Posts Tagged ‘prop b’

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…

CW Nevius Just Moved Here a Few Years Ago, But He’s Already Telling Us San Franciscans How to Vote – Prop B Redux Redux

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

CW Nevius, “a sportswriter from the United States” “known for his breezy writing style” has gone bonkers over Prop B, which will require Mayor Ed Lee and his appointees to disallow building height violations on the waterfront, you know, without voter approval.

I don’t know why he cares so much about this issue. Mayor Ed Lee, who embarrassingly campaigned for 8 Washington with Gavin Newsom, has learned his lesson and, in fact, isn’t even opposing Prop B, you know, officially. But Neve, well, I’m guessing he might do one or two more Prop B columns afore the election, and then he’ll do more about the forthcoming lawsuit against Prop B, oh well. You’d think Neve would come out and support simply having no height limits at all, if he’s so concerned about this issue.

Once more:

Richard and Barbara Stewart, the wealthy neighborhood NIMBYs who donated over $440,000 to stop the 8 Washington condominiums, are at it again. Official election contribution filings from this week show that the Stewarts have chipped in $143,750 in support of Proposition B, the ballot measure that would require a public vote on any potential structure on port land that exceeds current height limits.

OR, IN OTBER WORDS, THE BALLOT MEASURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE POLITICIANS AND THEIR APPOINTEES TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE ALREADY-EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE VOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO.

With the Stewarts’ help, the Yes on Prop. B alliance has raised nearly $230,000. Compare that to Prop. B opponents, whose total is a $47,633, according to documents filed at the San Francisco Ethics Commission on Thursday. So much for the lofty talk from Prop. B supporters about listening to the voice of the people.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, CW NEVIUS? ED LEE DIDN’T “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE” ABOUT 8 WASHINGTON AND NOW HE’S GETTING SPANKED BY THE VOTERS.

It sounds more like the voice of two people who live on the waterfront and want to protect their turf.

WELL, THAT’S THE SYSTEM, RIGHT NEVIUS?

So forget city government, the Port, the Planning Commission and elected officials.

WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE VOTERS MEANT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR HEIGHT LIMITS, NEVIUS?

If you want to build something along the San Francisco waterfront, it seems you’d better pay a visit to the Stewarts.

OR, WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS?

And here’s the kicker. A recent poll shows that Prop. B is in trouble.

WHAT’S THAT, IS THAT THE SOUND OF ANOTHER FLIP FROM THE EAST BAY’S #1 FLIP-FLOPPER? LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” DIDN’T YOU WRITE THAT JUST LAST MONTH, NEVE?

Still, a case can be made that this is either going to be a lot closer than a many deep thinkers expected or – and this would be a wonderful and surprising turn of events – it might actually lose.

ARE YOU CALLING YOURSELF A “DEEP THINKER,” NEVE? SURE SEEMS THAT WAY. LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” 

Begin with the structure that started the whole controversy – the Warriors new arena.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE OUR MAYOR AND FORMER MAYORS STARTED THIS “CONTROVERSY” BY GOING AROUND THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE VOTERS ONE TIME TOO MANY – IS THAT A POSSIBILITY, NEVE?

“At first blush, if you say, “Should we vote on everything?’ people are in favor,” said Eric Jaye, an adviser to the No on B group. “Then they think about it and say, How’s that going to work?’”

WELL MAYBE THE MAYOR SHOULDN’T HAVE THE BACKERS OF 8 WASHINGTON FUND HIS PET PROJECTS. TO REPEAT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? WHY NOT HAVE THE BUILDERS RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS, WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD THING TO DO? RESPECT THE LIMITS AND THEN THERE’S NO NEED FOR ANY VOTE, RIGHT?

Well, I can give you the worst case scenario. If Prop. B wins it will be the second huge victory for the Art Agnos-Aaron Peskin-Golinger crowd. Developers aren’t stupid. If they really want to build something on the waterfront, they will have to recognize that that waterfront alliance has the political juice. Rather than put a potential development up for election and hope for the best, they will want to get the blessing of that faction, particularly the Stewarts. The result could be a series of backroom meetings where Agnos and others meet with the builders, work out an arrangement – with concessions to the alliance of course – and then put the brokered deal on the ballot with the group’s endorsement.

SO NEVIUS IS NOW AGAINST “BACKROOM MEETINGS?” REALLY? DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO ALL THE POLS ON THE RIGHT-SIDE-OF-THE-AISLE POLITICAL FACTION CW NEVIUS IS ALWAYS CHEERLEADING FOR?

Which sounds like you’re setting up a little back room protection racket to me. And yet there is a feeling that Prop. B is taking on water.

LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” 

If Prop. B loses it will be a bombshell – especially for Richard and Barbara Stewart.

ALL RIGHT, NEVIUS, WHATEVER YOU SAY…

Writer CW Nevius Brings an East Bay Perspective to San Francisco Politics: He Fights for Prop B for No Obvious Reason

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

[UPDATE: Comes now John King to contradict poor CW Nevius: "The fact is, the creators of Prop. B make several valid points."]

Appointed head coach Ed Lee is calling for a punt, but head cheerleader CW Nevius is cheering for a Hail Mary on 4th down with 38 yards to go:

Let’s begin by saying this is a waste of time. I know, that’s not much of an incentive to read, but it is the hard truth.

SO WHEN DID YOU MOVE HERE FROM THE EAST BAY, NEVIUS – A COUPLE YEARS AGO? FINE, BUT WHAT’S THE “WASTE OF TIME?” ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WASTING _YOUR_ TIME TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN UPCOMING ELECTION? ISN’T THAT A BIT MUCH? LIKE, DO YOU THINK SAN FRANCISCANS WOULD PONDER MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER THE HELL YOU’RE FROM TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS THERE?

Proposition B is almost certainly going to pass. That’s the ordinance that will mandate an election on any construction on the waterfront that exceeds the existing height limit.

WELL THAT’S ONE WAY OF PHRASING IT, I SUPPOSE. BUT HOW ABOUT “PROP B WILL PREVENT POLITICIANS FROM IGNORING THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT,” YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?

It’s got a snappy slogan – “Let the people decide” – an enthusiastic base of supporters and the always compelling what-the-heck factor. Why not vote for it? What’s the harm? I believe the potential harm is greater than you think.

WELL, FAIR ENOUGH, NEVE. BUT I THINK YOUR SELF-APPOINTED ROLE OF BEING THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHMENT’S “MAN AT THE CHRONICLE” DOES MORE HARM THAN _YOU_ THINK – HOW ABOUT THAT? YOU JUST MOVED TO THE MOST CORRUPT BIG CITY WEST OF CHICAGO, BUT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE DOMINANT POLITICAL FACTION WHAT RULES THIS TOWN IS JUST HUNKY-DORY. BUT I DIGRESS. PLEASE DO GO ON, NEVE, EVEN IF IT IS A BIG WASTE OF YOUR PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS TIME.

Not that it matters. This is seen as such a slam dunk that not a single San Francisco politician is willing to stand up and oppose it. Someone ought to express some reservations.

I BELIEVE ED LEE HAS “EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS” REGARDING PROP B. ALSO, PROP B OPPONENTS HAVE DESCRIBED THE MAYOR AS BEING OPPOSED.

Although supporters continue to call the 8 Washington vote a landslide, citywide win, the numbers aren’t convincing.

UH, NO, THEY’RE _HIGHLY_ CONVINCING. OTHERWISE MARK FARRELL OR SCOTT WIENER OR ED LEE WOULD HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD AGAINST PROP B.  ALSO, IT’S NOT JUST “SUPPORTERS” WHO CONSIDER THAT VOTE A LANDSLIDE.

Just 27 percent of registered voters cast ballots, so you could say that almost three-fourths of voters couldn’t be bothered to mark a ballot.

THEREFORE WHAT? THE ELECTORATE IS THE ELECTORATE, NEVE – DEAL WITH THAT. YES, YOU’RE PARROTING THE PARTY LINE, ESPOUSED BY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT SPOKESPEOPLE IN ADDITION TO YOU, NEVE, BUT THE TURNOUT WAS WHAT THE TURNOUT WAS.

It did win across the city, but in places like the Marina and SoMa, turnout was barely 20 percent. And in Bayview and Ingleside it was closer to 10. Still, that’s enough when 50 percent of Telegraph Hill area voters turn out. That’s the strategy. Target an off-year election with low turnout, mobilize the base of voters who favor the position and then claim you’re surfing the new wave of public opinion.

BUT THERE _IS_ A NEW WAVE OF PUBLIC OPINION, RIGHT? SO YOU’RE DEAD WRONG THERE.

So if you liked 8 Washington, you’re going to love Prop B. It’s on a June ballot that will see low turnout, vociferous support from a dedicated core and Agnos haranguing anyone who dares to oppose it.

NEVIUS, DOES ANYBODY ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE EVER DO ANY “HARANGUING?” YOU MIGHT THINK NOT BUT MAYBE THEY DO, NEVE. AND DO YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN BARS TALKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT? ‘CAUSE YOU SURE SOUND LIKE YOU DO.

But since he’s already mad at me for calling his group the Flat Earth Society, I’d say this: First, if this is such a good idea, why stop there? Shouldn’t other neighborhoods be able to vote on height limitations?

UH, _ALL_ NEIGHBORHOODS JUST VOTED ON HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, RIGHT? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? DO YOU HAVE AN EDITOR? IT DOESN’T SEEM THAT WAY. WHY DO OTHER PEOPLE AT THE CHRON WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, WAY SMARTER THAN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EDITOR BUT YOU CAN JUST WRITE WHATEVER YOU WANT, REGARDLESS OF REALITY?

Or homeless shelters. Or Muni routes? Or whether the mayor should have soup or salad for lunch?

ALL RIGHT, NEVE, HERE WE GO. WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY RULES ABOUT WHAT THE MAYOR SHOULD EAT, DO WE? HOWEVER, WE _DO_ HAVE A RULE ABOUT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS NEAR THE WATERFRONT. THE CURRENT PROBLEM IS THAT THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING A DEVELOPER FROM DONATING A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT, SAY GIVING $25,000 TO SOMETHING HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE AMERICA’S CUP, YOU KNOW, TO “HELP OUT” OUR POOR POOR MAYOR AND THEN, LATER ON, WE’RE LEFT WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE DON’T KNOW WHY THE MAYOR PRESSURED HIS APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. I’LL TELL YOU, I WOULDN’T EVER DREAM OF MOVING TO WALNUT CREEK OR WHEREVER AND THEN START TELLING PEOPLE HOW TALL THEIR BUILDINGS SHOULD BE. HEY, WHY NOT THIS, NEVE, WHY DON’T YOU LOBBY FOR A VOTE TO RAISE THE HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE WATERFRONT OR JUST GET RID OF THEM ALTOGETHER? WHY DON’T YOU BE DIRECT ABOUT THIS SITUATION, THE ONE YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT?

Elections are expensive and time consuming.

I SUPPOSE NEVE, BUT THE REASON WE HAVE THE PROPOSITION SYSTEM HAS TO DO WITH A WELL-PLACED CONCERN OVER POLITICAL CORRUPTION

They’re also a formula for gridlock. The Giants have prepared a terrific plan for a retail center on their parking lot A.

WHO SHOULD DECIDE HOW “TERRIFIC” ANY PLAN FROM THE GIANTS IS, NEVIUS? YOU, THE NOT-TOO-BRILLIANT SPORTS JOCK? YOU, THE ONE WHO JUST LOVED THE _INITIAL_ AMERICA’S CUP PROPOSAL BACK WHEN YOU LIVED IN THE EAST BAY, REMEMBER? WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOUR WORD ON THIS?

