Posts Tagged ‘Proposition’

Prop F Update: Let’s Look at Both Sides of SF Proposition F (2015), the Airbnb Law – Fixing Frisco’s Broken Short-Term Rental Mess

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015

I’ll tell you, I don’t care what you do or where you rest your noggin at night. Now I think it’s noteworthy when I spot Airbnb users in the Western Addition or the Sunset or wherever, ’cause they stand out (without realizing it) like a sore thumb, but I don’t have anything against tourists milling about, you know, per se. They ask me about parking laws. I try to help out. I tell them which way to curb their tires, ’cause a lot of them just don’t get it. And I know people who use Airbnb, and I know people who make some money letting rooms and units via Airbnb and the VRBO.

So that’s where I stand. Now let’s take a look at Prop F via ShareBetterSF:

1. Limits short-term rentals to 75 nights per year, regardless of whether a ‘host’ is present

THIS LOOKS GOOD TO ME. THE WHOLE “HOST PRESENT” THING APPEARS TO BE A GIANT LOOPHOLE COOKED UP BY AIRBNB ITSELF IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OFFICE OF SUPERVISOR DAVID CHIU. THE RULES THAT HE AND AIRBNB CAME UP WITH ARE A HUGE, UNWORKABLE MESS, IMO.

2. Requires quarterly reports to the Planning Department on the number of nights a unit is rented to tourists

IF YOU’RE RENTING OUT A ROOM OR A UNIT, YOU’D NEED A REGISTRATION NUMBER AND YOU’D NEED TO REPORT HOW MANY TIMES YOU DID IT EVERY THREE MONTHS. SOUNDS PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME. SOUNDS A LOT SIMPLER THAN, SAY, THE EXTRA WORK YOU’LL HAVE TO DO WHEN ANNUAL TAX TIME COMES. IF THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON YOU, THE PERSON RENTING OUT ROOMS, PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN’T BE IN THIS BIDNESS?

3. Fines ‘hosting platforms’ (like Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway) for listing unregistered units

BAM. IF YOU HAVE A REG. NUMBER, YOU CAN LIST. IF YOU DON’T, YOU CAN’T.

4. Provides other building tenants, neighbors and neighborhood associations with notice when a unit is registered as a short-term rental

SO SFGOV WOULD SEND OUT A BRACE OF LETTERS EVERY TIME A UNIT GETS REGISTERED – THIS IS A ONE-TIME DEAL, RIGHT? AGAIN, DOES THIS SEEM SO UNREASONABLE?

5. Allows other building tenants & neighbors to go to court to protect their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their homes when the City fails to enforce the law

SO THERE ARE YOUR TEETH. THIS IS WHY AIRBNBER’S WILL ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO SF PROP F 2015.

[INTERMISSION]

NOW LET’S HEAR FROM AIRBNB::

CaptureFSFFHH

1. WELL, YEAH, I GUESS, AIRBNB – YOU COULD CHARACTERIZE THINGS THAT WAY. BUT LET’S SAY AN AIRBNBER FROM WALNUT CREEK BUYS A BUILDING IN SF AND THEN AIRBNBS ALL THE UNITS 365/366 DAYS A YEAR – THIS IS WHAT THE PROP F PEOPLE WOULD CALL “RUNNING A HOTEL.” IF I WERE SAID BUILDING OWNER LIVING IN WALNUT CREEK, I’D BE VERY AFRAID OF PROP F, SO I’D FOLLOW THE NEW RULES, RIGHT? IS THAT SO BAD?

2. WELL, I LIVE IN SF, AIRBNB. SO I DON’T THINK YOU’RE TALKING TO ME. BUT i’LL SAY THAT I THINK THE “DATA” WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS HOW MANY TIMES A QUARTER AIRBNBERS ARE IN BUSINESS, SO NO BIG DEAL, RIGHT? SO FAR, YOU’RE NOT REALLY SCARING ME AWAY FROM PROP F HERE, AIRBNB. LET’S SOLDIER ON…

3. SFGOV AND AIRBNB HAVE MADE A HASH OF THIS PROCESS SO FAR. THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN’T WORKING, SORRY. THIS IS WHY PROP F QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT, RIGHT?

4. HEY, AREN’T MOST IN-LAW UNITS IN TOWN ALREADY “BANNED?” I THINK SO. I THINK IT’S BECAUSE THEY AREN’T CODE COMPLIANT. WHY SHOULDN’T WE LEGALIZE THESE UNITS FIRST, IF THAT’S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, AFORE WE START WORRYING ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN MAKE OFF OF THEM? AND IF THIS IN-LAW ISSUE IS SUCH A BIG CONCERN A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AFTER THE POSSIBLE LEGALIZATION OF THESE UNITS, WELL, THEN WE CAN VOTE AGAIN, RIGHT? PERHAPS THIS WILL BE A BIT CUMBERSOME, BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU HAVE A REGULATORY CAPTURE SUCH AS THE ONE WE’RE IN.  

So, IDK, am I missing something here? What am I missing? Any beef anybody has against Prop F is displaced anger – the people who created the current situation are the ones responsible. Oh what’s that, Airbnb, you say the rules from Prop F are “too extreme?” Well, that’s because, unlike the current regs,  you didn’t write them. See how that works, Airbnb? Perhaps you should have cooked up a fairer set of rules for yourself, and then Prop F never would never have gone on the ballot, right?

So tell me, Gentle Reader, what am I missing here?

Otherwise, I’m a-voting YES ON PROP F.

Beach Chalet Soccer Field Turf Protesters, Golden Gate Park – These People are Still Out There – They’re Not Giving Up

Monday, November 24th, 2014

Didn’t we just have an election on this topic just a few weeks ago?

I think so.

Here they are yesterday, still. Defeated, and yet not:

7J7C9868 copy

CALL: Defeat does not exist in this dojo, does it?
RESPONSE: No, Sensei!

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…

Dr Phil is Voting “NO” on E, the “Unfair Soda Tax” – Or At Least It Looks That Way, From a Distance

Thursday, September 4th, 2014

As seen in SF:

7J7C6109

Generic soda at Lucky costs about $2 a gallon. Prop E would raise that to about $4.50 a gallon, more than gasoline is these days, not that I care.

First they came for the cigarettes, and I did not speak out—
Because I am not a smoker.

Then they came for the gasoline, and I did not speak out—
Because I don’t spend much on gasoline, usually less than $1000 per year .

Then they came for the sugary soda, and I did not speak out—
Because I don’t drink sugary soda – too sweet.

But if they come for refreshing Diet  Cherry Coke, there will be no one left to speak for me. Oh well.

UCSF Architecture Update: One of These Things is Not Like the Other – Spot the “CIRM Worm”

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

Click to expand

All the deets.

It’s the “CIRM Worm” in Situ – San Francisco’s Craziest Building is at UCSF – Hanging Off of Mount Sutro

Friday, January 24th, 2014

See it on the right?

Click to expand

All the deets.

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..

Jerry Brown Graces San Francisco Thursday – Will Address the Commonwealth Club re: Prop 30 – Tickets Available

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

All the deets:

Governor Jerry Brown

Thu, Nov 1 2012 – 12:00pm

Just Added: Governor Jerry Brown

The California Dream was built on a system of public schools and colleges that gave every Californian access to the education needed to get ahead. Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing hard for Prop. 30 because he says “we can’t keep cutting our schools and still keep the economy strong for the next generation.” In the last four years alone, California schools have been hit with $20 billion in cuts, over 30,000 fewer teachers and class sizes that are among the largest in the country. Brown says his Prop. 30 stops the cuts, stops the steep tuition hikes, and invests in our schools and colleges to prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future. To protect schools and invest in the future, Prop. 30. Prop. 30 asks California’s wealthiest to pay a little more so that the middle class doesn’t have to bear the burden; families making below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes, and the sales tax will be established at a level lower than it was last year.

The governor says that Prop. 30 protects taxpayers with tough accountability measures: all new revenues are put into a dedicated account that Sacramento politicians can’t touch, and Prop. 30 requires annual audits posted online for everyone to see. Rejection of Prop. 30 would trigger $6 billion in state spending cuts on January 1, mostly from K-12 schools, which would be authorized to cut short their school year. Additionally, there would be a 5 percent tuition hike at the California State University system, 20 percent tuition hikes at the University of California, and a reduction in funding to community colleges.

Governor Brown has said,”There are a lot of people who I am confident will vote ‘yes’ if they get the facts.” Come hear the governor up close – and bring your questions.

Location: SF Club Office
Time: 11 a.m. check-in; noon program
Price: $25 standard, $15 members; Premium (seating in first rows) $45 standard,$30 members
Also Know: 
Attendees subject to search

PURCHASE TICKETS TO THIS EVENT ONLINE HERE, OR CALL OUR BOX OFFICE AT 415-597-6705.

“SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT PTA LEADERSHIP AGAIN URGES STATE PTA TO MAKE A DUAL ENDORSEMENT ON PROPS 30 AND 38″

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

The headline says it all, but here’s the entire release:

“SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT PTA LEADERSHIP AGAIN URGES STATE PTA TO MAKE A DUAL ENDORSEMENT ON PROPS 30 AND 38

San Francisco — The Second District (San Francisco) PTA leadership recommended in July a dual endorsement of state ballot measures, Propositions 30 and 38, to the California State PTA after hearing from PTA members across the City that funding education was a high priority. At that time, the State PTA held its “Yes” on Prop 38 and voted to approve a “Neutral” position on Prop 30.

In light of recent public polling and campaign dynamics with both initiatives, and again with the encouragement of its members, the District PTA leadership is re-recommending the State PTA take a “Yes” position on Prop 30 to add to its current “Yes” on Prop 38 at the State PTA Board of Managers Meeting October 27.

It is critical that education be funded at a higher level, or at the minimum, maintain current funding in order for all of California’s children to be prepared to be successful in college, career and life. Either Prop 30 or Prop 38 must pass for this to happen. The District PTA also strongly encourages both campaigns to refrain from negative messaging about the other to increase the possibility that at least one measure will receive the required 50% + 1 votes.

Prop 30 would prevent further cuts to K-12 public schools and higher education funding through an increase of around $6 billion per year for 7 years to the state’s general fund budget. Prop 38 would increase funding to K-12 schools, early education and school bond debt payments by $10-11 billion per year for 12 years. Prop 38’s increase in funding would greatly mitigate the result of state education budget cuts of over $20 billion statewide and the laying off of over 40,000 educators over the last three years alone.

For more information: http://www.prop38forlocalschools.org/ and http://www.yesonprop30.com/

For a comparison of both propositions go to http://www.edsource.org/infographic-initiatives.html

I don’t know, if San Francisco’s Nate Ballard and Planet Neptune’s Molly Munger want to drive over the cliff* holding hands ala Thelma and Louise, that’s their business:

Image Photoshopped slightly, courtesy of the Gavin Newsom for Governor Lt. Governor campaign

But I’ll tell you, the People of the State of California are not going to follow them.

Hey Molly, if you’re so great, why don’t you just give all your inherited money to the California Teachers Association no strings attached?

You know, instead of driving over the cliff with Prop 30 stashed in the trunk?

*In a Porsche paid for by Daddy, of course.

 

OMG, It’s the Official California Proposition Guide for 2012 from KQED – This is All You Need to Look At

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

Right here, and below: