Posts Tagged ‘office’

Dreamforce Nightmare: Ohio-Based Advertising Firm Glee-fully Mocks SF – Boasts of “Earned Media Impressions” from Illegal Graffiti

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

Here’s a typical tweet about yesterday’s L’Affaire du Bluewolf:

“Why not tell what you think of his blithe, scofflaw attitude in smearing his graffiti all over SF?

And here’s the write-up by Joe Garofoli: “Tech company defies San Francisco graffiti ban at Dreamforce.”

Now let’s hear from the people at CivitasNow, the company what promised to clean up the sidewalks of SoMA and the Financh yesterday afternoon:

You see that? They think this whole sitch is funny.

I think I see the problem here, I think the CivitasNow people are thinking they might get a ticket for two or three or four or five figures, but, IRL, what they might end up with is a settlement for six or seven figures if they continue to embarrass / piss off / mock area residents, such as a Mayor, or a City Attorney, or even a Benioff or two.

Hey CivitasNow, hey Bluewolf, do you think there might be a reason why some DreamForcers covered up some of your numerous chalk ads?

Perhaps you all have reached Pariah status, but you don’t even know it?

Marc Benioff’s DREAMFORCE 2015 Starts Off on the Wrong Foot: Illegal Ads from “Bluewolf” Mar Sidewalks of SoMA

Monday, September 14th, 2015

[UPDATE 2: Tech company defies city ban against putting logo on sidewalks]

[UPDATE: This webpage (“Dreamforce Swag”) was just pulled by “Bluewolf.” Here’s what it used to look like:

Capturefsfffsssd copy

So that takes care of that.

So, no you didn’t have permits, right, Bluewolf people? Or if you do, then share the info – it sure would interesting to see that. Thank you, drive through. END OF UPDATES]

Via KatieOnViolin, you can’t do this:

Capturefsff copy

Oh, what’s that, it’s only temporary? Well, that’s what they all say.

And there’s this:

“Citizens can obtain permits for sidewalk stencils, but there is no legal means for a company to advertise using sidewalk stencils, Gordon said. Still, many companies throughout the years have created guerrilla marketing campaigns on city sidewalks, including Zynga and IBM.”

What you bluewolfers ought to do, you know, wikiwiki, is come on downstairs, buy some brushes at a CVS, and then start scrubbing…

Another Illegal Chalk Ad on the Streets of San Francisco? – HTC ONE – When Will Our Corporate Overlords Learn?

Friday, April 17th, 2015

We’ve been through this kind of thing before. If City Attorney Dennis Herrera discovers this, then whoo boy, there’s going to be trouble for somebody.

As captured by BloomReports today:

CaptureFSFSFF copy

Look Who Else was Doing Chalk Ads on the Sidewalks of San Francisco: Paramount Pictures – “What is CLOVERFIELD? 1-18-08″

Monday, February 9th, 2015

This one flew under the radar, AFAIK:

GO8F6579 copy

Seven years later, here in 2015, you can’t get away this kind of thing anymore…

Uber Beats Lyft Again! – They Both Put Illegal Chalk Ads on Our Sidewalks, But Only Lyft Gets Busted – Plus, a Shakedown

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015

A couple years back I passed by this scene on Market, so then I contacted the Uber people by email on my cell…


…and I was all, “Can you do that? I don’t think you can do that.”

Why? Because it’s a chalk ad on a Frisco sidewalk and that aint kosher. I mean, I didn’t know for sure, maybe somebody had approved this and the Uber people had permits, who knows. I was simply “issue-spotting,” as they say.

So then, a half-hour later, the Uberers had these ads hastily obliterated, more or less, as best they could.

And that was that, back in 2013.

And now comes Lyft in 2015 with hopsc0tch chalk on the Streets of San Francisco:

Lyft copy

Except that SFGov is now lowering the boom on Lyft.

(And there might be some shakedown to take money from Lyft to give it to those ugly “SF Beautiful,” people, who are now infamous for suing the City and County of San Francisco? That sounds wrong.)

Anyway, Uber beats Lyft, once again.

Here’s a Clue About How Uber / Uber-X was Evil Going Back Two Years Ago – Marketing on Market Street

Wednesday, December 10th, 2014

Here’s why I’m not an employee of the Uber:

Cause like every day I’d be saying, “Can we do that? I don’t think we can do that. Can we say that? I don’t think we can say that.”

I’d be a big Captain Bringdown / Jiminy Cricket.

Like here, a couple years back, on Market. I passed by this scene and so then I contacted the Uber people by email on my cell…


…and I was all, “Can you do that? I don’t think you can do that.”

Why? Because it’s a chalk ad on a Frisco sidewalk and that aint kosher.

I mean, I didn’t know for sure, maybe somebody had approved this and the Uber people had permits, who knows. I was simply “issue-spotting,” as they say.

So then, a half-hour later, the Uberers had these ads hastily obliterated, more or less, as best they could.

Ah, memories…

“Panhandle Police Altercation” – The Difference Between Being Found “Not Guilty” Vs. Being “Found Innocent”

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

Well, here it is.

Capturefdffsff copy

The problem with this Hoodline headline is that Dude wasn’t “found innocent.” IRL, the jury ruled that he is not guilty.

In other words:

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them ‘not guilty.'”

Am I being too picky here?


YOU MIGHT BE A GADFLY IF … the SF City Attorney’s Office Makes a Webpage Just for YOUR Records Requests

Tuesday, October 28th, 2014

Like this:

Capturefsffffs copy

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco.  The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees.  In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission.  The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions.  It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide.  San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively.  With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid.  That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere.  While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”


Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Workers at GMG Janitorial to Get $1.34 Million for “Healthy San Francisco” Violations

Monday, July 7th, 2014

This sounds fair enough:

“Cheated janitors to receive $1.34 million in restitution in healthcare benefits settlement –
Herrera negotiates agreement ending legal appeal; affirming administrative order and S.F. Superior Court ruling to benefit 275 current and former workers

SAN FRANCISCO (July 7, 2014) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today finalized a settlement agreement with GMG Janitorial, Inc., ending the local company’s legal appeal of an Oct. 16, 2013 San Francisco Superior Court ruling to pay some $1.34 million to 275 of its current and former employees who were denied health care benefit expenditures to which they were entitled under the City’s Health Care Security Ordinance, or HCSO.  Enacted in 2006, the HCSO established the popular “Healthy San Francisco” program and created an employer spending requirement to fund health care benefits for employees in the City.

Under terms of the stipulated amended judgment entered with the Superior Court this morning, GMG Janitorial will remain liable for the full amount of benefits owed to workers under the original administrative orders and court ruling.  The company is required to pay installments of at least $200,000 every six months to a third-party settlement administrator, who will disburse payments to eligible employees, most of whom are Latino.  Financial incentives included in the settlement to satisfy the debt sooner involve dollar amounts otherwise owed to the City, to ensure that workers receive their full compensation plus any interest accrued.  The agreement contains additional provisions governing former employees who can’t be located and securing the debt through liens on the owner’s personal assets.

“This agreement will fully compensate employees who were denied benefits, while also assuring law-abiding competitors that they’ll no longer be undercut by businesses that cheat,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera.  “I think this settlement reflects the strong ruling Judge Marla Miller issued last October, and I hope it sends an unmistakable message that our Health Care Security Ordinance has teeth, and that we’re committed to enforcing it aggressively.  As always on these kinds of cases, I’m grateful to everyone in the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement for their outstanding work.”

“When low-wage workers are denied their rightful health care benefits, the human consequences are incalculable,” said OLSE Manager Donna Levitt.  “Workers at GMG Janitorial weren’t getting their health care needs addressed when the case came to our attention, and it was gratifying to see GMG start providing their workers health care benefits after OLSE began its investigation.  The settlement finalized today will compensate these employees for what they were rightfully due in the first place.  The vast majority of San Francisco employers comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law, which is why it’s so important that violators are brought to justice.”

The court order issued by Judge Marla J. Miller last October found “substantial evidence” to support prior findings by San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and an administrative law judge that GMG Janitorial, Inc. failed to make the required expenditures on behalf of its workers for the period 2008 to 2010.  After losing its administrative appeal before the administrative law judge, GMG Janitorial filed suit in Superior Court on July 2, 2012, arguing that the OLSE exceeded its authority under local law by ordering full restitution, and that the administrative law judge’s findings were unsupported by the evidence.  Judge Miller’s ruling decisively rejected both contentions in ordering the company to pay $1,339,028 to its employees “in order to correct its failure to make the required expenditures.”  The order additionally allowed the City to recover its costs in the action in an amount to be determined.

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office played a key role in working with then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano and Mayor Gavin Newsom to craft the City’s groundbreaking universal health care law enacted in 2006.  Almost immediately thereafter, the office embarked on a four-year legal battle to defend the law from a challenge by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.  The ordinance was conclusively upheld when the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in the case on June 28, 2010.

San Francisco’s OLSE enforces labor laws adopted by San Francisco voters and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  In addition to investigating violations of the Health Care Security Ordinance, OLSE also enforces San Francisco’s Minimum Wage Ordinance; Paid Sick Leave Ordinance; Minimum Compensation Ordinance; Health Care Accountability Ordinance; and Sweatfree Contracting Ordinance.  Violations of the Health Care Security Ordinance may be reported to OLSE at (415) 554-7892 or  Its website is

The case is: GMG Janitorial, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 512328, filed July 2, 2012.”