Now they might have to prepare an election strategy.

FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT? PERHAPS THEY SHOULD LEAVE IF THEY DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE. (AND PERHAPS YOU, THE MIGHTY NEVIUS, SHOULD LEAVE IF YOU DON’T LIKE THINGS HERE.)

Second, the elections-for-everything meme short-circuits the political system.

FINE, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?

We elect public officials and expect them to use their good judgment, regardless of the views of a small, rabid group.

DID WE “ELECT” ED LEE? NO WE DID NOT. HE WAS APPOINTED FOR, EFFECTIVELY, NINE YEARS, BASED UPON A PLEDGE HE MADE THAT TURNED OUT TO NO PLEDGE AT ALL, A BIG FAT LIE. AND IF THE GROUP YOU OPPOSE IS SO “SMALL,” HOW IS IT THAT THEIR PROPS KEEP WINNING?

There are those who want to compare Agnos’ small, dedicated core to the Tea Party, which also wants to take government out of our lives.

DOES ART AGNOS REALLY WANT TO “TAKE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES?” NO, NOT AT ALL.

But a better comparison would be Howard Jarvis‘ “people power” revolution in 1978. Jarvis became a national sensation when he championed Proposition 13, which clamped down on property taxes in California.

HEY NEVE! WERE YOU ABLE TO TRANSFER YOUR PROP 13 TO FRISCO COUNTY, YOU KNOW THE WAY SOME EMPTY NESTERS IN CALIFORNIA ARE ABLE TO DO? MMMM… BUT IF NOT, YOU’RE KIND OF GETTING SCREWED BY PROP 13 NEVE, IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT ALREADY.

The result was immediate and disastrous.

WELL, IN YOUR OPINION, NEVE. AT THE TIME, NANAS AND POP-POPS WERE BEING FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOMES ALL OVER THE STATE DUE TO REAL ESTATE INFLATION. SO, IRL, THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS DUE TO PROP 13. DON’T YOU KNOW THIS, NEVE? ISN’T THERE ANY NUANCE THERE BEWIXT YOUR EARS, NEVE?

Schools suffered, in particular, and only now is there a concerted effort to walk back some of the tax breaks for businesses, which are using the measure to game the tax system.

HEY NEVE, WHY NOT SUGGEST GETTING RID OF PROP 13 ALTOGETHER, IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH?

Prop. 13 was supposed to be exciting, innovative and life-affirming.

UH, CAN YOU LINK TO THESE QUOTES, NEVE? I THINK YOU’RE JUST MAKING UP ADJECTIVES IN ORDER TO CLOSE YOUR BIT. HEY, CAN I GET A RULING HERE, EDITOR? HELLO, ED? ANYBODY THERE?

Instead, it was just the product of lazy, simplistic rhetoric. So is Prop. B.

HEY NEVE, WHO AT THE CHRONICLE IS LAZIER AND SIMPLER THAN YOU? SERIOUSLY. YOU DON’T DO ALL THAT MUCH WORK AND YOU’RE NOT THAT SMART, RIGHT?

This isn’t the Arab Spring, it is spring break. I’d worry about the hangover.

I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT NEVE. IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. BY THIS POINT, POLS SHOULD KNOW IF THEY ABUSE THE VOTERS TOO MUCH, IF THEY PRESSURE THEIR APPOINTEES TO JUST IGNORE PRIOR VOTER RESULTS THEN THE VOTERS JUST MIGHT RISE UP AND TURN SOMETHING THAT WAS ADVISORY INTO SOMETHING MANDATORY.

WHAT COLOR IS THE SKY IN _YOUR_ WORLD, CW NEVIUS?

The Bros of Proposition B, Haight and Divisadero – Harassing Passersby About Bypassing Height Limitations Older Than They Are

Monday, October 21st, 2013

The poor brocephuses – they aren’t going to win on the whole 8 Washington thing next month:

Click to expand

I myself am not a NIMBY, I’m a goo goo.

Ergo, I will unite with my NIMBY brothers and sisters on 8 Washington.

Yours, in struggle..

Here’s What Tonight’s World Series Viewing Party Will Look Like – But No Alcohol in Civic Center – Vote No on Prop B

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

You’re invited to come to Civic Center tonight to see Game Four of the World Series on a makeshift “Jumbotron.”

See you at 5:07 PM (or earlier, to get a good spot if you want to be able to actually see the action unobstructed.)

It’ll look like this, but probably with more Matt Cain than Timothy Leroy Lincecum on the screen:

Via RubyxCube - click to expand

The SFPD requests (more or less) that you transfer your alcohol to unmarked containers, thusly:

And, oh yes, speaking of the Rec and Park, Remember to Vote No on Proposition B (November 2012), the so-called “Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond”

Why?

Well, because Prop. B is too costly for San Francisco

And also because Reform is Needed at San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department.

Also because area lawyer Philip Alan Ginsburg would consider passage of Prop B (November 2012) an endorsement of how he’s running the RPD.

That’s why.

Now, let’s hear from San Francisco Mayor Ron Conway,* after the jump. (Spoiler: He wants you to go to Chipotle’s and spend your money before you blow town.)

PS: The after party will be in the Mission District – spread the word, bring fireworks.

*Poor Sony. It appears that any television-like contraption bigger than 100 inches now gets the generic term “jumbotron.”

Oh well.

Displays similar to the Jumbotron include:

(more…)

Your Moment of Zen: The Stunningly Blue Bamboo of Golden Gate Park

Friday, October 12th, 2012

You can get bamboo in blue these days.

See?

go8f6640a.jpg

Blue Himalayan Bamboo, Himilayacalamu S Hookerianus in Golden Gate Park*

What will they think of next?

*They charge admission to get into the area where this bamboo is. They didn’t used to. Remember to VOTE NO on Prop B come November 2012!

Prop B, That Massive $200 Million General Obligation Bond, Has Zero (0) Chance of Winning Next Month – Vote NO

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

Check out this recent bit from Will Reisman over at the San Francisco Examiner.

Simply, Prop B of November 2012 is a way to give money to a mismanaged department without any requirement of reform, and without any promise of reform.

Oh well.

Let’s put this household down as a tentative NO on PROP B.

Click to expand

Leave us begin:

“Mark Buell, president of the Recreation and Park Commission, said opposition to the bond is based on personal slights, and not on the content of the measure.”

UH, NO. IT’S BASED ON THE CONTENT.

“The fact of the matter is that there are people who didn’t get what they wanted from the department and they’re coalescing around this measure,” said Buell.

UH, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE THE WAY RPD HAS BEEN HEADING LATELY.

He said that due to The City’s capital priorities and the upcoming election schedule, another parks bond measure wouldn’t be realistic until 2020.

PERHAPS THE ABOVE STATEMENT ISN’T AS EXTORTIONATE AS “DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT OR EVERYBODY DIES!!!” BUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LITTLE EXTORTIONATE, DON”T YOU THINK?

Peskin said the parks bond was originally scheduled for 2014, and could easily be placed on a ballot before 2020.

YEP.

Supervisor Scott Wiener said any criticism against the bond measure would be short-sighted, particularly given the immense needs of the department.

NOPE. WE SHOULD STARVE OUT THIS DEPARTMENT WHILE WE’RE WAITING FOR A NEW DEPARTMENT.

“I think the opposition to this is incredibly cynical and irresponsible, because they are taking the position that, ‘We don’t like Phil Ginsburg, we don’t like some of these operational decisions,” Wiener said.

OH NO, IT’S LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN. I DON’T THINK ANYBODY HATES PHIL GINSBURG. IT’S JUST THAT PEOPLE DON’T LIKE MOST OF WHAT HE DOES. VOTING FOR PROP B WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE HIM. IN FACT, PROP B _IS_ PHIL GINSBURG, MORE OR LESS.

“‘So therefore kids should continue to play on broken-down playgrounds, people should continue to sit in puddles even when it is dry out because the irrigation systems in these parks are broken, we should continue to have substandard pools.’”

YES! YES YES YES. AND IT’LL BE PHIL GINSBURG’S FAULT.

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:

Our City Family: Labor Council, Chamber of Commerce, and Warren Hellman Unite to Fight Jeff Adachi’s Prop D

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Well here’s the news of the day – it’s the launch of YesOnCNoOnD.com

And look who’s the headliner of this Fellowship, it’s “Civic Leader” Warren Hellman, who used to play for the other team, so to speak.

Anyway, all the deets, below.

That Warren sure loves his banjo:

Click to expand

“PAULSON, FALK TO CO-CHAIR YES ON PROPOSITION C PENSION REFORM CAMPAIGN - Top Labor Leader, Top Business Leader Tapped To Lead Consensus Coalition

SAN FRANCISCO, August 31, 2011 – San Franciscans United For Pension And Health Reform today selected Tim Paulson and Steve Falk to serve as co-chairs of the campaign supporting Proposition C and opposing Proposition D on the November ballot.

Paulson is executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, comprised of 150 local unions and representing 100,000 workers, and Falk is president and CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, a 1,500-member organization representing the business community.

“We are pleased that San Francisco’s top labor leader and top business leader are working together to lead this coalition’s campaign for pension and health reform,” said Thomas P. O’Connor, president of Fire Fighters Local 798. “Unions and the business community don’t agree on everything, but on Proposition C, San Francisco is united.”

Falk praised Proposition C, which was developed with input from the community, introduced by Mayor Ed Lee, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors.

“Proposition C saves taxpayers at least $1.3 billion over the next decade,” said Falk. “This measure is fiscally responsible and it will help keep us solvent.”

Paulson emphasized the measure’s fairness.

“Proposition C provides a safety net for hardworking city employees who earn lower wages,” said Paulson. “It keeps pension contributions stable for those making less than $50,000 a year. Those who make more pay more.”

O’Connor drew a contrast between Proposition C and Proposition D, a rival pension measure.

“Proposition C has widespread support because it was conceived in the light of day, with a public process that encouraged input and ideas from everyone,” said O’Connor. “On the other hand, the backers of Proposition D bought their way onto the ballot with signature gatherers who were paid five dollars a signature and repeatedly got caught on tape lying about what the measure would do.”

Today, San Franciscans United For Pension And Health Reform also announced the other members of its campaign committee. In addition to Paulson, Falk, and O’Connor, the committee includes other business and labor leaders, along with the measure’s sponsor at the Board of Supervisors:

Warren Hellman, Civic Leader
Gary Delagnes, President of the San Francisco Police Officers Association
Sean Elsbernd, Member of the Board of Supervisors
Steve Fields, Co-Chair of the Human Services Network
Larry Mazzola, Business Manager and Financial Secretary Treasurer of UA Local 38
Rebecca Rhine, Executive Director of the Municipal Executives Association
Bob Muscat, Executive Director of IFTPE Local 21
Sean Connolly, President of the Municipal Attorneys Association

Please visit www.yesoncnoond.com for more information.”

Strategist Nate Ballard Takes a Victory Lap in the New York Times over Jeff Adachi’s Proposition B Going Down in Flames

Friday, November 5th, 2010

San Francisco’s Nate Ballard is being celebrated today in the New York Times. Check it:

“’Like it or not, unions are still the most potent political force in California,’” said Nathan Ballard, a Democratic strategist and former Gavin Newsom aide who once worked for the California Labor Federation. Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor, ‘persistently demonized the unions,’ Mr. Ballard said. ‘It was a miscalculation on her part. She greatly underestimated their influence.’”

So it would seem. A few months back, I certainly thought that Prop B would do a lot better than it did.

Click to expand

Proposition B‘s lopsided defeat will make people think twice before creating other initiatives that affect organized labor in the 415, it would seem.