Posts Tagged ‘registered’

Why It’s Completely Absurd for the SFMTA to Claim that Carshare Car Rental Means “60,000 Fewer Vehicles on the Street”

Monday, July 31st, 2017

Here it is, from Hoodline:

“Data also showed that 17% of members got rid of their cars after joining a car-sharing company, with as many as 24,000 vehicles sold. When taking into account people who did not purchase cars because of car-sharing, there were as many as 60,000 fewer vehicles on the street.”

Well let’s call horse-shit on this.

So, when did “car-sharing” get started in Frisco – over the past half-decade? So here are the latest stats for AUTOS registered in San Francisco County, per the DMV.

Capturesdfsrrrrr copy

2011: 380,621
2012: 385,442
2013: 397,238
2014: 403,246
2015: 407,656
2016: 413,147

Do you see a trend here? Do you see registered vehicles going up by about 6000-something cars per year, year in and year out? That’s the trend lately, for whatever reason.

So where’s the supposed “60,000 fewer vehicles” kicking in from the SFMTA’s inconsequential program? Does the SFMTA really think we’d have 473,000 registered cars but for its heroic car “share” car rental program?

Obviously, our SFMTA really doesn’t know what’s it’s doing. So why not have an independent agency assess how effective its policies are instead of this, this Pyongyang-inspired Ministry of Truth stuff coming from SFMTA spokesmodels who are obviously just winging it day by day, DJT-style.

You know, what I’m talking about is having somebody around saying, “Is this really true?”

Or, in the case of attaining the goal of VisionZero 2024, which will somehow, by administrative decree, eliminate all transportation mishap injuries by 2024 and through eternity, “Could this possibly be true?”

I am Become EUROTRASH, Destroyer of Worlds

Friday, July 7th, 2017

Hey, what was MSRP for this hunk of Alcoa aluminum fashioned into a Ferrari 612 four-seater? Was it $300k? Anyway, paying tax and reg to DMV would cost you a pretty penny, and even if you are registered, it’s still cooler for you to use your Euro plates regardless.

And the neighboring Saab shows us the other way to Eurotrash

7J7C5895 copy

That’s your 94118 Update

It’s Official: Frisco Now has More Cars, Drivers Than Ever – DMV Sez We Now Have Over 500,000 Vehicles

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Here it is, your brand-new DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ESTIMATED VEHICLES REGISTERED BY COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016

2016a copy

The figure on the right shows our full one-half million vehicles.

cf19b3c98d0cf2fcd16480ee05c1a4586725ac37c090a56f68b8a4716612e6c0

Cf. the data for 2015: est_fees_pd_by_county.

Of course this count includes motorcycles and trucks and trailers, but the vast bulk of that is made of plain old cars, the likes of which the people employed at our SFMTA and SFCTA falsely say are now “disappearing” from the streets of San Francisco.

You want another example? How about something like:

“SFMTA officials said this was due to factors including increased compliance from drivers, reduced vehicle ownership…

Simply, your “urbanist” friends are lying to you, or rather, lying to themselves. IRL, car ownership was going up in Frisco back then and it still is now. (Are repeated SFMTA misstatements like this Trump-style lying or Trump-style incompetence? You tell me. Moving on…)

To this: These DMV stats don’t count unregistered vehicles, and rides owned by many many ppl with out-of state-plates who live in town but don’t feel too groovy about paying any kind of annual ad valorem taxes to the CA DMV, and all the many UBER/Lyfts driven by all those new-to-Frisco drivers (how many, 40,000?) who live in Sac and Tracy and Santa Clara.

And let’s see, what other shibboleths can we… oh, Driver Licenses are up too, see?

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES DRIVER LICENSES OUTSTANDING BY COUNTY AS OF DECEMBER 31 OF YEARS LISTED

That’s also brand-new from the DMV. The relevant numbers for Frisco for 2012-2016 are:

2016 copy

(Darn it: My prediction for 2016 was  588,392 instead of the actual 588,228. Close enough.)

But Somebody told you that Young People Don’t Drive Anymore? Sry, Gentle Reader, that’s another misunderstanding. You see, it turned out that the recent recession-related dip in Vehicle Miles Traveled was actually RELATED to a RECESSION.

I’ll cheerfully concede that changes are afoot transportation-wise these days, but I just need to point out that our supposedly all-knowing and all-seeing SFMTASFCTA people have made a lot of mistakes and errors lately. That’s all.

