It’s hiding in plain sight!
Posts Tagged ‘lombard’
LINOLEUM LARRY’S? This Place on Lombard Looks Like an FBI Front, or Like “Best Quality Vacuum Repair” on Breaking BadWednesday, December 31st, 2014
Check the Yelp.
Wealthy Whiny White People Have Managed to Partially Shut Down Part of Lombard – Mark Farrell’s F-U to Tourists – One Weird TrickTuesday, May 20th, 2014
This trial of shutting down Lombard Street to tourists looks unstoppable now.
Some rich property owners in Russian Hill have had their aesthetic sensibilities offended by those, those people known as tourists. So these richers want to gate off Lombard Street and make part of it a private.
Except they don’t want to pay for making it a private road. Oh. And the purpose of roads in California is so that people can use them – it’s like burned into the vehicle code or someplace.
So the next best thing for these white millionaires is this trial to cut down on tourism. And the way to get that is to turn an aesthetic issue into a safety issue.
For example here’s how this works when rich white property owners decide they don’t want telephone poles and MUNI wires lousing up their enclaves. Here we go, from “Report of Meeting with Supervisors Farrell and Chiu”
“Supervisor Farrell is also looking for ways to pitch it beyond aesthetics.”
So then the people who don’t want to see telephone poles and MUNI poles starting talking up the “safety issue.”
You see, ’cause if you tell the truth about your motives, then you give the rabble, the masses, the Proles a chance to undo your self-described “improvements.”
OTOH, if you say your concerns are about safety, then your biases will be given more deference if and when it comes time for higher authorities to give a stamp of approval. Of course, sometimes this safety argument works, sometimes it doesn’t:
1880: “There are too many Chinese working in San Francisco” – let’s do something about it.
2014: “There are too many Chinese* visiting Hyde and Lombard” – let’s do something about it.
One problem with district Supervisor elections is that a handful of property owners can have an outsized influence over matters that should be decided on a citywide basis. If tourists, all those millions past, present and future, threw house parties for Mark Farrell to raise money in, then maybe he’d consider what they want.
But they don’t, so he doesn’t.
*And Euros and upper-middle-class-and-lower domestic tourists as well, but just look at the worst case scenario photo here.
Longtime East Bay Resident and SFGate Advocacy Journalist CW Nevius ID’s Cable Car as a “Hyde Street Trolly”Monday, January 6th, 2014
(You can take the boy out of the East Bay (and plop him in a SoMA condo), but you can’t take the East Bay out of the boy.)
Gentle Reader, consider CW Nevius and his most recent bit advocating for the oppressed white millionaire homeowners of Russian Hill – this time he’s acting at the behest of Supervisor Mark Farrell (R., District 2)
Click to expand
Now I think the word you’re looking for, CW Nevius, is trolley with an “e,” as in potatoe.
Except it aint a trolley, it’s a cable car. To wit:
“…electric tram (streetcar), sometimes confused with a cable car.”
And the vehicle code section cited here is wrong:
“The problem, says Deputy City Attorney Buck Delventhal, is California Vehicle Code 21106.1…”
CW Nevius, if you’re going to take the trouble to cite a law, why not take the time to do it the right way? Do you feel overworked, CW? You shouldn’t. Moving on…
And there’s this:
“Stefani says Farrell’s office was unaware of the 1987 law…”
Uh, former law? Or former bill? Did the “law” sunset automatically? And was it ever signed by The Duke in the first place? I don’t think so actually.
You see, CW Nevius, what you should look at are the reasons why the millionaires’ efforts always fail. Try this on for size:
“The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen, subject to legislative control or such reasonable regulations as to the traffic thereon or the manner of using them as the legislature may deem wise or proper to adopt and impose.’ … ‘Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure…”
Nevius, why don’t you retire or go back to sports, srsly? Then you’d get replaced by somebody who would do your job better than you, right? Wouldn’t that be a win-win?
But before you do that, why don’t you fix this**`?
“Jose had been struck by a late-’90s, silver, four-door sedan as he stepped off the curb at Oak and Scott.”
“And the intersection of Fell and Scott, where Jose was hit, has consistently been described as one of the city’s most dangerous.”
*Looks like somebody is striking a pose on the crosswalk:
I’m a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the
Yeah on the catwalk on the crosswalk, yeah
I do my little turn on the crosswalk
**I actually believed The Neve on the Fell and Scott thing, so I was going to go out there a week or two later on a Tuesday night at around the same time on the theory that this was somebody coming home during the evening drive. But then I saw that the actual location was on Oak so now I think the driver isn’t on a commuting schedule. You know, I’ve got a Canon 5D, crank the ISO up to 25,600, use a simple 200mm 2.8 prime to see if I could see some damage and get a plate. I mean it might have been worth the effort.
I Am Become Rob Anderson, #3: StreetsBlogSF Isn’t Simply a Blog, It’s a Religion (Or a Cult, Your Pick)Tuesday, March 27th, 2012
I don’t know, I think the coverage was perfectly cromulent, but let’s take a look:
“A vague description…”
UH, WHAT DO YOU OFFER THAT’S BETTER, STREETSBLOGSF?
from Bay City News labeled Ferguson a jaywalker
A “JAY” WAS ORIGINALLY THE TERM FOR A COUNTY PERSON BUT THE CURRENT DEFINITION SURE SEEMS TO FIT
“apparently walking outside of the crosswalk”
WELL, IF YOU’RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK ON LOMBARD, THEN YOU’RE WALKING “OUTSIDE OF THE CROSSWALK,” RIGHT?
when he was ”struck by a passing vehicle.”
WELL, HOW ELSE DO YOU SAY THIS?
There was no mention of the driver’s speed.
UH, GEE, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE DRIVER’S CURRENT IRS TAX COMPLIANCE NEITHER, RIGHT? SO WHAT? WASN’T THIS PED 100% AT FAULT FOR HIS OWN DEATH? I THINK SO.
(The driver was only mentioned to note that he or she was “very cooperative.”)
WELL, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?
And here’s the latest:
“Correction: Streetsblog SF does have the most Twitter followers of any news source in the Bay Area.”
Oh, but you’re not a Bay Area news source, you’re more like a religion.
Keep on trying StreetsBlog SF. Maybe someday you’ll become a real blog…
Driving Down Lombard Street is Still Free, Despite the “Crooked Street Task Force” from a Decade AgoThursday, October 6th, 2011
If San Francisco’s famous NIMBYs had their way, you wouldn’t be able to drive down the crooked part of Lombard Street whenever you want 24/7
“A barrier halfway down the block, making it impossible to drive the length of the Crooked Street.
A signal system alternating the one-way direction of the street.
Sale of the street to residents, who could install their own gate and security system.”
Obviously, that didn’t happen, so it’s San Francisco 1, NIMBY’s O: