Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’
Monday, February 22nd, 2010
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office is going to hold a “critical incident debrief” this morning down in Moss Beach – organizers of the 2010 Mavericks Surf Contest have been invited to discuss the 2009-2010 season. The public and the media are specifically not invited. Well, that doesn’t sit well with some down Coastsigh-eeeeede way. Oh well.
Here’s Critical Incident Exhibit A from the 2010 contest on February 13th, 2010, when an unlucky 13 got hammered by the waves:
via dwan.mac Click to expand
Now check out the new piece from Katie Worth, and then decide if you agree with this:
“Mavericks Surf Ventures passes the buck to San Mateo County, County Counsel Michael Murphy passes the buck to Harbor District Manager Peter Grenell who passes the buck to Vandenberg Air Force Base who promptly pass the buck to Army Corps of Engineers and then the buck circles back to Mavericks Surf Ventures.”
And leave us travel back to 2006, during another Mavericks contest with crowd injuries. That was the year that Diana Rivers of Redwood City filed a lawsuit after being injured when the crowd on the bluff apparently dislodged some rocks sending them on down towards the beach. Check out this quote in a bit about the 2006 rock slide victims:
“We feel for the Rivers family and it was a terrible accident. But we’ve always regarded safety issues with the utmost importance. All managers have taken and will be taking all measures necessary to provide a safe contest for surfers and visitors.”
IMO, the post-injury palliative cliches from 2006 don’t square with the post-injury palliative cliches from 2010.
IMO
To Be Continued…
Tags: $10, 09, 2009, 2010, 24, 4, 500 california, airship ventures, Alex Martins, ambulance, Andrew Marr, Anthony Tashnick, Army Corps of Engineers, at&t, bags, Bagworks, barracuda networks, Bart Willems, Bay Club, beam, beer, Ben Andrews, big, big wave, bones, bourbon, brewing, Brock Little, broken, bullitt, california, cam, cancelled, Capture Technologies, Carlos Burle, channel, Chris Bertish, CLIF BAR, Co., Colin Dwyer, competition, contest, county, County Counsel, Danilo Couto, Darryl Virostko, Dave Wassell, day, december, Doc’s ProPlugs, el nino, email, Ericsson, Evan Slater, February 22nd, feet, FLO TV, flooded, foot, fuel, FUEL TV, Garrett McNamara, giant, going rogue, Grant Baker, Grant Washburn, Greg Long, half moon bay, Harbor District, hospital, inc, injuries, Ion Banner, Jamie Mitchell, Jamie Sterling, Jane Sutherland, jeff clark, Jeff Clark Surfboards, jetty, jim, Jim Beam® Bourbon, Joao De Macedo, John Whittle, Josh Loya, Katherine Clark, Katherine Kelly Clark, Kealii Mamala, Kenny Collins, KRON, lawsuit, Lawton Smith, lawyers, leg, Manager, Mark Healey, Matt Ambrose, mavericks, mavericks surf contest, Mavericks Surf Shop, mavericks surfing contest, mavericky, Michael Murphy, Mike Gerhardt, Moose Guen, moss beach, MVision, myspace action sports, Nathan Fletcher, Nic Lamb, November, Oceano Hotel, park, Peter Grenell, Peter Mel, police, pov, princeton, princeton by the sea, real estate, realtor, Rich Gordon, Rickshaw, rogue, Russell Smith, Rusty Long, Ryan Seelbach, Sam’s Chowder House, San Francisco, San Mateo County, sarah palin, sea wall, season, seawall, Shane Desmond, Shawn Rhodes, Sierra Nevada, sneaker, Sony, spa, Sponsors, Stormsurf.com, substation, suf, Supervisor, surf, Surfer Magazine, surfing, text, thanksgiving, The Corporate Law Group, Tim West, tsunami, Tyler Fox, Tyler Smith, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Vertical Response, Video, wave, waves, whiskey, wipeout, wipeouts, youtube, Zach Wormhoudt
Posted in police, sports | No Comments »
Thursday, February 18th, 2010
Come on, you can do it. Take a gander at the dollar amount of the fine for abandoning your car on the streets of San Francisco. Let’s agree that dollar amount has two digits, but it is $75? $85? $88? $98? $80? $90?
This is no mere triviality - if you don’t get the proper notice then you might not have to pay the fine. As to whether San Francisco can legally tow away your ride with the way the local laws are written these days, well, that’s up in the air.
Can I explain why the owner was given only three days to move in light of the last year’s policy change allowing seven days? No, no I cannot. Click to expand.
Are San Francisco drivers gonna get a massive refund the way it just went down South San Francisco Way with the red light cameras? [KRON's Eve Taft- why isn't she in every romcom Hollywood can produce?] No se.
I’m the first one to rain on the parade of plaintiff’s attorneys with ridiculous notions of what constitutes a decent lawsuit, but this one, this one looks good.
The mise-en-scene atop Buena Vista Heights at the end of Masonic, where it’s so hilly you might need an exemption to drive your SUV around.
This aging, now-woodless Willys Jeep Wagon ur-SUV needs no exemption for excessive weight as it’s not close to the weight limit. (I ought to call it in to Pimp My Ride or something.) Wonder where it is now, wonder if it got towed. [Dude, where's my car? What happened to my woody?]
Anyway, we’ll just have to bide our time to see what occurs with this not-yet-certified class action lawsuit. Writer Joe Eskenazi will keep us posted, I’m sure.
To Be Continued…
Tags: 165005, 2009, 2010, abandoned, attorney, Buena Vista, bux 596, bux596, california, cars, channel 4, code, court, days, Deborah England, DPT, evelyn taft, filing, fine, former, heights, highway, j, jeep, John, KRON, laws, lawsuit, lawyer, license, masonic, moved, municipal, on-strret, plate, retired, riley, San Francisco, section, seven, sf weekly, sfdpt, sfgov, station wagon, streets, three, ticket, tow, tow away, towaway, towing, traffic, upper terrace, vehicle, wagon, willys, willys jeep, woody
Posted in cars, government | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
Our recent 2009-2010 Mavericks Surf Contest had the “Biggest Waves Ever Surfed In A Contest,” according to organizer Mavericks Surf Ventures. That’s what they’re claiming today, February 17th, 2010.
What do you think?
Click to expand:
Take a look for yourself.
“What the surfers are saying about it…
“It was an honor just to be here today and paddle out with these other guys. I flew 36 hours to be here, and this has been a dream come true.” – Chris Bertish, 09/10 Champion
———-
“The entire book of big wave surfing was re-written today.” – Greg Long
———-
“These were definitely the biggest waves I have ever paddled into.” – Shane Desmond
———-
“No excuses on a day like today, it was perfect. Whatever you wanted, you could take.” – Anthony Tashnick
———-
“It was undoubtedly the largest surf any paddle-in contest has ever seen.” – Dave Wassel
———-
“There is such a brotherhood in the lineup. These people are my family.” – Carlos Burle
———-
“Today took big-wave surfing to another notch.” – Gary Linden, Head Judge”
Of course the event was not without controversy. Perhaps MSV will address that at some point?
Regardless, It was an epic day.
Tags: $10, 09, 2009, 2010, 24, 4, airship ventures, Alex Martins, ambulance, Andrew Marr, Anthony Tashnick, at&t, bags, Bagworks, barracuda networks, Bart Willems, Bay Club, beam, beer, Ben Andrews, big, big wave, biggest, bones, bourbon, brewing, Brock Little, broken, bullitt, california, cam, cancelled, Capture Technologies, Carlos Burle, channel, Chris Bertish, CLIF BAR, Co., Colin Dwyer, competition, contest, county, Danilo Couto, Darryl Virostko, Dave Wassell, day, december, Doc’s ProPlugs, el nino, email, Ericsson, Evan Slater, feet, FLO TV, flooded, foot, fuel, FUEL TV, Garrett McNamara, giant, going rogue, Grant Baker, Grant Washburn, Greg Long, half moon bay, hospital, inc, injuries, Ion Banner, Jamie Mitchell, Jamie Sterling, Jane Sutherland, jeff clark, Jeff Clark Surfboards, jetty, jim, Jim Beam® Bourbon, Joao De Macedo, John Whittle, Josh Loya, Katherine Clark, Katherine Kelly Clark, Kealii Mamala, keir beadling, Kenny Collins, KRON, largest, lawsuit, Lawton Smith, lawyers, leg, Mark Healey, Matt Ambrose, mavericks, mavericks surf contest, Mavericks Surf Shop, mavericks surfing contest, mavericky, Mike Gerhardt, Moose Guen, MVision, myspace action sports, Nathan Fletcher, Nic Lamb, November, Oceano Hotel, paddle-in, paddled, park, Peter Mel, pov, princeton, princeton by the sea, real estate, realtor, Rickshaw, rogue, Russell Smith, Rusty Long, Ryan Seelbach, Sam’s Chowder House, San Francisco, sarah palin, sea wall, season, seawall, Shane Desmond, Shawn Rhodes, Sierra Nevada, sneaker, Sony, spa, Sponsors, Stormsurf.com, suf, surf, Surfer Magazine, surfing, text, thanksgiving, The Corporate Law Group, Tim West, tsunami, Tyler Fox, Tyler Smith, Vertical Response, Video, wave, waves, whiskey, wipeout, wipeouts, youtube, Zach Wormhoudt
Posted in sports | No Comments »
Monday, February 15th, 2010
First of all, let’s acknowledge the fine performances of all the competitors at our recent Mavericks Surf Contest 2009-2010 and especially that of Chris Bertish. As it turned out, his victory was overshadowed somewhat by discussion of the giant “rogue” sneaker waves* that injured a dozen or so spectators.
Mad props:
Having said that, let’s take a look at higher-def footage of the problem, ably shot by KRON VJ (video jockey) Haaziq Madyun. And here’s the reverse angle. And ganderize your eyes on this bird’s-eye view of the scene. If this were the Olympics, this would be the Olympic Village:
via dwan.mac click to expand
O.K. then. Comes now MSV’s Matriarch and area Realtor Katherine Clark to say:
And let’s hear from MSV CEO and former lawyer Kier Beidling:
“Bringing common sense is a must for anyone who shows up to watch from the beach.”
Fair enough, but isn’t this your temporary awards stand getting demolished by a tiny tsunami? Was “common sense” used to place it there?
And wasn’t this formerly-underwater piece of sound equipment placed exactly where you wanted it to be?
via dwan.mac
So please let’s go easy on any more nagging, patronizing Respect The Ocean talk coming from MSV, considering that MSV and its sponsors appeared to be just as unaware as some of the spectators.
In other words, if this unsecured P.A. loudspeaker ended up killing a fan, all the DANGER: HEAVY SURF signs in all Christendom wouldn’t save your hides from a dead-bang, seven-figure wrongful death lawsuit. (If you think you see a bunch of people people in the water around the speaker in the video, your guess is correct.)
So that is exactly “how on Earth we [MSV] could be responsible for people willfully going to the ocean.”
(Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly!)
In other words, from the 2/16/10 Santa Cruz Sentinel:
“The Maverick’s contest organizers probably realize that, in retrospect, it was unwise to put scaffolding and platforms in an exposed area and then allow spectators too close to the high tide line and a seawall along the Pillar Point coastline.”
You see? That’s why the party line of having MSV reps repeatedly bleating about how spectators just need some common sense doesn’t wash.
Now do I think that this fellow (people never seem to let go of their cameras or their beer, huh?) and others who got banged up by the surf on their own will win any possible lawsuits their shysters file? No.
via dwan.mac
But do I suppose that things could be handled differently by Mavericks Surf Ventures the next go around?
