Posts Tagged ‘prop a’

Here’s Why “Evil Republican Billionaire” Sean Parker is Four Times LESS Evil Than What the SFMTA Crowd is Saying

Friday, October 31st, 2014

Well, here’s the latest from the I HEART THE SFMTA NO MATTER HOW TERRIBLE IT MIGHT BE crowd on Sean Parker and Prop L.

The thing is, poor, sensitive* Sean Parker actually is the number one booster of Prop A, the billion dollar general obligation bond what the I HEART THE SFMTA NO MATTER HOW TERRIBLE IT MIGHT BE crowd really really wants passed.

Check it – he’s listed number one, owing to his $200,000 donation:

seannyboy copy

Prop A is real life – it will take tens of millions of property tax dollars and, through “pass-throughs,” it just might raise your rent to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars over the years. By that, I’m not saying that rents will go up generally, I’m saying you the renter will have to pay a surcharge to your landlord on top of the rent you already pay, despite your rent control.

OTOH, Prop L will have no effect whether it gets 49% or 51% of the vote. Of course, if it wins in a landslide, it will make life a bit more difficult for some activists. But if it loses in a landslide, it will be a useful talking point for those very same activists.

IMO, the SFMTA is afraid of any vote where it can’t control the selection of the voters. It’s grown accustomed to claiming widespread “community support” for all of its efforts. The SFMTA uses this sample bias to make itself feel better, and to help it to grow more and more, which is its number one goal.

So, stop abusing poor, sensitive Sean “Park”-er. He’s on your side, you “livable streets” people.

*He canceled his honeymoon after his stupid illegal wedding made the news? What he should have said was, “I’m sorry, I screwed up – I’ll try to make things better.” And then go on and pay the millions and millions he was going to pay anyway. See? Simple. Instead, his billionaire type friends “supported” him by telling him how “wronged” he was. Oh well. 

World Series Update: “FUCK SFMTA” – “Only in SF Do People Hate the Transit Agency More Than the Cops”

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

Word on the Street, via @SFNick, @robertol, and @kevinmonty:

 RT : Only in SF do people hate the transit agency more than the cops. (photo via )”

Capturedsddfff copy

Hey, how’s Prop A doing? The last polling I saw it wasn’t doing so hot, but that was a while ago.

Oh look, media coverage:

The Ides of “May”: The Language of the Mayor’s Pet $500 Million Bond “May” Alarm You

Meanwhile, the people at the SFMTA claim to be offering, “Excellent Transportation Choices.” And they ask the public for advice about MUNI can become “more perfect.”

Something’s gotta give here – I suppose we’ll find out next week…

Horrible SPUR Organization Supports the Billion Dollar “Prop A 2014,” But How Did “Prop A 2007″ Work Out?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2014

Work with me here, people.

Here’s what SPUR, San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal, promised for Prop A 2007

“…the strengthening of the MTA’s independence, the included labor reforms, the infusion of cash and the mandate to address global warming all make this a very important reform of the Municipal Transportation Agency and a positive step toward the improvement of Muni service. SPUR recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. A.

But here’s how things worked out IRL:

Muni’s mismanagement of Prop. A may hurt future funding tries by Will Reisman

Where the SFMTA’s Prop. A money has gone by Will Reisman

Now here we are in 2014. Here’s what SPUR, those horrible people behind Redevelopment, is saying about Prop A 2014:

“The city has done the hard work to gather stakeholders, assess needs and prioritize transportation expenditures.”

So, handing a blank check to the SFMTA for it to waste has something to do with “hard work?”

Really?

Hey SPUR, what about Prop A 2007? Weren’t you all wrong, so very wrong, about that?

So why would you expect Prop A 2014 to work out any better?

Compare SF (Most Expensive Parking Tickets in the Western Hemisphere) with Downtown San Mateo (50 Cent/Hr Parking Meters)

Friday, October 10th, 2014

Compare A with B, as seen in the City of San Mateo:

P1140358 copy

But the SFMTA wants more more more, so it’s hatched a plan called Prop A, to raise your rent (literally) and/or take your propertah taxes to pay for, among other things, cost overruns on the entirely unnecessary pork-barrel project called the Central Subway.

Hey, speaking of which:

“During a pair of recent presentations at city political clubs, MTA commissioner Cheryl Brinkman, arguing on behalf of Prop. A, stated that a City Attorney’s opinion concluded that, when it comes to bond language, the terms “shall” and “may” are identical.

Huh.

Brinkman now says she’s not entirely sure what she said. Multiple witnesses are more certain: ‘She did say that!’ recalls Potrero Hill Democrats president Joni Eisen.”

So, what’s going on inside Cheryl Brinkman’s head when she says stuff like this? Is it a fugue state? Is it simple lying? Or maybe somebody lied to her? Or she’s under so much pressure to keep her “job,” but what does it pay, like $100 a month and a free FastPass? And she voted FOR charging people at parking meters on Sundays only to change her mind the next year when she voted AGAINST? Oh, so the SFMTA could instead get VLF money from taxpayers, except that plan got shelved right after she voted.

If she were fired from the SFMTA and then replaced with a spineless jellyfish, how would anyone notice, how would anyone be able to tell the diff?

Our Poor SFMTA Slows Down the Speed of Its Aspirations: “@MuniRapid” Handle Changed to “@MuniForward”

Wednesday, October 8th, 2014

MUNI is many things, but the one thing America’s slowest big-city transit system is NOT is rapid.

So that’s why so many people LOL’ed / WTF’ed when they first discovered the Twitter handle “@MuniRapid.”

But now the SFMTA wants to take more of YOUR money* to pay for Prop A, so it’s gearing up for the big November 2014 election by showering the love upon its passengers. (IRL, MUNI is more concerned about MUNI employees almost all of the rest of the time.)

Anywho, here it is:

Capturesfsdfd copy

Now isn’t that delicious?

You see, because now all MUNI operators have to do is select the right gear and simply creep FORWARD, at any speed – there will be no expectation of MUNI RAPID-ly getting its customers anywhere.

At least they’re being honest.

*Hey, maybe you’re cool with that, I don’t know. What percentage of your property taxes will go to pay for the almost one billion dollar Prop A? IDK. How much money will it add up to? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars over the years? Oh what’s that, you’re a renter with rent control? Well, here comes your Prop A “pass-through” rent increase. How much could that be? Hundreds? Thousands? Thousands and thousands? IDK, maybe. Would it be better to fund MUNI’s mad-money Prop A fund by simply taxing every resident $1000, you know, including infants? IDK. What I do know is that horrible MUNI is not even promising any kind of reform in exchange for the extra money it wants from us. MUNI thinks it’s great, srsly. MUNI thinks it offers us, and I’m srsly, “EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION CHOICES.” If you agree with that, then you should prolly vote Yes on A, the way SFGov wants you to…

 

“I Heart My Car,” as Seen on Masonic

Wednesday, October 1st, 2014

Uh oh, the let’s-raise-your-rent* / let’s-spend-property-taxes-on-mismanaged-MUNI initiative known as Prop A is in twubble.

Big twubble.

Prop A is a gonna lose, big-time.

7J7C6682 copy

If only people hearted MUNI as much as their cars…

*Literally, like part of the property tax will get tacked on to your monthly rent, maybe, srsly

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Dishonest Approach to Lauding Props A and B and Decrying Prop L

Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

Here we go:

Understanding This Year’s Transportation Ballot Measures by Tyler Frisbee

Proposition A, Proposition B and Proposition L present stark contrasts for our city’s future, and the November elections will give voters a chance to weigh in on whether they want to move our transportation system forwards or backwards.

EVERYTHING IN SF WILL BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL THESE PROPS FARE IN NOVEMBER – THIS IS A FACT. THERE ARE NO “STARK CONTRASTS FOR OUR CITY’S FUTURE.” I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE I’M NOT TRYING TO RAISE MONEY FROM YOU, GENTLE READER.

Proposition A renews current property bond taxes to fund over $52 million for better bikeways, including $22 million for Better Market Street, in addition to $68 million for pedestrian improvements, $22 million for signal upgrades, and $358 million to improve Muni. Since it’s simply renewing a current property bond, Proposition A won’t raise taxes, and it will result in a markedly better commute for all of us.

PROP A. AUTHORIZES “PASSTHROUGHS” SO IT WILL ALLOW YOUR LANDLORD TO RAISE YOUR RENT TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, RIGHT? NEGLECTING TO MENTION THIS POSSIBILITY IS DISHONEST.*

In the first year, Proposition B would mean an extra $6 million for Vision Zero projects and an additional $16 million to improve Muni.

AND IN ITS FIRST YEAR, PROP B WOULD MEAN _LESS_ MONEY FOR SAN FRANCISCO NON-PROFITS, RIGHT? DON’T YOU THINK YOUR MEMBERS SHOULD KNOW THAT? OH WHAT’S THAT, YOU’RE A MONOMANIACAL POLITICAL GROUP SO YOU DON’T CARE? OK FINE.

Proposition L is a policy declaration statement that rolls back San Francisco’s Transit-First policy, and would result in the City having to prioritize car traffic and parking above all other modes.

UH NOPE. ITS PASSAGE WOULD NOT FORCE THE CITY TO DO ANYTHING, IT’S BASICALLY A MEASURE OF HOW VOTERS ARE THINKING.

Proposition L would require the SFMTA to value “free-flowing traffic” as highly as human life when designing streets, and would take money away from Muni to build more parking garages.

AGAIN, THE SFMTA WILL BE “REQUIRED” TO DO NOTHING.

END OF LINE.

As for myself, I’m agin Prop A, as I want a better MUNI. Pouring more money down the SFMTA rat hole doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Hey, shouldn’t the head of MUNI be an elected position ala the DA’s Office? Where’s that proposition?

And I’m for Prop B. Some politically-connected non-profits are hopping mad about it, but I don’t care.

And Prop L doesn’t matter, so I don’t care about it. If it wins by a surprisingly large margin, it will end up being a face-punch to the SFMTA and its needy vassal, the SFBC.

*AND OH YEAH, THE SFMTA AND SFGOV PROVIDE THE SFBC WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR – DID YOU KNOW THAT, GENTLE READER? IT MIGHT BE NICE FOR THE SFBC TO POST A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT ON ITS OP-EDS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS ONE…

The SFMTA’s New MUNI Blog Urges You to Raise Your Rent by Voting YES on the Half Billion Dollar Prop A, More or Less

Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

Why did the people at the SFMTA just happen to start up a PR blog three months before an election that it really, really care$ about, you know, so it can continue to pay its employees their six-figure salaries? Mmmm…

Their latest effort:

“Going Green – SF’s Taxis Can Help You Go Green by Gary Fiset, September 8, 2014″

Isn’t this a headline at least a touch patronizing? I think so. “Oh MUNI, help me go green! Empower us!”

Our occasional “Going Green” feature will focus on the sustainability efforts at the SFMTA. We’ll share fun facts and figures about one of the most sustainable transportation systems, including Muni and the city’s taxi fleet, in the U.S.

Boy, that prose gags, doesn’t it? I think what dude is saying is, “Vote YES on Prop A. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!”

SF taxis come in all shapes, sizes and colors, but the vast majority of the fleet is definitely green.

Again, that prose gags, doesn’t it? But I think what dude is really saying is, “Vote YES on Prop A. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!”

In the 90s taxis were mostly lumbering Crown Victoria sedans that got 10 miles per gallon. Today’s hybrid taxis get better than 40 miles per gallon, reducing the GHG emissions by 75 percent.

Well, let me call bullshit on that one, Gentle Reader. I’m showing a City MPG of 19 Miles Per Gallon for the oldest of the Crown Vics that the SFMTA is talking about. In fact, those lumbering Crown Vics weighed less than lithe, smallish, current-day BMWs, like an athletic 2.0 litre 5 Series, for example. So, if you throw in an airport run or two during an average shift, then you’re well over 20 MPG. Oh, what’s that, in real life, with the hills and all the passengers and luggage, 1990′s era CVs got less than 20 MPG? All right, well, then that means that, IRL, today’s hybrid taxis aren’t averaging “better than 40 MPG” in San Francisco taxi service, right? I mean I see the point you’re making, SFMTA, but you’re lying about mpg and you know it.

Converting SF’s taxi fleet to hybrid and CNG has resulted in removing more than 60 thousand tons of GHG emission savings, the equivalent of taking 6,890 passenger cars off the road every year.

Again, that prose gags, doesn’t it? And please note how the SFMTA spins the putting of GHG’s into the atmosphere as “removing” GHG’s – those are kind of opposite things, right?

So it’s looking like the SFMTA, San Francisco’s worst public agency and the operator of America’s slowest big-city public transit system, is giving itself an A+ on how it has managed taxis in SF.

I cry foul.

And, oh yes, I’ve learned a bit more about the rent increase, the”passthrough” you’ll be voting for yourself this November if you vote YES, as the SFMTA really wants you to do, on that huge Prop A bond. It’ll be turbo simple for your landlord to raise your rent to pay for Prop A. Other landlords will laugh at your landlord for NOT increasing your rent. So, even if you’ve never had to deal with rent passthroughs before, you’ll get one from Prop A.

So what you say, what’s a few bucks a month in increased rent over the next seven years to pay for a better MUNI? Well fine, Gentle Reader, as long as you know it won’t be just a “few” bucks, then vote AYE, and so long as you know what you’re getting us into. But IMO, the road to a better MUNI starts with a NO vote on Prop A.

