This one is new on me:
IDK how this works IRL.
Might be appealing to you…
Here’s today’s release from the SFSD:
“San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Statement Regarding Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) is deeply saddened by the tragic death of Ms. Steinle and offer our sincere condolences to her family and friends.
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the San Francisco County Jail from federal prison on a local drug-related warrant on March 26, 2015. On March 27, 2015, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was in San Francisco Superior Court on local charges which were dismissed by the court. SFSD began confirming that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s federal prison time had been completed. At the time Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was booked, federal transportation orders reflected two conflicting release dates. SFSD verified that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez completed his federal prison sentence and was lawfully released from federal prison March 26, 2015. Once the SFSD confirmed that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s federal prison time had been completed and that he had no active warrants, he was released from San Francisco County Jail on April 15, 2015.
When Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the jail, there was no active Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) warrant or judicial order of removal for him. There was an ICE request for his detention. Once Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s local criminal charges were dismissed, San Francisco Ordinance 130764, approved by the Board of Supervisors and signed by Mayor Ed Lee in October 2013, deemed him ineligible for extended detention. This also comports with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Policy on immigration detainers.
While over 300 municipalities throughout the state and country, including the City and County of San Francisco, have amended their policies regarding ICE detainers, ICE has not changed its policies or procedures to reflect that detainers are requests and not a legal basis to hold an individual. Courts including the Oregon Federal District Court in Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST) have ruled accordingly. In instances where a warrant or court order is obtained, individuals would be returned to ICE for deportation proceedings.”
I guess this is part of San Francisco’s “bikes and transit first policy?”
Click to expand
There was a time when San Francisco would avoid putting up street signs with the number 13 on them. Those times are over…
Hey, do you know what I’m “offended” about, you know, having to do with America’s most dangerous and slowest big city transit service, well I’m offended by how slow it is and how badly it reacts to bad behavior by its operators.
But that’s just me.
Now look at the universe of reactions that KALW permits you after people were “devastated” to see some ads on the sides of a few buses:
Or angered you.
Or made you feel threatened”
That’s it, those are your options.
Read the whole bit to see the tone and then see if you agree with me, if you want.
IMO, this bit from KALW is beyond the pale.
Let me tell you first about Los Angeles, about how they don’t want cars with “master” and “slave” brake cylinders, about how they don’t want PCs with master and slave hard drives:
Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label,” Joe Sandoval, division manager of purchasing and contract services, said in a memo sent to County vendors
That’s your baseline.
Comes now CalTrain with a logo for the CRUSADER FENCE company, complete with a red cross:
(Check for yourself on the Google Maps: 341 Townsend Street, SF, CA ought to do it.)
So, the fence is so good, it can keep out even the Crusaders?
Does that make sense?
I don’t get it.
Say it again, y’all: Absolutely nothing.
Background: District One (aka The Richmond, more or less) Supervisor Eric Mar is a bird of another feather – he wasn’t satisfied with issuing edicts from Academia oh no. He descended from the ivory tower to put dreams into action. And his father passed away from lung cancer (AFAIK, pretty sure), so it would make sense that he wanted to do something for San Francisco renters who have to deal with secondhand smoke coming in from other units.
Get all the deets on San Francisco’s 2013 Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Policy as of last year via this excellent article from Christian Watjen right here.
So that’s the background. What’s going on now is that tenants all over the City are getting alarming/confusing letters from landlords. To wit:
Now here’s what you’ll get* if your landlord toes the party line of the San Francisco Apartment Association – an excerpt of the pledge they want you to make:
“For purposes of the Tobacco Smoke Disclosure Policy and SF Health Code 19M, I would like to designate my apartment as non-smoking. I verify that neither I nor my guests will ever smoke tobacco within the rental apartment listed below.”
Uh, so why should tenants make this pledge? It’s not explained in this official SFAA letter now is it? And what if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton drops by your pad a few years from now? They puff puff every now and then, right? So what about your signed pledge, what about that?
And here’s what the lawyer(s) of the SFAA have for you at the bottom of the letter:
“If you do voluntarily decide to designate your apartment as non-smoking, which you are not required to do, the designation is permanent and becomes a consensual change in the terms of your tenancy.”
If you’re living in rent-controlled San Francisco, I think you should get some kind of benefit when you change the terms of your tenancy, you know, as a general rule .
And later on, is your landlord going to complain about how you’re violating the terms of your tenancy when you allowed your future bud / date / friend smoke one cigarette to help her get through one of her stressed out moments?
Or your Euro fiance can’t move in with you in 2015 because your “designation is permanent?”
And should we assume second-hand smoke from clove cigarettes and/or the Mary Jane is good for you, since it’s not covered?
Now, IRL, is this issue going to affect you? Prolly not. But I’m just saying.
So, sign your pledge or just ignore it – choose or lose, maybe.
*Assuming that you’re living in a building with fewer than 50 units and you aren’t restricted from smoking now. This is the notification you’ll get otherwise, possibly, and it’s fair enough. And here’s the full rundown from the SFAA. Again, no objections.
All the deets, after the jump
So, basically, SFGov will soon be doing more stuff through a network instead of doing stuff on-site, for better or worse.
“We implemented a cloud-first IT strategy as part of our effort to address a multimillion-dollar, city-wide budget deficit, avoid staff reductions and implement business-enabling IT solutions. Our cloud-first strategy has allowed us to roll out a wide-ranging series of transformative virtualization and cloud initiatives with CommVault Simpana software as the foundation of our data management strategy,” said Gina Tomlinson, Chief Technology Officer for the City and County of San Francisco. “These successful initiatives have helped us expand our footprint in the cloud and anticipate future demands to ensure our cloud services fulfill and grow with the needs of our agencies and community.”
Here‘s the PowerPoint.
OK, then. We’ll soon have Cloud Computing First to go with our existing Transit First policy. What other Firsts will we soon have?
Anyway, all your local government data, your parking ticket payment history records and the like, are heading up to the sky. Let’s hope they stay safe up there.
It’ll look something like this:
The company that got the contract to do this has a lot of blah blah blah about it.
See it after the jump
Is it easy to drive a big ol’ Ford F-450 Super Duty pick-em-up truck around Market Street what with all the MUNI buses and streetcars, and with all the peds walking around like a chicken with its head cut off?
As here, on Market the other day, when the driver of this white DPW truck, which has stickers on it saying “Tax Dollars At Work,” cut a corner too close and loudly scraped up the left rear corner of a MUNI bus.
The aftermath – a little bit stuck:
Click to expand
Now when you think about it, there’s really no point in reporting this one, because the bus still works and the truck still works and is the City Family going to write a check to the City Family to compensate for the losses of the City Family? I think not.
So all you can do is pick up the stuff what fell off the back of the big pickup and offer it up to the embarrassed DPW worker.
Dude, here’s your shovel back:
So, no harm no foul, except for a scraped-up bus, which probably had its fair share of scrapes already.
And it’s all, well yeah, I screwed that one up but no biggee.
Too bad others in SFGov can’t similarly admit mistakes…
Click to expand
You know, back in the day, SFGov freely violated the 14th Amendment until it got slapped down.
These days, SFGov violates the 1st Amendment with its Christians Park Free rule. When will SFGov get slapped down on this issue?
I know not. It’ll take a new Yick Wo to file a lawsuit. (Right? ‘Cause just nagging the SFGov isn’t going to cut it. SFGov will just ignore you.)
In the meantime, enjoy San Francisco’s Transit First (Except for Church-Goers) policy.