Yes.
(Contrary to what you might have heard, no post mortem meetings with county (or other) authoritahs are scheduled this week. But they’ll be coming soon.)
*Or surge or whatever. It’d be nice to have one descriptive term to cover all these different words…
Tags: $10, 09, 2009, 2010, 24, 4, airship ventures, Alex Martins, ambulance, Andrew Marr, Anthony Tashnick, at&t, bags, Bagworks, barracuda networks, Bart Willems, Bay Club, beam, beer, Ben Andrews, big, big wave, bones, bourbon, brewing, Brock Little, broken, bullitt, california, cam, cancelled, Capture Technologies, Carlos Burle, channel, Chris Bertish, CLIF BAR, Co., Colin Dwyer, competition, contest, county, Danilo Couto, Darryl Virostko, Dave Wassell, day, december, Doc’s ProPlugs, el nino, email, Ericsson, Evan Slater, feet, FLO TV, flooded, foot, fuel, FUEL TV, Garrett McNamara, giant, going rogue, Grant Baker, Grant Washburn, Greg Long, half moon bay, hospital, inc, injuries, Ion Banner, Jamie Mitchell, Jamie Sterling, Jane Sutherland, jeff clark, Jeff Clark Surfboards, jetty, jim, Jim Beam® Bourbon, Joao De Macedo, John Whittle, Josh Loya, Katherine Clark, Katherine Kelly Clark, Kealii Mamala, Kenny Collins, KRON, lawsuit, Lawton Smith, lawyers, leg, Mark Healey, Matt Ambrose, mavericks, mavericks surf contest, Mavericks Surf Shop, mavericks surfing contest, mavericky, Mike Gerhardt, Moose Guen, MVision, myspace action sports, Nathan Fletcher, Nic Lamb, November, Oceano Hotel, park, Peter Mel, pov, princeton, princeton by the sea, real estate, realtor, Rickshaw, rogue, Russell Smith, Rusty Long, Ryan Seelbach, Sam’s Chowder House, San Francisco, sarah palin, sea wall, season, seawall, Shane Desmond, Shawn Rhodes, Sierra Nevada, sneaker, Sony, spa, Sponsors, Stormsurf.com, suf, surf, Surfer Magazine, surfing, text, thanksgiving, The Corporate Law Group, Tim West, tsunami, Tyler Fox, Tyler Smith, Vertical Response, Video, wave, waves, whiskey, wipeout, wipeouts, youtube, Zach Wormhoudt
Posted in law, sports | 7 Comments »
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
Our three-term City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera has just released the news about how San Francisco recently won a little compensation to pay for all the extra work it’s doing to bring poorly-rated CitiApartments / Skyline Realty* to justice. Keep in mind that these penalties are not to punish (’cause that part will come later). No, no, this $50K is just to pay us back for the extra expenses we recently incurred due to relentless foot-dragging from the infamous Lembi Family et alia.
Poor Judge Munter had to spend half of the hearing deciding how to divvy up the penalties among all the interrelated defendants. Oh well.
Read all about it here, or below.
San Francisco’s Happy Warrior: His middle name is Jose, his son speaks Mandarin Chinese and he’s been working on gay legal issues for donkey’s years, at least since the 1990’s - do you think all that might help him if he decides to run for Mayor in 2011?
Pwned:
Herrera wins Court sanctions against CitiApartments for “obfuscation, delay.” Landlords’ defiance in the face of City Attorney’s ‘Herculean efforts’ triggers order to cooperate with discovery, pay $50K sanction
SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 2, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has won Court-ordered sanctions against a labyrinthine web of defendants involved in the operation of CitiApartments and Skyline Realty, the residential property management and investment behemoth Herrera first sued in 2006 for its stunning array of unlawful business practices. The order, which was signed by San Francisco Superior Court Judge John E. Munter last month and obtained this morning, compels each of the two-dozen corporate, trust and individual defendants currently named in the suit to respond to discovery requests in compliance with rules of civil procedure, and to pay sanctions to the City totaling $50,129.50, which reflects San Francisco’s fees and costs to pursue its motion to compel. Munter’s order requires all of the defendants to comply with the order by Feb. 19, 2010.
“CitiApartments deserved to be sanctioned for its continued defiance in this case, and I’m gratified to Judge Munter for calling these tactics exactly what they are — ‘obfuscation, delay and meritless objections,’” said Herrera. “I hope this sanction sends a message to Frank Lembi, Walter Lembi and all of the defendants responsible for CitiApartments’ lawless conduct that there is a limit to judicial patience, and they’ve reached it. This has been a long, difficult case to address what is perhaps the most egregious corruption of San Francisco’s residential housing market in modern history. We remain committed to pursuing this case aggressively, and I hope these sanctions are a tipping point that hastens our progress toward a just outcome.”
All the gritty nitty, after the jump.
*Let me tell you something here, whenever you’re paying your monthly rent to “LSL Property Holdings II DE LLC” or something, don’t be surprised when you have trouble getting your deposit back. This case is a morass. Anywho, your defendants:
“Skyline Realty Inc., Citiapartments Inc., Citi Funding Group Inc., Citisuites LLC, Lembi Group Inc., Lembi Group Partners LLC, Urban Property Management, Inc., Citiwide Rentals, Inc., Frank Lembi, Walter Lembi, David Raynal, Taylor Lembi, Frank Lembi As Trustee Of The Frank E. Lembi Survivor’s Trust Dated February 17, 1984, As Restated On June 2, 1999, Frank Lembi, As Trustee Of The Olga Lembi Residual Trust Created Under The Provisions Of Part Three Of The Lembi Family Trust Dated February 17, 1984, Walter Lembi, As Trustee Of The Walter And Linda Lembi Family Trust Dated June 30, 2004, David Raynal, As Trustee Of The David M. Raynal Revocable Trust Dated May 9, 2002, 737 Pine DE LLC, 737 Pine B10 DE LLC, 737 Pine B10 Mezz DE LLC, 1155 LLC, Gaylord Hotel LLC, LSL Properties B14 DE LLC, LSL Property Holdings II DE LLC, LSL Property Holdings II Mezz LLC, Nob Hill Tower DE LLC, Nob Hill Tower Mezz DE LLC, Prime Apartment Properties LLC, Prime Apartment Properties B10 DE LLC, Prime Apartment Properties B10 Mezz DE LLC, Trophy Properties B10 DE LLC, Trophy Properties IV DE LLC, Trophy Properties IV B8A LLC, Trophy Properties IV Mezz DE LLC, Trophy Properties V LLC, Trophy Properties V DE LLC, Trophy Properties VI LLC, Trophy Properties IV B8A Manager LLC.”
(more…)
Tags: 2009, 2010, 737 Pine, attorney, B14, B8A, citi apartments, Citi Funding Group, citiapartment, CitiApartments, Citisuites, Citiwide, City, city attorney, complaint, county, david, David M. Raynal, David Raynal, de, dennis herrera, dennis j herrera, Family, frank, Frank E. Lembi, Gaylord, hotel, II, inc, judge. munter, landlord, law, lawsuit, lawyer, lembi, LLC, LSL, management, Manager, Mezz, milln, Nob Hill Tower, Olga, partners, Pine B10, Prime Apartment, properties, Raynal, realty, Rentals, Restated, san francsico, skyline, Survivors, taylor, Trophy, Trophy Properties, trust, Trustee, Urban Property, walter
Posted in law | 2 Comments »
Thursday, January 14th, 2010
Here’s the thing – if you’re renting a place in San Francisco and you’re paying your monthly rent to your roommate, chances are that you could be considered a subtenant and your roomy the “Master Tenant.”* Particularly when the rent for your unit is way undermarket, due to rent control let’s say, you might end up spending more for your space than the Master pays for the Master’s part of the apartment.
So if you’re paying $900 a month for your half of a two-bedroom and your Master Tenant in the other room is only kicking in $100 (to pay $1000 total to the landlord for the whole place), then you can take steps to get some of that money back and lower your rent to boot.
“A subtenant who believes he or she is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a Tenant Petition against the master tenant on that basis. If the subtenant prevails, the Administrative Law Judge will adjust the rent to the proportional share and order the master tenant to refund any rent overpayments.”
Is this a perfect system? No, but it’s what you end up with when your city has rent control.
Your San Francisco Rent Board just dealt with a subtenant/Master Tenant proportionality case. The names of the people involved aren’t important, but the situation is noteworthy, IMO. Let’s check it out.
Now, if you don’t like how the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dealt with your case with your roomie, you can appeal to the board. As here, from the meeting of August 4, 2009:
“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3) was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. On appeal, the Master Tenant alleges that he was unaware of the requirement that the amount of rent paid must be proportional; that the decision will present him with a financial hardship; and that the subtenant is going to be evicted due to his uncooperative behavior.
MSC: To deny the appeal on substantive grounds but remand the case for a hearing on the Master Tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Crow: 5-0)”
See? The sub won big-time, to the tune of five figures because the rent split determined by the Master Tenant wasn’t proportional according to a judge and the full board.
But the master came back to say the ruling would be a hardship for him. From the meeting of November 17, 2009:
“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. The Master Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted and remanded for hearing. In the remand decision, the ALJ finds sufficient hardship to order a repayment plan in the amount of $150.00 per month. The Master Tenant again appeals, claiming that even the reduced amount will cause him severe hardship and possibly result in both tenants’ eviction from the premises.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosbrucker/Gruber: 5-0)”
Is this what you might call a Phyric victory? Maybe. It’s probably too early to tell. Oh well.
Check the San Francisco Rent Board website for deets on the rules, or see you after the jump.
*The County of Los Angeles doesn’t want to buy equipment that has the term “master” written anywhere on it, like on a hard drive, a DVD burner or a brake cylinder. But in San Francisco, we freely label people “Master Tenants.” It’s our thing.
(more…)
Tags: +3, 1115 taylor, 1115 Taylor #4, 6.15 C (3), 615, 615c, AL090162, apartment, c, control, eviction, landlord, law, laws, lawsuit, lease, master, month, proportional, rent, rent board, rent control, room mate, roomie, roommate, rules, San Francisco, section, split, sub, subtenancy, subtenant, suit, tenancy, tenant, ß6.15C(3)
Posted in housing | 1 Comment »
Monday, January 11th, 2010
How much would you expect from Amtrak if you paid $145 to board the California Zephyr in Emeryville, CA on January 3rd, 2010 with the expectation of getting to Chicago in a day-and-a-half? Well, what if your fellow passengers called this ride the “Train From Hell” or something?
How did it get that name? Well, the train arrived in Illinois almost a day late a few days back due to it hitting a truck abandoned on the tracks(!) and encountering snowdrifts higher than an elephant’s eye in Nebraska and other typical travel issues.
The number of deaths and injuries continues to be reported as zero. So how does that earn this particular Zephyr the sobriquet “Train From Hell” or whatever?
Amtrak’s CZ on a happier day:
via Patrick Rasenberg
Perhaps Amtrak’s riders took a lesson from the whiny passengers of Flight 1549, famously piloted by CoCo County’s Captain “Sully” Sullenberger? Those particular airline passengers are getting at least $15k-$20k, plus free traumatic stress counseling sessions, plus a refund of their ticket cost, plus upgrades to first class on other flights for the past year, etc., and yet some of them are still whining.
Sometimes when you travel, Things Happen.* Please make a note of this.
Lower your expectations and you’ll never be disappointed…
*People used to die on jetliners – not Beechcrafts nor Cessnas oh no, we’re talking about your Boeings, Airbuses, Lockheeds, McDonnell Douglasseses – people would board and then die, it happened all the time. But how many passengers have died due to jetliner crashes in America since 2001 (which was a bad year, of course)? That’s a Big Fat Zero.
So count your blessings the next time a flock of birds or a pickup or a snowstorm or an Act of God or an Act of Gaia wettens your iPod and/or delays your Journey Through Life.
Tags: 1549, a.i.g., aig, airways, American International Group, amtrak, attorneys, ca, california, chicago, cold, counseling, Damien, delay, drifts, emeryville, flight, food, hell, hotel, iowa, Kreindler, Kreindler & Kreindler, lawsuit, lawyers, LLP, nebraska, passengers, pickup, settlement, snow, son, state, Tess Sosa, therapy, TRACKS, train from hell, truck, U.S., zephyr
Posted in airlines, transit | No Comments »
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Work with me here – mobile billboards, you know, those trucks that are basically giant rectangular ads, are banned in San Francisco under Section 680 of the Police Code and yet you can see them all over town.
What gives?
Click to expand:
Maybe San Francisco has given up enforcing this regulation? Let’s see what the New York Times had to say back ten years ago:
“Similar disputes are occurring in Boston and in San Francisco, which suspended enforcement of its ban on mobile billboards in June because of a lawsuit, said Nathan Ballard, a deputy city attorney there. But San Francisco recently revised its law to explain the rationale behind it (to cut traffic congestion, truck emissions and assaults on citizens’ aesthetic sensibilities). Unless the billboard company succeeds in persuading a judge to issue a preliminary injunction by Dec. 1, he said, San Francisco will resume enforcing its billboard ban.”
(Nate Ballard was a San Francisco deputy city attorney? Did not know that.) Anywho, it could be that constitutional concerns prevent San Francisco from doing anything about mobile billboards.
Oh well.
That’s just my guess – maybe you can find a loophole here. Enjoy:
SEC. 680. ADVERTISING VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON CITY STREETS.
(a) Findings and Purpose. The inherent primary purpose of commercial advertising vehicles is to display commercial advertising on public streets. By their nature, commercial advertising vehicles are intended to distract, and aim to capture and hold the attention of, members of the public on or adjoining public streets, including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. Moreover, such vehicles display commercial advertising from a mobile platform, including while the vehicle is moving within the flow of traffic, potentially stopping, starting, or turning abruptly, accentuating the inherent tendency of such advertising to seize attention and to distract. Additionally, the use of motor vehicles to display commercial advertising creates exhaust emissions. For these reasons, the Board of Supervisors finds that commercial advertising vehicles create aesthetic blight and visual clutter and create potential and actual traffic and health and safety hazards. The purposes of this section are (1) to promote the public health, safety and welfare of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others using the City’s public streets and roadways and adjoining areas, by eliminating the aesthetic blight and visual clutter and traffic and safety hazards caused by the operation of commercial advertising vehicles on the City’s streets; (2) to reduce congestion on the City’s streets; (3) to reduce exhaust emissions, by eliminating as an emissions source a type of commercial advertising display whose use may require continuous or extensive operation of motor vehicle engines; (4) to protect public investment in and the character and dignity of the City’s streets; and (5) to aid in the attraction of tourists and other visitors who are so important to the economy of the City. This section is not intended to regulate any non-commercial speech, including non-commercial advertising or signage.
(b) Prohibition. No person may operate any commercial advertising vehicle in or on any public street in the City and County of San Francisco.
(c) Definitions. As used in this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) “City” means the City and County of San Francisco.
(2) “Commercial advertising vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is carrying, towing, or otherwise displaying any commercial advertising sign, unless the vehicle is used primarily to transport passengers or goods.
(3) “Commercial advertising sign” means a banner, placard, poster, card, picture, sign or display that does no more than propose a commercial transaction.
(d) Enforcement.
(1) The Police Department shall issue a written notice of violation concerning, and requiring the immediate correction of, any violation of this Section to the driver of any commercial advertising vehicle that is being driven or used in violation of this Section, as well as to the owner or other person responsible for the vehicle, if the identity of that owner or other person is known or readily ascertainable. If issued to the driver of a commercial advertising vehicle, the notice shall require the driver to inform the owner or other person responsible for the operation of the commercial advertising vehicle of the notice and of the violation to which it relates. Notice to the driver of a commercial advertising vehicle under this subsection shall be deemed notice to the owner or other person responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
(2) The City Attorney is authorized to enforce this Section by appropriate civil action. No such action shall be commenced against any person unless and until the Police Department has issued a notice of violation requiring correction to that person, as specified above, and that person has failed to comply with this Section and with that notice. In any civil action brought to enforce this Section, the City Attorney may pursue the remedies set forth in this Section for the violation of this Section that is subject of the notice, as well as for any subsequent violations of this Section that have occurred within one year after the issuance of the notice without regard to whether the Police Department issued subsequent notices concerning those subsequent violations.
(3) Violation of this Section shall constitute grounds for injunctive relief. In addition, any person who violates or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Section shall be liable for a civil penalty which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the People of the City and County of San Francisco in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each separate display of commercial advertising prohibited by this Section, and each day that a violation of this Section is committed or permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate violation. The amount of such civil penalty shall be $250 for the first violation, $350 for the second violation, and $500 for each subsequent violation of this Section. Any penalty assessed and recovered in an action brought pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid to the Treasurer of the City and County of San Francisco. The person against whom a penalty is assessed, or against whom an injunction is obtained, also shall be liable for the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City and County of San Francisco in bringing any civil action to enforce the provisions of this Section.
(4) Violation of this Section shall not constitute a criminal offense.
(5) In any action brought to enforce this Section, the City Attorney may also seek any remedies available under state or federal law.
(Added by Ord. 70-92, App. 3/4/92; amended by Ord. 234-00, File No. 001261, App. 10/13/00)
Tags: 1st amendment, 680, advertising, ban, billboard, code, constitutional, do it outdoors, doitoutdoors, drive, illegal, lawsuit, market, mobile, mobile billboards, parking, peoplesoft, police, San Francisco, sec, section, street, truck
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Monday, December 21st, 2009
San Francisco’s recent audit of office materials supplier Office Depot has prompted City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera to take action today. See the deets below and the .pdf after the jump.
And follow all the action on the Twitter.
San Francisco’s Happy Warrior certainly is unhappy with the Office Depot today.
Herrera Issues Demand Letter to Office Depot in Wake of S.F. Controller’s Audit
City Attorney prepared to ‘vigorously pursue’ $5.75 million in overcharges plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees
City Attorney Dennis Herrera has issued a demand letter to Office Depot expressing his intention to “vigorously pursue” at least $5.75 million in overcharges together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs incurred by the City in conducting the audit. The demand letter follows the release of an exhaustive audit report by the Office of City Controller Ben Rosenfield. The Controller’s 96-page audit concluded that, among other overcharges, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based office products supplier failed to provide the City with contractually mandated discounts for items covered by the 5-year contract, which was valued at some $18 million.
Wrote Herrera: “Any resolution of this matter must include compensation to the City for the costs of the audit, and for attorney’s fees, as well as full reimbursement for price overcharges, with interest…If the City is unable to obtain a satisfactory informal resolution of this matter, I will not hesitate to pursue the matter in court. Further, if court action becomes necessary, rest assured that my office will vigorously pursue the City’s claims to the fullest, including seeking civil penalties and debarment, if appropriate.”
(more…)
Tags: 2005, 2009, 2010, attorney, audit, Ben Rosenfield, City, city attorney, City Controller, complaint, contract, Contract Administration, county, dennis herrera, dennis j herrera, dollars, General Counsel, law, lawsuit, lawyer, millions, milln, office, office depot, overcharge, overcharging, san francsico, staples, Stephen Calkins, supplies
Posted in law | No Comments »
