Posts Tagged ‘petition’

City Attorney Dennis Herrera Seeks Court Orders Requiring Uber and Lyft to Follow the Law

Friday, July 21st, 2017

IMO:

  • I’m not sure if it’s the job of the City Attorney to “strike the right balance” betwixt UBER / Lyft convenience vs. traffic congestion.
  • This Travis Kalanick sentence is the highlight: “I had hoped with the changes to its leadership that Uber had reformed its corporate culture.” Not necessarily sarcastic, but it has a bite nevertheless.
  • If a San Francisco taxi driver tells you to get lost because s/he doesn’t want to take you all the way out to the Sunset (which would make money for the driver, just maybe not as much as expected, or as average) or says, “I don’t take people to the Potrero projects,” well that’s a misdemeanor called Failure to Convey. IDK if is this kind of law applies to UBER Lyfters right now. Anyway, that’s what they’re getting at with the talk of discrimination.
  • Oh, and the reason why UBER started here in the Frisco bay first has to do with longstanding SFMTA policies of taxi regulation. Late night ballers such as Travis K had a bear of a time getting home at night – at 2:00 AM on a weekend night sometimes you’d see hundreds of people within a block of Broadway / Columbus with their arms up trying hail a cab. This had to do with a taxi shortage what valued certain people more than the general taxi riding public.

JMO

P1240938-copy

Anyway, just released:

Herrera seeks court orders requiring Uber and Lyft to follow the law – Herrera moves for court to enforce his subpoenas requiring Uber, Lyft to turn over records on safety, disability access and operations

SAN FRANCISCO (July 21, 2017) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced today that he is requesting court orders to compel Lyft, Uber and two Uber subsidiaries to comply with subpoenas issued on June 5, 2017.  The subpoenas were issued as part of the City Attorney’s investigation into whether ride-hailing companies are creating a public nuisance in San Francisco.

Herrera today filed petitions in San Francisco Superior Court seeking a court order requiring the companies to comply with the subpoenas. The subpoenas are aimed at ensuring Uber and Lyft’s estimated 45,000 drivers in San Francisco do not create a public nuisance by jeopardizing public safety, discriminating or otherwise violating local and state laws.

The administrative subpoenas seek four years of records in eight categories, including miles and hours logged by drivers, incentives that encourage drivers to “commute” to San Francisco from as far away as Fresno or Los Angeles, driver guidance and training, accessible vehicle information, and the routes taken by these drivers in San Francisco.

Herrera is turning to the courts after giving the companies multiple opportunities to comply with the subpoenas.

“Unfortunately, Uber is doing what it always seems to do: raise obstacles and drag its feet— all while continuing to flout the law,” Herrera said. “To its credit, Lyft was more responsive, but in the end they also raised unreasonable roadblocks. They provided a minimal amount of documents before deciding not to comply with the rest of our request. And they have so far failed to execute a confidentiality agreement that would protect any legitimate trade secrets.  From the beginning, we have been clear that the companies must comply with these subpoenas.  These motions are the next step in protecting the rights of the people who live and work in San Francisco.”

On June 22 Herrera won a court ruling requiring Uber to comply with a separate subpoena from Treasurer José Cisneros to help ensure that Uber drivers have business licenses. The court found Uber’s arguments unpersuasive in that case.

San Franciscans and city leaders alike are concerned with public nuisance, public safety, accessibility, discrimination, compensation and other issues arising from the explosive growth of companies like Uber and Lyft.  Herrera issued his subpoenas as he investigates these issues.  He has also requested information about congestion and environmental impacts.

“The status quo is not working,” Herrera said.  “There’s no question that Uber and Lyft offer convenience.  But convenience for some cannot trump the rights of every San Francisco resident and visitor, including the safe enjoyment of our roads and bike lanes. I’m trying to strike the right balance here.  ”

After the subpoenas were issued, Lyft contacted the City Attorney’s Office and worked with the city to try to craft a confidentiality agreement that complies with the subpoena and with public records law, while also protecting trade secrets from public disclosure.  Lyft ultimately was not willing to move forward with a satisfactory agreement, demanding unreasonable provisions.

Uber objected to the subpoenas and refused to produce any documents or data at all. It waited until the June 20 deadline to send a letter telling the city it was declining to produce the information but would be available to “meet and confer regarding Uber’s concerns.”  After that, Uber representatives were slow to meet, late to respond and then non-committal. They have failed to comply with the subpoena.

“Uber was stalling,” Herrera said.  “I had hoped with the changes to its leadership that Uber had reformed its corporate culture. So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Both Uber and Lyft were given ample opportunity to follow the law. They chose not to, so now we’re in court.”

Additional documentation from the case is available on the City Attorney’s website at:https://www.sfcityattorney.org/

How Hard is It to Get People to Post “CUT THE GEARY BRT” Posters on Geary? Not Very

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

I haven’t done an inventory, but I saw three of these in three blocks of the inner Inner Richmond the other day:

7J7C8171 copy 7J7C8172 copy

Geary “BRT,” of course, is the plan to replace buses on Geary with … buses on Geary.

(The “R” in BRT stands for the same thing the R in the #38R stands for – RAPID, baby! It’s the phrase of the decade. The SFMTA should change its name to the SFRTA, the San Francisco Rapid Transit Agency. And the SFCTA should be called the SFRCRTRA (San Francisco Rapid County Rapid Transit Rapid Authoritah. And that means that a Geary BART spur (which would be more rapider than buses replacing buses) should/would be called Rapid EXTREME or something.)

As with most federal / state-funded pork barrel projects, there are costs and benefits, and there will be winners and losers.

If the SFMTA Wants to Ban “Private Vehicles” from Making Most Turns onto Market Between 3rd and 8th, What About Drivers with Handicapped Placards?

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

Get up to speed here.

So “Safer” Market Street is going to ban “private vehicles” including Lyft and Uber-type vehicles, but does that include rides with properly-displayed handicapped placards?

IDK. It seems our SFMTA doesn’t want to deal with this issue.

(Actually, it seems our SFMTA deals with embarrassing issues discussed on the SFMTA website by simply deleting webpages/URLs as soon as members of The Public link to them. Boy, it sure seems that way lately. But moving on, moving “forward” as they say.)

Oh look info about the SFMTA not located at the official SFMTA site – so here’s a link I cite without worrying that it will go bad within 24 hours:

• Bob Planthold: Taxi drivers say they can travel where Muni goes as stated by City Charter. The City will need investigate this. Also broader phrasing is needed regarding disability because “Red & Blue Placards” cannot be restricted.

Read the whole thing, if you want. It’s about all the plans the SFMTA has for this area.

So, is the SFMTA going to ban drivers of private vehicles with handicapped placards from turning onto Market at most places between 3rd and 8th?

Serious question. I think they are…

The Empire Strikes Back: UBER Does NOT Appreciate Getting Banned from Turning Onto Market from 3rd to 8th Streets – Petition

Thursday, June 11th, 2015

Our SFMTA wants to ban TNC’s from turning onto Market at most places between 3rd and 8th, so now UBER, for one, is fighting back with a petition from Uber drivers.

(Man, this is a quick reaction to San Francisco Chronicle writer JK Dineen‘s article from just yesterday.)

Anyway, here’s the nut graf in the Uber petition:

“If the traffic restrictions are imposed, driver partners will be forced to take longer, more complicated routes to pick up or drop off passengers — increasing congestion around Market Street and making it more difficult, more time-consuming, and dangerous for riders to get from place to place.”

I think they’ll get to the goal of 10,000 [UPDATE – now it’s set to 15,000] electronic “signatures” with a quickness, seeing as how they seem to clocking about 50 supporters per minute now.