And a YES vote tells the SFMTA to carry on, business as usual, you all are doing a great job, gee thanks for all the “EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION CHOICES” [that's an actual SFMTA corporate catchphrase, I'm srsly.], here, have some more money, build us another Subway to Nowhere why not…

Look Who’s Blogging Now: The SFMTA! – Presenting the Brand-New MUNI Blog, “[Slowly] Moving SF [If We Feel Like It]“

Friday, September 5th, 2014

The SFMTA knows it has an image problem, so when it spends our money to make itself look better it needs to acknowledge reality. So what it does is to say, “We’re working on it, we’re trying to get better.” See for yourself here at the new official MUNI Blog.

Compare it with PG&E’s current “We’re sorry we blew up part of San Bruno and killed eight people” campaign or Buick’s “We know we have a horrible brand image that’s been built up over the decades, but please give us another chance” campaign

So here it is, the Moving SF Slowly blog. What do we see here? We see a logo that was released with recklessness. And we see “excellent transportation choices?” What does that mean? Is it aspirational? Does the SFMTA really consider itself “excellent?” I mean, just random chance would have the transit system that you, the Gentle Reader, have be average, on average, or mediocre, right? But MUNI sucks, right? MUNI is the worst big-city transit system in America, right? So where does the “excellent” part come from? I mean, you’re living out there at 42nd and Lawton and what are your “excellent” “choices?” And “The SFMTA is responsible?” Do you think that phrase is in there by mistake? I don’t. IMO, it’s more phoney-baloney, folksy PR bullshit from an official SFMTA spokesmodel. And do the people at MUNI work “tirelessly?” Well, it depends. If you’re talking about the cable car operators who skim fares off of tourists six dollars at a time to “supplement” their already-fairly-large paychecks, well, perhaps you’re right, MUNI flack. And the SFMTA’s PR machine is only starting up now, in 2014? Like, they’ve never tried to start telling their “story” before? I think that’s incorrect. Anyway, check it:

Capturedfggfd copy

And who’s Kristen Holland? Why it’s none other than Nat Ford’s Right Hand Man!

4563853173_0e19af6361_s copy

Or left-hand woman, in this shot anyway.

Hey Kristen, were you at the infamous “snitch” meeting? I think so! How has MUNI improved since then? You know, in some ways MUNI has gotten worse.

All right, we’ll see how this latest PR effort from MUNI goes. One suspects that Proposition A is the primary motive. (Hey Kristen, why would SFMTA Director Bruce Oka oppose giving you another blank check to the tune of a half billion dollars? Why not blog about that?)

USF is Wrong, There IS a Moral Compass App – It’s This: Vote the Opposite of How SPUR Tells You to Vote

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

You see, my new moral compass app will crawl through the website of SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association) to find out its election endorsements. Then it will advise you to vote the opposite.

So, in regards to the the recent Prop A, SPUR told you to vote against ending San Francisco’s archaic and wasteful garbage monopoly.

And on the recent Prop B. SPUR told you to vote for the RPD.

My moral compass app would have advised you to favor both props. See how that works?

D’Accord? D’Accord.

Hey SPUR! Maybe everything our City Family wants isn’t “good?”

Hey SPUR! Maybe you have nothing at all to do with promoting “Good Government.” Maybe you just like promoting the government we have.

How wrong you are, University of San Francisco bus ad:

Click to expand

All right, what aboot the next election coming up, mmmm. Hey SPUR? Why not let’s fix the mistake our City Family forefathers made with Hetch Hetchy? How does that grab you?

Oh, here’s the answer:

Why We Need Hetch Hetchy More Than Ever

 Now, realize, SPUR, I’m not saying that it would be easy or cheap for San Francisco to change things at the Hetchy Hetch, I’m just saying, you know, maybe, at least as a goal for the far off future, maybe we could think about taking a look at what we did to the Yosemite area. Yes, we were able to bully other municipalities a century ago, but was that fair? You know, cause the New York Times and the Sacramento Bee and the LA Times and a bunch of others favor looking into changing things at Hetch Hetchy, right?

So don’t you want to think about this? You know, use your own in-built moral compass?

God damn, SPUR, you don’t have any moral compass at all.

Who the Hell put you in charge of Good Government in the 415?

Oh well.

In closing:

SPUR, you suck!

Anyway, here’s some more on Hetch Hetchy, Dear Reader. Leaving you with this:

Drain the Dam!
San Francisco Examiner
February 16, 2012

Will San Francisco Vote to Drain Hetch Hetchy?
Sacramento Bee
February 15, 2012

San Francisco Water Ethos Goes Only so Far
Sacramento Bee
January 25, 2012

Los Angeles Times – Editorial on Hetch Hetchy
Los Angeles Times
January 15,2012

Historical New York Times Articles: