Discussion with City Attorney’s Office regarding potential litigation by the City Attorney’s Office against local committees, including Common Sense Voters, SF 2010; Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor, for violations of local campaign finance laws. Possible Closed Session. (Attachments: FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order; FPPC Letter to Charles H. Bell, Jr.)
Public comment on all matters pertaining to Agenda Item III, including whether to meet in closed session.
Vote on whether to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session under California Government Code section 54956.9 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation: San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114. (Action.)
Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated litigation. (Discussion.) Number of possible cases: 1
If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.
Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated litigation. (Discussion and possible action.) Motion: The Ethics Commission moves (not) to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.
Let’s take a look here, aging Rolls Royce* on the left and lots of stalled cars ahead, starting at the 2000 block of Chestnut – this is just another day in the Marina Landfill:
Oh, here’s the culprit:
And here’s the payload, trying to hide behind a passerby.** Hey, take your time, Coca Cola!
Do the vaunted “planners” of San Francisco have a plan for this kind of thing? Oh no, you all just don’t want to deal?
Don’t you think this kind of situation lowers your credibility, Planners?
And oh yes, Prop E 2014 itself. Well, all the money coming in from out of town certainly has had the effect of making certain local institutions look foolish, that’s fo sho. There are pros and cons to it, of course. Direct intake of liquefied sugar certainly can be a factor in getting the diabetes, but there are others too, right? Perhaps Dr. Scott Wiener will help you work on those after the election…
*That would be your Old Marina, you know, Facie Terraemotus. Now make sure you don’t say nothing bad about Saint Joseph DiMaggio, the Patron Saint of the Marina, in front of Old Marina – they’ll get super pissed off. But, you know, before Joltin’ Joe had left and gone away, he was known for being a big jerk on Chestnut Street. Yelling at barbers for no reason, stuff like that. There’s an appointment system, Joe – what makes you so special? Anyway, area Supervisor Mark Farrell remains a big fan of DiMaggio, for some reason…
**That would be your New Marina, you know, Post Terraemotus.
I’ll tell you, Supervisor Scott Wiener, for one, lives in fear of running afoul of these people, the very same people who vandalize the “no dogs allowed” signs our Feds put up on certain parts of our Federal lands:
Click to expand
Our Feds wonder why Bay Aryans can’t abide the rules the rest of America accepts with no trouble at all…
So look out, little Western Snow Plover. The dog pacs of the world say that you’re nothing special and that, in fact, you don’t even exist – they say there’s no such thing as a Western plover anything. OK fine.
As seen at Ocean Beach near Taraval, 1200mm focal length:
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.
“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:
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.