All the deets:

THE SITUATION

Over the last several years, Uber has become an integral part of San Francisco’s transportation ecosystem — with thousands of residents and visitors relying on ridesharing services to get them to all corners of the city. Ridesharing has been embraced and supported by the California Legislature, Governor Brown, and several State agencies. What’s more, UberPOOL and similar ridesharing services are taking cars off the road, reducing congestion, and making huge strides toward making San Francisco’s roads safer.

But now we need your help. As the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) revisits its rules for the types of vehicles allowed on Market Street — your ability to take an Uber from Market Street is at risk — and we need you to speak up in support of ridesharing services like Uber.

NEW SFMTA RESTRICTIONS THAT WILL IMPACT YOU:

→ Taxis on Market Street – APPROVED
→ Buses on Market Street – APPROVED
→ Ridesharing on Market Street – DENIED

Market Street is a major artery of the city, and shutting off access to ridesharing services, where an overwhelming majority of residents choose to live car-free, is counterproductive and dangerous. Ridesharing services a significant and increasing share of the transportation puzzle here, and cutting off riders and driver partners from this main artery will only increase gridlock around town while forcing you, the riding public, to criss-cross busy streets and corridors to get to your ride or destination.

If the traffic restrictions are imposed, driver partners will be forced to take longer, more complicated routes to pick up or drop off passengers — increasing congestion around Market Street and making it more difficult, more time-consuming, and dangerous for riders to get from place to place.

Sign the petition and tell San Francisco’s leadership that TNCs need to be included in their rules for Market Street!

THE PETITION LETTER

[Your personal message]

[Your first name] [Your last name] from zip code [Zip Code]
[Email]

###

Dear [Recipient’s title] [Recipient’s name],

I urge you to not to single out TNCs like Uber, and ensure that they have the same access as taxis to pick up riders along Market Street. Ridesharing has become a core part of the way people get around the city and I support giving San Franciscans more choice for transportation options along Market Street. Your inclusion of TNCs will give people like me more transportation choices downtown, provide an equal playing field for all transportation options, and improve safety for riders and drivers alike.

Again, thank you for considering the collective voice of thousands of San Franciscans who want more choice in transportation options on Market Street.

THIS LETTER WILL BE DELIVERED TO
TOM NOLAN
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

“BURRITOFICATION IN PROGRESS” – Chipotle Chain Store Comes to Mervyn’s Heights, 94118 – NOW HIRING at Geary and Masonic

Monday, April 6th, 2015

After a giant Fail Whale landed upon the efforts to bring a Chipotle Mexican Grill to the masses at Church and Market a few years back, the purveyors of America’s Favorite Mission-style Burrito set about making things work up at 2675 Geary.

And lo, here it is:

7J7C4948 copy

Soon enough, everybody living on the wrong side of Divis will be able to Live Más and Think Outside The Bun…

Octavia Update: “HELP SAVE OUR GARDEN – SIGN OUR PETITION” – Growing Home Community Garden

Friday, May 2nd, 2014

Is this garden a thing? I wasn’t aware.

Anyway, when SFGov turns down your proposal to do something with some unused property just “temporary,” well, this is the reason why SFGov says no no no.

Anyway, this place is still there, for now

Cold Busted: Do SFMTA Parking Control Officers Even Try to Follow the Law? Take a Look

Thursday, January 9th, 2014

Leave us review California Vehicle Code Section 40202(a):

“The notice of parking violation shall also set forth … the last four digits of the vehicle identification number, if that number is readable through the windshield...”

Except some DPT meter maids are in the habit of not writing down the last four digits of the VIN. Check it:

Some SFMTA parking citation officers thought they found a loophole by simply entering “cannot read,” “covered,” or “unable to locate” in the VIN field space of a citation. 

03/07/12: Officer NW (Badge #206) wrote 66 citations of which he said he “cannot read” the VIN plate information on all 66 of them!  

02/01/12: Officer TA (Badge #12) wrote 27 citations of which he said he “cannot read” the VIN plate information on all 27 of them.”

So am I saying I believe the factual statements of some random Change.org petition over anything spun out by the SFMTA?

Yes, yes I am.

Now is this VIN requirement kind of a technicality, and is it kind of a pain to be looking for VINs when the PCOs need to make their quotas in order to pay for Ed Reiskin’s generous benefits package? Yes and yes.

But that’s the law. Perhaps the SFMTA should try to change the law if it’s so hard to obey.

Let’s hope that the SFMTA keeps a closer eye on its PCOs in the future…

Now let’s travel back to the past:

Via the excellent Uptown Almanac comes news of this anti-MUNI bumper sticker campaign:

Beej Weir with deets here and here.

“The bottom of the sticker reads: “ASSAULTING A PARKING CONTROL OFFICER IS A CRIME. SO DON’T GET CAUGHT.”- WACKO 1

As previously noted, harsh.

California Penal Code 241 — Assault, punishment. (“(b) When an assault is committed against the person of a parking control officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a parking control officer, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

So much for “Good People, Tough Jobs.”

Do You Like Chipotle? Well Then Join the “Grass Roots Effort” to get Permiso de Uso Condicional for Church and Market

Friday, February 8th, 2013

(Boy I’ll tell you, if I were blogger Eve Batey and I was on the receiving end of a press release from an area business, what I would do is criticize other bloggers for giving free publicity for said business. Then I’d say that it would be better to contact said business, you know, to hit them up for an advertising deal. Then word would get out about that. Then I’d get criticized by members of the local professional media – they’d label such behavior “unethical” or something. Then I’d call out said members of the local professional media for being “haters.” Then, I’d have more my popular friends also call said members of the local professional media “haters.” If I were blogger Eve Batey.)

And best of all, the new Chipotle’s “Mexican” Grill at 2100 Market will have a MURAL DE ART PUBLICO.

See?

Click to expand

(What’s next, a Chipotle at 20th and Mission? On top of the Mission Dolores Cemetery? At the northeast corner of Dolores Park?)

I’ll tell you, the proper way to get a conditional use permit is to write a check for $15,000 made out to Alex Tourk, you know, to get the ball rolling. Then he’ll tell you what the add-ons will cost you. (You’re going to get a few add-ons, you know, like for pizza night at City Hall.) And then, before you know it, in a matter of days, weeks , months, or years, you’ll get your CUP and then open for bidness.

Hooray!

(Or you can go cheap route by trying to tap your fan base on the Facebook, either way.)

Impresionante!

Here’s your grass roots petition from Chipotle Mexican Grill (NYSECMG, in case you want to invest some of your hard-earned pesos – ask your broker!).

“Castro/Upper Market Chipotle

Dear San Francisco Planning Commission,

I support bringing a new Chipotle Mexican Grill to 2100 Market Street, the former location of Home Restaurant. This property has been vacant for over a year and has become an eyesore in our community.

Chipotle plans to do a complete façade remodel including the addition of an outdoor patio. The design, which includes a public art component, would be unique to our neighborhood and created with input from the community.

I also support Chipotle’s commitment to finding the very best ingredients, partnering with suppliers that raise their livestock humanely and farmers that respect the environment. These practices are consistent with San Francisco’s values.

Please vote in favor of revitalizing this corner with a new Chipotle Mexican Grill.

View Signatures without signing

TTFN. But first  check the Facebook of this international S&P 500 corporation:

Hello SF friends! We request your assistance with a petition – http://Chipotle.epetitions.net/ – to help us build a restaurant at 2100 Market Street in the Castro.

Or you can write us at CastroRestaurant@chipotle.com

The petition results and emails will be sent to planning commissioners in support of our effort to secure a conditional use permit to build our restaurant. Thank you for your time and effort! – Joe

  • Vincent Tamariz: There are three small business mexican restaurants (and good ones!) all within blocks of this spot. Not a fan of sub-urbanization and losing our character. It offers no “new or needed” service.

Email Inbox Fun: Counting “In Lieu” Signatures for the Candidates in the Mayoral Race – What’s a Signature?

Friday, July 29th, 2011

Now, I know what signatures are not.

Signatures are not what the Run Ed Run campaigners are getting or trying to get at a Recology breakroom* or at Avalos for Mayor HQ or at Golden Gate Park.

Nomination petition signatures need to be bona fide, right?

Would you risk breaking campaigning laws to gather this garbage? I wouldn’t:

Click to expand

All right, here it is, some unknown person’s attempt at the numbers as of yesterday’s deadline. This is a test, right? A measure of strength? I mean, if you don’t have money and you don’t have people, well, then you don’t have much. Of course, some of the campaigns want to use their resources in a different way, which is perfectly fine, of course…

(Until we found out the real numbers officially from City Hall, this will have to do. )

“For the past 8 weeks, candidates for Mayor of San Francisco and their volunteers have been asking voters for their signatures. That’s because mayoral candidates must either collect 10,096 signatures or cough up the $5,048 filing fee for their name to appear on November’s ballot.

Most of the serious contenders for Room 200 launched signature gathering campaigns in June and have been submitting their completed forms since. Thursday evening was the deadline for the signatures, and most candidates were collecting up until the last minute. Campaigns sent out a flurry of press releases in the afternoon, each claiming that their campaigns gathered over 10,000 signatures.

But before these candidates’ signatures are counted, the Department of Elections puts them through a strict validity check to assure that the signer is in fact registered to vote in San Francisco at the address they claim.

So far, only Sen. Leland Yee’s campaign has turned in enough valid signatures to get on the ballot – and did so a week early. The other campaigns will have to wait for their signatures to go through the stringent validity checks at the Dept. of Elections. Those big numbers sent out in press releases today may not translate to real signatures – and the candidates will have to pay cash to make up the difference.

For example, Supervisor John Avalos needs nearly every signature submitted on Thursday to be counted as valid in order to meet the 10,096 valid signature requirement. Today, he touted that the campaign had garnered over 10,000 signatures. But if just 7 of the randomly sampled signatures are found to be invalid, then the campaign will fall short of the needed number of signatures.

David Chiu sent an email today with the subject line “13,903!” to celebrate the large number of signatures he had collected – but his campaign had only 5,189 valid signatures at the Department today before his final submission this evening. Chiu needs 4,907 signatures of the 6,000 submitted today to be valid – but only 66% of the signatures he’s ever submitted passed the test. Unless he did something differently this time, he’s likely to fall short.

As for Dennis Herrera, his campaign only turned in a total of 8,905 signatures – and not all of them were valid. If he did collect over 10,000, as his press release claims, the signatures never made it to City Hall…”

All right then.

*SFGate now posts H. Brown YouTube videos? News to me. I’m getting a little bit of a Dennis Hopper vibe from that there. Go ahead – open two windows and play both vids simultaneously. See?    

“Let’s Keep Not Paying Taxes – YAY!” Taiwan’s NMA-TV Takes on the Amazon v. State of CA Sales Tax Fight

Monday, July 18th, 2011

NMA-TV out of Taiwan, Free Republic of China, well, they’ve got us pegged. They know all about what goes on in California and they show that with pithy animated videos.

As here, with the whole Governor Jerry Brown vs. Jeff Bezos / Amazon.com sales tax / “use tax”* issue. NMA already has a proposed slogan for the statewide initiative that’s coming our way from Amazon.

See?

And here’s Jeff Bezos (fresh from swimming in a pool of his money) explaining things to California Governor Jerry Brown and our Official State Animal, who looks hungry for a little tax money.

It’s going to be a tough row to hoe getting people to vote for the Amazon tax next year, IMO.

Anyway, good job NMA-TV.

*The tax is on your “use” in CA of whatever you buy. It’s pretty much like a sales tax except it’s based on the tax rate of where you live (as opposed to sales tax, which is based upon where you buy something).