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 SupervisorJane I mean, I’m just sayingKim 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?
(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)
I know, why don’t you take out all these spaces and replace them with a separated bike lane or something, SFMTA?
After all, Transit First, right?
Oh, what’s that? These are the spaces that the Board of Supervisors and their aides park in for free every day so that’s where you just happened to end your campaign of completion?
But don’t you care about safety, SFMTA?
Mmmmm….
“This project seeks to implement aesthetic and safety improvements for all users of Polk Street between McAllister and Union Streets. In accordance with the City’s Transit First policy, improvements will primarily be focused on people who walk, use transit and ride a bicycle along Polk Street. The project is funded by Proposition B General Obligation Bonds and is part of an overall citywide effort to curb pedestrian and bicycle collisions and to provide a safe north-south connection for people on bicycles. Pedestrian and bicyclist collision and injury data on Polk Street point to a corridor in need of safety improvements for all those who share the road. In fact, the southern portion from Sacramento to McAllister Streets is part of the 5% of San Francisco streets that have more than half of the City’s most severe pedestrian collisions.”
But it is anti other things, I’ll grant you that.)
In closing, diamonds are horrible. Get anything else but a diamond. People will figure this out soon enough and the worthless piece of rock on your finger will be even more worthless a couple decades from now.
And more importantly, it will be seen by others as worthless.
Could be (but I’ll never know ’cause I only have a rabbit ear antenna and, oddly, there’s no NBC affiliate in my tiny town, nor in the county, nor in any of the neighboring counties and I’ll be damned if the Comcast monopoly is going to get $100 per month out of me for basic cable.)
Anyway, leave us review, let’s travel all the way back to ought-ten:
So now in 2013, George Gascon sees a chance to make amends with all sorts of different groups by being the point man on SFGov’s anti-MUNI bus ad campaign?
Sure looks that way. See the press release below.
Hey, is George Gascon running for Mayor of San Francisco, you know, down the road?
Maybe. (All he needs to do is clear up his case of foot-in-mouth disease by 2017 or whatever.)
Contact: Stephanie Ong Stillman, DA Gascón’s Office
ADA Alex Bastian, DA Gascón’s Office
SAN FRANCISO – Today, District Attorney George Gascón, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos, London Breed, Malia Cohen, Jane Kim, Scott Wiener, Norman Yee held a press conference to denounce Islamophobic and racist advertisements by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) scheduled to run on MUNI buses today.
“These offensive ads serve no other purpose than to denigrate our city’s Arab and Muslim communities,” said District Attorney George Gascón. “When any community in San Francisco is attacked, it affects all of us. I and the city leaders standing with me today are exercising our free speech rights in condemning these ads and standing with the Arab and Muslim communities of San Francisco.”
“Hate has no place in our City,” said Mayor Ed Lee. “San Francisco is a city that celebrates its diversity, and hateful speech and discrimination against our Arab and Muslim communities will never be tolerated.”
“Our respect for free speech does not mean we allow hateful speech to go unchallenged,” said Board President David Chiu. “As a former civil rights attorney, I’m proud to stand with our Arab and Muslim American families to send a united message that San Francisco embraces diversity and tolerance, not hate and bigotry.”
AFDI’s founder Pamela Geller has been deemed an anti-Muslim hate extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In August of 2012, San Franciscans were outraged over AFDI advertisements on MUNI that referred to Arabs and Muslims as “savages.” Arab and Muslim community leaders say the new advertisements are even more offensive as they wrongly suggest that all Muslims are defined by extremism and violence, and baselessly target Arab and Muslim San Franciscans who make invaluable contributions to the city’s life and culture.
Supervisor David Chiu is introducing a resolution to condemn the Islamophobic and racist MUNI Ads at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. In response, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority will dedicate the proceeds from the offensive advertisements to fund a city-wide study on the impact of discrimination on Arab and Muslim communities. City leaders have met with Council on American-Islamic Relations – San Francisco Bay Area, Asian Law Caucus, the Ramallah Club, the Arab Cultural Center, churches and mosques to discuss targeting of vulnerable communities and the city’s commitment to protecting and standing with those communities.”
“What everyone talks about, as a gimmick, is “affordable housing.” I served on the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Commission. We build tons of units of affordable housing, only to watch as people who live across the street from these units, who deserve to have access to these units, because of the lottery system and an organization — I’m not going to call any names, but they’re very organized, and they monopolize a lot of the affordable housing developments. So what happens to the person suffering through six roommates who wants to go to the next level? What happens to the people who want to come out of public housing and go to the next level? What happens to the people who suffered through, listening to the hammers and the construction and the lack of parking and everything else, why do they not have the ability to access this affordable housing? It’s because there’s one small group of people who control it, and they could care less who actually gets it.
That’s number one. Number two, you have some people being pushed out of affordable housing, and then you have others that are moving into that housing. And sometimes, the people who are in these different public housing developments — and I’m not discriminating against anyone, but sometimes they’re not even U.S. citizens — we are not doing enough to look at the people who are here now, and how we can help protect the folks who are here now and give them access to affordable housing. We’re so concerned about people coming from another state, or people coming from another country, making San Francisco attractive for everybody — except people who live here!
And I don’t mind people coming and moving here. I love diversity. I love meeting new people with new experiences. I love the different cultures — I think it’s great and makes San Francisco what it is — but we’re also continuing down a really dangerous path of wealthy and poor, and no in between. No place to go for the middle class. No place to go for the people who have stepped right out of poverty. No place. And the fact that I’m holding on for dear life, and I’m now the Supervisor — it’s really scary to me. We’ve got to look at all this affordable housing that we build, and how do we really give people opportunities. We get money from the federal government for housing, and they require a lottery system. But is it really diversity if one ethnic group monopolizes the lottery and gets all of the affordable units?”
Yowzer.
(So when Asians and Asian-Americans complain of being bullied by African Americans in San Francisco public housing, this is the nativist attitude* that they are referencing)
Does one ethnic group in get _all_ the affordable units in San Francisco? Really?
And I’ll have to say that somebody sure still sounds pissed over stuff like this:
On it goes.
*The last time I’ve heard this issue discussed in the media was when former Mayor Willie Brown (apparently improperly) intervened in an individual case to get the only Asian / Asian-American family out of one particular PJ and into another PJ that already had Asian / Asian-Americans. They might have been the relatives of the woman who did his nails, something like that. This was in the 1990′s.
So why did people hold a rally about former Interim Supervisor Christina Olague saving rent control?
On the steps of City Hall:
Click to expand
I know not.
Now, if you wanted to say that renters as a group, overall, would have been better off with a Christina Olague, or a John Rizzo, or a Julian Davis as Supervisor of District Five, well then you might have something…
“You think I give a fuck about a Willie Brown at the end of the day when it comes to my community and the shit that people like Rose Pak and Willie Brown continue to do and try to controls things. They don’t fucking control me – you go ask them why wouldn’t you support London because she don’t do what the hell I tell her to do. I don’t do what no motherfucking body tells me to do.”
Hey, you think maybe she’s watchedYouTube, just a little?
(Hey, you know, the two times when Mayor Ed Lee did a little independent thinking since Willie Brown and Rose Pak got him appointed Mayor are when he appointed the fairly stupid Christina Olague to replace Ross Mirkarimi and when he advocated for the complete non-starter “stop and frisk program.”Perhaps he should just do what he’s told 100% of the time instead of 90% of the time?)
In any event, HERE COMES LONDON BREED:
And her boosters, including Renel in the Morning:
Kamala Harris, California Attorney General* Rachel Norton, San Francisco Board of Education Member* Netsanet Alemayehu, Fillmore Small Business Owner & Resident Jarie Bolander, Past-President, North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association* Gwyneth Borden, Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission* Kimberly Brandon, Commissioner, San Francisco Port Commission* Raven Brooks, Executive Director, Netroots Nation* Reverend Amos Brown, Pastor, Third Baptist Church* Juan Cerda, Board Member, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club* Francee Covington, former SFRA Commissioner* & Hayes Valley resident* Sheryl Davis, Director, Mo Magic* David Dupree, Member, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association* Roma Guy, Co-founder, The Women’s Building* Margot Frey, Board Member, Alamo Square Neighborhood Association* Melonie Green, Member, Lower Haight Merchants & Neighborhood Association* Melorra Green, Member, Lower Haight Merchants & Neighborhood Association* Richard Hashimoto, President, Japantown Merchants Association* Andrea Jadwin, Co-President, Inner Sunset Neighborhood Association* Mike Kim, former President, San Francisco Young Democrats* Ted Loewenberg, President, Haight Ashbury Improvement Association* Dr. Joseph Marshall, San Francisco Police Commission* Larry Mazzola, Sr., Business Manager, UA Local 38 Larry Mazzola, Jr., President, Asst. Business Manager, UA Local 38 Renel Brooks-Moon, Broadcaster* Sandy Mori, Senior Service Advocate Thomas P. O’Connor, President, San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798* Lateefah Simon, former Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights* Karen Weinstein, former Chair, Women’s Caucus of the CA Democratic Party* Brenda Wright, Commissioner, San Francisco Retirement Commission* Plumbers and Pipefitters, UA Local 38
[UPDATE: Yoops, this ended up not being the order of finish. Hey, perhaps Rose Pak is merely a paper dragon lady, powerless outside of the Realm of Stencil Voters and Oppressed (by Rose Pak et al) Newcomers? It's sure looking that way.]
In order of finish:
1. Back in the day, Christina Olague accepted the deal that Julian Davis and who-knows-who-else rejected. So that meant that she worked on the Run Ed Run campaign in exchange for the promise of later getting appointed as Supervisor of District Five.
Before, she was the Perjurer’s Helper, but is she now?
I don’t know. We’ll see.
IMO, her rise to power is (still, very possibly) a trap. We’ll see.
Despite recent events involving Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, Christina Olague is still the choice of Rose Pak, Randy Shaw and the rest of San Francisco’s corrupt, government-subsidized, non-profit cabal.
And, apparently, CO is NOT the choice of the Ron Coates / Linda Voight / Ron Conway / Gayle Conway / Republican billionaire / real estate interests side of Willie Brown’s / Ed Lee’s conservative (for San Francisco) Democratic party faction.
You see, there’s a schism, these days, that’s wide out in the open for all to see. So, one side of the faction supports Eric Mar and Christina Olague and the other side supports David Lee and London Breed.
Speaking of which:
2. London Breedis the choice of the Ron Coates / Linda Voight / Ron Conway / Gayle Conway / Republican billionaire / RE interests side of Willie Brown’s / Ed Lee’s conservative (for San Francisco) Democratic party faction.
As she states, she can’t tell the Republican Billionaires of the Bay Area et uxes to stop supporting her, but why would they be spending all that money?
Mmmm…
That leaves us with:
3. Julian Davis, who recently DNQ’ed
“Joe, I want to clarify that when you called me yesterday you did not tell me what you were calling about and I did not receive a call back later in the day. I am not going to comment further about anonymous uncorroborated attacks coming from your publication a week before Election Day. Voters I talk to in the streets are intelligent enough to see past the politics of personal destruction. Their concerns are real—a more affordable city, improved public transit and a better climate for small business, to name a few. Your readers would benefit from substantive reporting on these issues and on how the candidates differ on them. Julian Davis
Pwned:
Julian –Shortly after noon yesterday, I phoned your lawyer and asked him about the letter. Immediately afterward, I called you. You said you were on another call and asked if this was urgent. I replied that you should call me back as soon as you could. You said you would, and I was left with the impression you would phone back when you were off your call. That didn’t happen, and I got your voicemail when I called you at 2 p.m. Sadly, you did not call us back before our story went up at 8:30 this morning. This most recent allegation is neither anonymous nor uncorroborated. While the accuser’s name is not printed in our article, it was most certainly affixed on the letters she sent to you and your attorney. I agree with you that our readers would benefit from reporting on “a more affordable city, improved public transit, and a better climate for small business.” I disagree with you that we aren’t reporting on these issues:
Oh, and who else? Thea Selby should have taken steps after news of that $10k of RE money had spread. She didn’t. (Perhaps she’s the other candidate that Mayor Ed Lee is “privately” telling his inner circle to vote for? Mmmm.)
And it looks like John Rizzo made some sort of deal with Christina Olague or whomever functions as the Progressive version of Walter Wong these days. We’ll find out what his reward is apres-election.
