see 12 schools in the Top Ten and seven schools tied for 48th place, that kind of thing. It’s a kind of grade inflation for universities. Speaking of which, there’s a lot of pressure on school employees to game the numbers specifically for the US News rankings, so sometimes people get a bit … creative, oh well.

Remembering 2012, When the SFPD Picked Up Enforcing Traffic Laws on Market Street, One Bike Rider at a Time

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015

It looked like this:

In the 80’s, 90’s, and early aughts, bikes were practically invisible to cops on Market Street, except for the occasional* Commute Clot / Critical Mass event. But these days, the SFPD seems to consider enforcing traffic laws on bike riders a higher priority,** for whatever reason.

Anyway, back in the day, you’d just have to sit and wait for your ticket to get written up, but nowadays you can play Tetris on your iPhone to make the minutes fly by, as you can see.

Cops generally prefer to give tickets to car drivers for various reasons. One of them is that the protest rate is many many times greater from cyclists than drivers. So the theory that this recent push to enforce traffic laws on bike riders came from the top down sounds right to me.

*And especially except that time in ’97, when Mayor Willie Brown decided to “do something” about CM. A hundred-something people got ticketed / detained and had their bikes impounded, most of them getting penned in at Sacramento Montgomery for running a red light.

**Think it was in 2012 or 2013 that I got detained by two Crown-Vic driving SFPD on Market near 6th. Pretty sure it was just after the #5 Fulton line was rerouted to take McAllister almost all the way to Market, and I’d noticed two #5’s jammed up in front of the Hibernia Bank building along with three marked and two unmarked Crown Victorias within a block or so.  I was thinking, well, this certainly is unusual so it looks like the cops are dealing with something around 7th and Market, maybe involving the buses, so I’ll just keep on moving inbound by taking McAllister all the way to Market and then I’ll cross over Market after the SFPD radio car goes off east on Market. Except the car slowed down waiting for me to cross over to the right side of Market. I couldn’t understand how I was getting all this attention from the SFPD. Anyway, flashing lights, a request from a rookie for my “license and registration” (I looked at his partner, who sort of chuckled – I don’t think the rookie had ever pulled over a bike rider before),  a quick warrant check for me, an admonishment to use the correct side of the road, and I then I was off again. And all the while, some photographer guy recognized me and started taking pictures from a traffic island. (He never sent them to me, oh well.) I’ll tell you, I moved to the Tenderloin back in the 1980’s and I’d been California stopping at stop signs and red lights around and on Market for more than two decades before I got any kind of attention from the SFPD. And I thought, oh, things are different now… 

The Devil Dogs of Corona Heights: A Standard Poodle

Friday, January 9th, 2015

Yowzer.

Corona Heights dogs be OOC, out-of-control, and I’m not even talking about all the poop being left around by thoughtless owners / guardians.

7J7C1843 copy

The owner of this pooch is probably oblivious, oh well. But I’ll tell you, at least one person in this photo was temporarily horrified by the poodle. Man, she looked pissed. And for good reason.

If this is the way Corona Heights Park is operating, then something is wrong with Corona Heights Park.

Or, in other words:

“The dog people own this park; it’s not for kids or anyone else who doesn’t enjoy seeing leash laws broken, dog piss everywhere, and taking the chance that one might bite your kid.”

“Taking the Lane,” Frisco-Style – Is This Skateboarder Operating Legally? Who Knows

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014

IDK. I’d need somebody to spell out all the rules.

Here’s something.

7J7C0918 copy

Anyway, this skateboarder was prolly a tad too aggressive to be in compliance with Frisco’s rules, whatever they are…

The Metal Detectors of Stanyan Street

Monday, November 24th, 2014

I’ve seen this hobby in Hawaii and Fun Diego, but never in the 415 / 628 / 650, never in Frisco

7J7C9875 copy

Uh Oh: The “Parking Angels” App is Coming – Something Like This Could Cost the Corrupt SFMTA MUNI DPT a Lot of Money

Monday, August 4th, 2014

What’s this, a way for people to band together against our corrupt SFMTA?

You tell me, Gentle Reader

Hey, what would you do if you knew you were spilling tens of thousands of gallons of petroleum into our San Francisco Bay?

Our SFMTA had a question like this. It failed. Oh well. See below.

Guess what, our SFMTA now wants you to vote yourself a rent increase in order to give it more money. You’ll have your chance to vote on it November 4th, 2014.

Ah memories:

SAN FRANCISCO (November 2, 2009) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking action against the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency following federal violations of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

On the page:

Overview and Location of Facilities

The City and County of San Francisco is a municipality organized under the laws of California that operates the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). The SFMTA operates a diverse fleet of trolley cars, street cars, light rail, alternative fuel vehicles and 495 diesel buses that are serviced and re-fueled at facilities owned and operated by the SFMTA. The SFPUC provides water, wastewater and municipal power services.

Between November and December 2005, approximately 940 barrels (39,488 gallons) of red dye diesel fuel were discharged from one of the Municipality’s underground storage tanks (USTs) at the John M. Woods Motor Coach Facility (Woods Motor Coach Facility). The diesel spread through a piping system into a storm drain, through wastewater collection piping to a pump station, into Islais Creek and eventually San Francisco Bay.

The discharge was caused by a ruptured hose. The leak continued for several days, as sensors, flashers and alarm reports and other leak indicators were ignored. This failure by SFMTA to comply with federal requirements for the management of USTs resulted in the release of diesel fuel and Clean Water Act discharge and pretreatment violations.

After this spill, EPA conducted inspections at several of SFMTA’s facilities and identified violations of EPA’s spill prevention regulations at three of them: Flynn, Kirkland, and Marin.

The five facilities covered by this settlement are in the City and County of San Francisco:

  • Woods Motor Coach Facility – 1095 Indiana Street
  • Flynn Motor Coach Facility – 15th and Harrison Street
  • Kirkland Motor Coach Facility – 151 Beach Street
  • Marin Fuel Stand – 1399 Main Street
  • Southeast Water Collection System Pump Station”

Here’s How San Mateo Handles Day Laborers: Huge Signs Telling You Where To Go To Find Them

Tuesday, June 10th, 2014

Thusly, just off the 101

Click to expand

This place has been around for a long time.

Of course, some cry foul:

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the arm of the federal government in charge of enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, said her office is focused on fighting terrorism, but still wants employers to know they are violating laws and subject to sanctions if they hire people who are not authorized to work in the country — including the workers from the San Mateo center. “That said, our primary concerns now are fighting human smuggling, counterfeit employment documentation and helping ensure domestic security,” Kice said.

The Overwhelmed Dog Walkers of Golden Gate Park – Sometimes Five Pooches are Too Many

Monday, December 9th, 2013

As here:

Click to expand

ABERCROMBIE HOT, ABERCROMBIE NOT – Raging at the Madding Crowd Near 5th and Market – Intervention a Kindness?

Tuesday, June 11th, 2013

Yes, official intervention would be kindness to this raging woman, who was attracting stares from hundreds of tourists near Union Square the other day.

Click to expand

But then she’d only get sprung with a quickness.

So what’s the problem?

Is it our local, state and national laws?

Or the way we enforce them?

Both?

Oh well

Racist San Francisco Pizza Delivery Map Evolution – Western Addition, Twitterloin, and Potrero are No Go – Yet It’s Legal

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

[GRUB STREET SF has an explanation from the owner. Plus there’s good news for Dogpatch! Sort of. Before 7:30 PM, anyway.]

Remember back in the day, back  more than a half-decade when a joint like Amici’s East Coast Pizzeria could get away with a delivery map like this?

Check it, the Western A and the Potrero Hill PJs were carved out of the delivery areas and the gritty “Uptown” Tenderloin / Twitterloin / 6th Street / Flank area only enjoyed daytime delivery, thusly:

And then came this map, which is a little less racist:

And oh wait, this is the current map still.

(At least the southern part of Potrero Hill isn’t carved out so blatantly these days.)

One wonders what sassy District Five Supervisor London Breed or District Six Supervisor Jane I mean, I’m just saying Kim or feisty District Ten Supervisor Malia Cohen would think about these maps.

This pizza delivery driver safety issue was the talk of the town over at Eater SF and kissing cousin Curbed SF a half-decade back. Let’s review.

Taxi drivers can’t legally refuse to take you to certain areas of San Francisco due to their concerns over personal safety. Non, non, non. That’s a crime called failure to convey that can land a cabbie in the hoosegow. Why are pizza drivers treated differently?

Because in 1996, Supervisor Willie Kennedy gave us a law, (one that became national news), but then it got watered down such that a “reasonable good faith belief” that a driver would be in danger in a particular nabe is now enough to allow the brazen publication of redlined pizza maps.

And check it, flower and newspaper delivery people are off the hook as well.

Note also that there doesn’t seem to be any designated punishment for a violation anyway. Oh well.

To review, cabbies are on the hook, delivery people not.

NB: Dominoes appears to use a different map, or maybe none at all, as it seems they’ll delivery just about anywhere in our seven square.

The More You Know…

SEC. 3305.1. HOME DELIVERY SERVICES.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to any residential address within the City and County of San Francisco falling within that person’s or business entity’s normal service range. A person or business entity may not set its normal service range to exclude a neighborhood or location based upon the race, color, ancestry, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, weight or height, of the residents of that neighborhood or location. Where a person or business entity regularly advertises home delivery services to the entire City and County, that person or business entity’s “normal service range” shall be defined by the geographic boundaries of the City and County.

(b) For purposes of this Section, “home delivery services” shall mean the delivery of merchandise to residential addresses, when such services are regularly advertised or provided by any person or business entity.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, it shall not be unlawful for a person or business entity to refuse to provide home delivery services to a residential address if (i) the occupants at that address have previously refused to pay in full for services provided to them by that person or business entity; or (ii) such refusal is necessary for the employer to comply with any applicable State or federal occupational safety and health requirements or existing union contract; or (iii) the person or business entity has a reasonable good faith belief that providing delivery services to that address would expose delivery personnel to an unreasonable risk of harm.

(Added by Ord. 217-96, App. 5/30/96; amended by Ord. 295-96, App. 7/17/96; Ord. 222-02, File No. 021462, App. 11/15/2002)