Near Fell and Clayton this afternoon:
This kind of thing happens with regularity…
Near Fell and Clayton this afternoon:
This kind of thing happens with regularity…
A government what like planting trees, but doesn’t like taking care of trees, so why don’t you do it, property owner?
Hey, here’s a question – why can’t our SFMTA issue tickets for blocking street sweepers if the spaces they’re taking up need cleaning?
And here’s an answer – the rental car companies don’t feel like getting tickets, so they had our laws written for their benefit.
Are there any other answers?
Not that I can think of…
I’ll just start with this:
The fundamental purpose of the SFMTA’s massive street sweeping program is to make money for the SFMTA.
So that’s been the situation over the years, but then came the rise of the rental car companies, you know, like Hertz and whathaveyou. So then the SFMTA made deals with Hertz and whathaveyou to lease those companies spaces for the rent-a-cars. One big hang-up could have been the logistical nightmare of moving the rent-a-cars during weekly street sweeping time.
“Maintenance of on-street car share parking is an explicit condition of the on-street car share permit: Permittee shall be responsible for maintaining the designated Car Share Vehicle Parking Space and twenty-five feet in front and behind the space. Permittee shall maintain this area in such a manner that it shall remain free of debris, trash, glass, garbage, or other obstacles at a level consistent with the surrounding parking spaces to the satisfaction of the SFMTA and Department of Public Works. Permittee shall sweep and clean the parking space as needed and as determined by SFMTA. If maintenance problems are observed in a designated on-street car share parking space it should be reported to SFMTA Parking / Sustainable Streets. CSOs who fail to maintain any of their spaces will be warned, and if SFMTA and/or DPW aren’t satisfied with their response and ongoing maintenance performance we’ll revoke the permit, and/or make the space available to another qualified pilot participant CSO.”
Now, how many of these designated rent-a-car parking spaces have been returned to the public due to failure of maintenance? I’m guessing like zero. so far.
So let’s take a look at how things are going:
Not well, huh? Actually, I just now noticed all that vegetation under the rental cars in this old photo (’cause I’m not really sensitive to this issue, oh well).
Now, what SHOULD happen when PCOs are handing out the World’s Most Expensive Parking Tickets during street sweeping time is to look and see how Getaround or Hertz or whomever is doing and then hand out tickets for lack of maintenance right then and there.
Anyway, Getaround Rental Car, you want an exception to the street sweeping rules but then they you don’t follow up with doing the cleaning yourself. Why? Because you aren’t ascared at all over getting ticketed. And that makes the entire street sweeping program look like just another SFMTA “profit center” and it makes SFGov look like a tool of the “sharing economy” companies what are holding sway these days…
So here’s an example – what kind of possible liability problems do you see here, Gentle Reader?
Normally, our corrupt DPW (which thinks YOU’RE the deadbeat, for not giving it ever more money money money) would “transfer” all the headaches of tree ownership onto a nearby homeowner, but in this case it can’t. Isn’t that sad?
Frisco is good at planting trees, but it’s not good at taking care of trees.
(There is unrest in the (urban) forest / There is trouble with the trees)
Well, read the news and turn the pages – a good part of San Francisco’s “urban forest” is toppling over this AM because of rain. Not due to wind, just a little rain.
Did former Mayor Gavin Newsom run for CA Governor on the number of trees “he” planted in SF? Yes he did. Is that a good thing? No, it’s not.
Could it be that local governments want to plant too many trees willy-nilly, the same way an alcoholic wants to drink too much?
A solution for that would be a conscious effort to stop planting trees. And also, getting rid of the policy of keeping trees in places where they don’t belong. This is a money issue, this is safety issue.
Oh, here are some facts:
– There is no urban forest. A forest, by definition, can’t be in an urban area. Oh, what’s that , you’re just being aspirational? Oh, you’re just “framing” the issue because you want more trees everywhere and you’ve been able to send the bill to Other People Later On? Oh, okay, well, keep on keeping on then.
– San Francisco doesn’t have any kind of “canopy.” Just look up – if you can see the sky or the fog, then there’s no canopy. Oh, what’s that , you’re just being aspirational? Oh, you’re just “framing” the issue because you want more trees everywhere and you’ve been able to send the bill to Other People Later On? Oh, okay, well, keep on keeping on then.
– San Francisco doesn’t have any kind of “cloud forest.” It can’t. We have trees and we have clouds but that’s not enough to have a cloud forest. Of course we have fog and a whole mess of trees from halfway around the world, you know, that don’t really belong here, but that’s not enough.
– Sutro Forest isn’t a “forest.” Do you want to call it a stand or a grove instead? That’d be nice. That’d be accurate too.
“The Subway to Nowhere. House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 27, 2012. Remarks by Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA).”
This amendment forbids further federal expenditures for the Central Subway project in San Francisco.
The project is a 1.7 mile subway that is estimated to cost $1.6 billion –– and those cost estimates continue to rise. Its baseline budget has more than doubled in nine years and shows no signs of slowing. The current estimate brings the cost to nearly $1 billion per mile. That’s five times the cost per lane mile of Boston’s scandalous “Big Dig.”
It was supposed to link local light rail and bus lines with CalTrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit, but it’s so badly designed that it bypasses 25 of the 30 light rail and bus lines that it crosses. To add insult to insanity, it dismantles the seamless light-rail to BART connection currently available to passengers at Market Street, requiring them instead to walk nearly a quarter mile to make the new connection. Experts estimate it will cost commuters between five and ten minutes of additional commuting time on every segment of the route.
The Wall Street Journal calls it “a case study in government incompetence and wasted taxpayer money.”
They’re not alone. The Civil Grand Jury in San Francisco has vigorously recommended the project be scrapped, warning that maintenance alone could ultimately bankrupt San Francisco’s Muni. The former Chairman of the San Francisco Transportation Agency has called it, “one of the costliest mistakes in the city’s history.”
Even the sponsors estimate that it will increase ridership by less than one percent, and there is vigorous debate that this projection is far too optimistic.
I think Margaret Okuzumi, the Executive Director of the Bay Rail Alliance put it best when she said,
“Too many times, we’ve seen money for public transit used to primarily benefit people who would profit financially, while making transit less convenient for actual transit riders. Voters approve money for public transit because they want transit to be more convenient and available…it would be tragic if billions of dollars were spent on something that made Muni more time consuming, costly and unable to sustain its overall transit service.”
This administration is attempting to put federal taxpayers – our constituents — on the hook for nearly a billion dollars of the cost of this folly through the “New Starts” program – or more than 60 percent. We have already squandered $123 million on it. This amendment forbids another dime of our constituents’ money being wasted on this boondoggle.
Now here is an important question that members may wish to ponder: “Why should your constituents pay nearly a billion dollars for a purely local transportation project in San Francisco that is opposed by a broad, bi-partisan coalition of San Franciscans, including the Sierra Club, Save Muni (a grassroots organization of Muni Riders), the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, and three of the four local newspapers serving San Francisco?
I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer to that question. But those who vote against this amendment had better have one when their constituents ask, “What in the world were you thinking?”
# # #
This amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act (HR 5972) was approved by the House on June 29th. The legislation next goes to the Senate.
The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), a division of our California Department of Conservation, doesn’t want you changing your car oil as much. They want you to follow the recommendation in your car’s owner’s manual, as opposed to your service manager’s “every 3000 miles no matter what” mantra.
(I don’t think car dealerships and oil change places will like this one bit.)
Anyway, CalRecycle is coming to town tomorrow to pay for free parking for motorists who pledge to increase their oil change intervals. (But don’t anybody tell StreetsBlog SF about the free parking reward – they won’t like that at all. Srsly.)
It’s called the Check Your Number campaign.
All the deets, after the jump