Posts Tagged ‘legal’

The Gasoline-Powered Bicycles of Golden Gate Park – A Rare Sighting – Putt, Putt, Putt, Putt…

Friday, April 7th, 2017

Not street legal and not bicycle path legal either, oh well:

7J7C9534 copy

Parking in the Driveway, Frisco-Style

Friday, February 17th, 2017

20170205_130519 copy

How is This Smart Phone Windshield Mounting Even Remotely Acceptable?

Friday, December 23rd, 2016

I don’t get it, man:

7j7c5122-copy

Parking on the Lawn, Frisco-Style

Monday, October 31st, 2016

7j7c3371-copy

Eight is Enough: Area Man Pushes the Limits of Dog-Walking in the Presidio

Monday, April 18th, 2016

But if he has his dog walking license (and all these Frisco pooches are registered, which is unlikely but whatever), then this spectacle is Nice And Legal, AFAIK.

7J7C4801 copy

(As you can see, at least one tourist at the Broadway Gate thought this scene was noteworthy enough.)

Have fun, pooches!

This Rolling Billboard-on-Wheels Truck is Unstoppable – SFGov is Powerless to Regulate – Guess Which Amendment Protects Them

Friday, March 25th, 2016

That’s right, our First Amendment prevents local regulation, pretty much.

Read it and weep, Frisco!

7J7C2613 copy

So there’s nothing to stop the crush of these orange Boost ads from circling and circling during rush hour.

Oh well

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…

 

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.

The Drone Bros of Emerald Bay State Park go MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM…

Monday, September 21st, 2015

Ah let’s head back to nature. Do you see – it’s hard to spot:

7J7C5780 copy

This is better:

7J7C5763 copy

Here we go, at the bottom – there’s a clear shot:

7J7C5779 copy

And then, back to its master:

7J7C5788 copy

Are drones legal in California State Parks like 4.5 starred Emerald Bay?

Sure, for now.

That’s good, ’cause people be flying drones all over the place these days. (You’ll hear them before you see them, most likely. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM…)

Slacklining Hippies Use Bud Light Suitcase Cardboard to Protect Tree in Golden Gate Park

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015

Sort of.

The cardboard looks a little low to me:

7J7C9242 copy
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? IDK

Is this a legal thing or an illegal thing? IDK.

Le mise-en-scene:

7J7C9244 copy

7J7C9240 copy

Barely Legal: Are These Freeway-Legal Vespas in the Slow Lane of the Bay Bridge or are they Merely “Motorized Bicycles?”

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

I’m thinking that these are Vespas, or similar, with engines displacing 150 cc’s, or more, so that would make them legal (barely) on CA freeways:

7J7C8538 copy

Even so, they were struggling going uphill, it looked like.

May all your lives be semi-charmed, at the very least…