What else. Oh, how about the reason why it still makes sense to own a car in Frisco. Take a look at this character:

11925351_supervisor-scott-wieners-transportation_t69e1c92f

Yes, that’s sanctimonious urbonaut and State Senator Scott Wiener in his aging, gone-to-Hell Nissan. (And of course he won’t cop to this 2016 incident of getting caught and photographed by a journalist while texting in traffic, because, IDK, it would draw attention to his foolishness? But that’s not my point.) My point is that the reason why it makes sense for him to operate this cheap, old, reliable car in Frisco, even though he lives close to transportation and even though he could UBER Lyft everywhere, is because he can drive around for as many miles as he wants for less than $1000 a year, including insurance, registration, gasoline, gasoline taxes – the whole lot. I’m aware of this because I have an aging, gone-to-Hell Toyota that I drive around as much as makes sense. So I can’t see how our existing stock of indestructible Nissans and Toyotas, Cadillacs, Lincolns too, Mercurys and Subaru are going to be obsolete this year or next year or the year after that or the decade after that.

That’s my point.

Look at all these rides in the Sunset for example. This is Frisco in 2017:

7J7C9047-copy

I don’t see how our SFMTA is going to take away these cars, have them whither away, Comrade, only to have some unknown transpo system spring up to remobilitate these isolated souls living way out in the west side. MUNI is a high-cost low-speed system which is run mostly for its employees and is hobbled by union “work rules.” How is that going to change anytime soon?

And UBER Lyft, well the current service offered at current pricing is unsustainable, you know, financially. If you want to tell me how everything’s going to change I’ll concede – sure, eventually things will change. But how are you going to stop Sunset and Parkside residents from going to the nearby malls and Targets of San Mateo County by using the cars they own now and the cars they continue to buy? Our installed base of rolling stock is our installed base of rolling stock – these cars can and will live out their lives for decades more on the Streets of San Francisco. Sry.

PREDICTION: Car ownership and Driver License possession in the City and County of San Francisco will be once again UP to record-breaking numbers in 2017.

For better or worse.

Sry.

Why Do So Many ZIPCAR Rental Cars have Out-of-State License Plates?

Friday, July 29th, 2016

My first impulse, upon seeing this rental car in my ‘hood, was to exclaim:

‘Sup Arizona? How you likin’ the rain, girl?

My second impulse was to ask, again, “What’s up with all the ‘Zona plates, Avis?”

7J7C9259 copy

Is it so much easier to register your ride in Arizona? IDK

Do regular Californians have the right to run Arizona plates in Frisco for week after week, month after month? Hell no.

Who will investigate this Watergate?

What’s This, San Francisco has “Reduced Vehicle Ownership” Compared with 2005? How the SFMTA is WRONG WRONG WRONG on This

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

Here you go, from CBS SF:

“The number of vehicles towed decreased during the current five year contract with AutoReturn from 71,000 in 2005 to 42,000 in 2015. SFMTA officials said this was due to factors including increased compliance from drivers, reduced vehicle ownership…

OK, let’s add them up. The latest numbers from CA DMV show an ESTIMATED VEHICLES REGISTERED BY COUNTY for Frisco being:

481,790 (leaving out the “trailers,” as one does)

That’s calendar 2014.

Of course that’s higher than 2013:

477,314

And of course that’s higher than 2005:

452,813

(And this doesn’t keep track of all the very towable tourist rides about town and all the unregistered vehicles all over the 415 with license plates from Oregon and Nevada and whathaveyou – I’ll tell you, the number of those vehicles are UP in SF as well.)

Don’t the “urbanist” urbonauts running our SFMTA know this off the top of their heads?

Nope.

Of course they do know how to spend our money – the TCOE* for whomever uttered our SFMTA’s bogus allegation about “reduced vehicle ownership” in SF has gotta be anywhere from $150k (or so) ON UP, perhaps $200k+

[Upon completion, the READER should understand that REDUCED VEHICLE OWNERSHIP over the past decade is a MYTH perpetrated by the SFMTA for WHATEVER REASON]

Thank you, drive through.

*Total Cost Of Employment

San Francisco Cabbie Fights Back: “UBER / LYFT, FINALLY JOBS FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS”

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

As seen by Manys here:

jbfcLpV copy

Oh, and here’s another.

I’ll point out that sometimes it’s the unregistered sex offenders…

Is the Avis Subsidiary “Zipcar” Operating in San Francisco Using Vehicles with Arizona License Plates? Take a Look

Monday, July 21st, 2014

Man, I’d hate to be renting a car by the hour whilst driving from Arizona to the Bay Area.

Anyway, as seen in the 94117:

Click to expand

Anything to save a buck, huh Zipcar?

City Attorney Dennis Herrera Sues Former Supervisor Michael Yaki for More Than 70 Violations of City’s Lobbyist Ordinance

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

Well, I suppose I can’t oppose enforcement of the Lobbyist Ordinance.

[And I’ll mention that the “Yaki Compromise” would have had numerous salutary effects and would have saved lives lost due to the horrible Octavia Boulevard project.]

Herrera sues former Supervisor Yaki for more than 70 violations of City’s lobbyist ordinance

Lobbying for Rescue Air Systems, Inc. in the legislative process involving Fire Code revisions, Yaki ‘brazenly flouted a law with which he had no excuse to be unfamiliar’

SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 4, 2013) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed suit against former Supervisor Michael Yaki for more than 70 violations of the city’s lobbyist ordinance during the time Yaki was paid to advocate for the interests of his client, Rescue Air Systems, Inc., in the legislative process that revised San Francisco’s Fire Code earlier this year.  According to the complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, “Yaki flouted the lobbyist ordinance in every way” by failing to register as a lobbyist, failing to disclose the amounts and sources of payments for lobbying, and failing to report his lobbying contacts.  The complaint, which was filed with 15 accompanying declarations from Board members, legislative aides, fire commissioners and S.F. Fire Department Chief Joanne Hayes-White, alleges that Yaki misrepresented his identity as a paid lobbyist when trying to set up meetings with five Supervisors.  

The city’s lobbyist ordinance provides for civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, or three times the amount of compensation scofflaw lobbyists fail to report — whichever is greater.  Yaki himself voted to support the ordinance in 2000 while a member of the Board of Supervisors.

“San Francisco’s Lobbyist Ordinance is a good government cornerstone that brings needed transparency to our local legislative process,” said Herrera.  “It imposes a simple requirement on lobbyists to disclose the nature and extent of work they do for their clients, and other paid advocates have managed to comply with it thousands of times.  Unfortunately, in the case we’ve filed today, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Yaki brazenly flouted a law with which he had no excuse to be unfamiliar.  Our lobbyist ordinance fulfills a very important function in our local government, and its aggressive enforcement is essential to the legitimacy of the law itself.” 

San Carlos, Calif.-based Rescue Air Systems, Inc. manufactures a patented “firefighter air replenishment system,” or FARS, which San Francisco’s Fire Code has required since 2004 for new buildings with a height of 75 feet or more.  When city policymakers undertook their periodic revision to the local Fire Code beginning last year, Fire Chief Hayes-White was among numerous city officials to oppose extending the FARS requirement because the San Francisco Fire Department had never used or trained on the system, and because firefighters “do not have confidence that the air coming from the FARS pipes is safe and breathable, or that the system has been checked and maintained on regular basis,” according to Hayes-White’s declaration.  

Yaki engaged in extensive lobbying efforts over a period of more than a year on Rescue Air Systems’ behalf to retain the FARS requirement.  According to the city’s complaint and supporting declarations, the former supervisor lobbied fire commissioners, S.F. Fire Department officials, staff in the Mayor’s Office, and members of the Board of Supervisors and legislative aides to extend the legal requirement for an air replenishment system that only one company — Yaki’s client — manufactured.  The City Attorney’s Office’s investigation secured evidence of at least 70 lobbying contacts, including more than 10 lobbying meetings with Supervisors and their legislative aides and more than 50 emails to city officials on behalf of Rescue Air Systems’ interests in the Fire Code revision process.  

Yaki’s lobbying efforts ultimately proved largely unsuccessful.  San Francisco’s Fire Commission passed a motion recommending that the FARS requirement be altered to offer developers a choice of whether to install FARS or a firefighter service elevator to facilitate oxygen delivery.  That recommendation was adopted as part of the San Francisco Fire Code amendments unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in September, which Mayor Ed Lee approved on Oct. 3, 2013.  

The case is: Dennis Herrera in his Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney v. Michael Yaki, San Francisco Superior Court, filed Dec. 4, 2013.  Due to the large file size of the 468-page court filing, the complete presskit with accompanying declarations is not being emailed but is available for download on the City Attorney’s website at: http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=570.”

Oh No, Ed Lee! Rose Pak and Willie Brown Throw Down Against SF Ethics Commission in Sing Tao Daily!

Monday, August 8th, 2011

I don’t know what to make of this image below.

Is it a portion of yesterday’s Sing Tao Daily? (And, if so, wouldn’t that please Caroline Chen of the SF Weekly?)

And does it have some bons mots from Chinatown ward healer Rose Pak and former Mayor Willie Brown?

And does it concern their reactions to the San Francisco Ethics Commission coming down hard on defunct (or maybe not-so-defunct after allRun Ed Run and area attorney Enrique Pearce?

As always, You Make The Call.

Exhibit A, from Rose Pak, on the topic of the recent statements from San Francisco Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix:

“He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Snap!

And Exhibit B, from His Willieness*:

 “Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.”

(Keep in mind when you hear allegations of constitutionality and whatnot, that Willie Brown went to UC Hastings School of Law and Enrique Pearce and Mayor Ed Lee both attended UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.)

See? Read it for yourself:

Oh, how about this crude translation? It’s the best I can do right now:

“In response to the letter from San Francisco Ethics Commission Director John St. Croix, supporters of Ed Lee for Mayor reprimanded St. Croix for actions being based on nothing. They also questioned his qualification for the position. 

Chinese Chamber of Commerce consultant Rose Pak described it the biggest joke of the world. She said it is full of nonsense. He didn’t know what he’s talking about. “He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Enrique Pearce had consulted St. Croix. However, the latter said differently afterwards. Besides, he didn’t provide written replies to questions that Progress for All raised or gave explanations, said Rose Pak. “I will be the first one not to comply. You don’t have the authority to formulate the law, which is not free to go by your interpretation.”

 Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.

Hey, what do you think? Is this an accurate translation? Tell me, tell me if you think the translation isn’t good.

*Speaking of Willie Brown (who still writes for the San Francisco Chronicle) and Rose Pak (who used to write for the San Francisco Chronicle), here’s a bit (in the San Francisco Chronicle) from Willie on Rose circa April 2011:

Holding court at the party for the opening of the new airport terminal, Rose was seated at the table with interim Mayor Ed Lee and his wife, Anita, and a host of other local officials.

“I want every one of you to call his office and tell him he should run for mayor,” Rose told the table. “And do it right away so that there’s no misunderstanding.”

Then she turned to the architect David Gensler.

“Didn’t you do this terminal?” she asked.

“Yes,” he said.

“Didn’t you remodel this terminal before?”

“Yes,” he said.

“Then your firm should raise a million dollars for his election campaign.”

Poor Gensler, he didn’t know what hit him.”

Oh No, Ed Lee! Bogus “Run Ed Run” Committee to Get Called On The Carpet on August 8th, 2011

Friday, August 5th, 2011

Oh, it’s on. It’s on the agenda for the next meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission:

Consideration of the Status of “Progress for All,” an entity registered as a General Purpose Committee in San Francisco. This organization is responsible for the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign and claims its primary purpose is to convince Mayor Ed Lee to run for election to the office that he currently holds. The Executive Director has instructed Progress for All to refile as a “Primarily Formed Committee” as its independent expenditures have the effect of promoting an Ed Lee candidacy to the voters. As a matter of policy, the Commission will discuss the status of Progress for All and possibly determine what, if any, policy and regulatory changes are necessary to address similar situations in the future. The Commission may also discuss whether to redraft, withdraw or update a prior informal advice letter to the Progress for All Committee. (Discussion and possible action.)”

It turns out that some of these unenthusiastic people were getting paid $11 an hour? That would explain a lot:

Click to expand

The gritty nitty:

“During the current Mayoral election cycle, two committees formed with the stated
intention of convincing Mayor Ed Lee to run for the office which he now holds. The
first, called “Progress for All” registered as a committee on May 18, 2011 (and refiled
on June 23) and is the sponsor of the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign. The second, called
“Support Drafting Ed Lee for Mayor 2011” registered as a committee on July 19. A
third group was also formed, but reportedly did not raise or spend any money and
therefore did not qualify as a committee.

State and local law provide definitions of types of committees and their filing
responsibilities. Initially, the scope of the activities of these committees was unclear.
In an informal advice letter date May 17, 2011, the Commission answered a
hypothetical question from Enrique Pearce, who would become a hired consultant for
Progress for All. However, the question posed in that letter is only tangential to the
policy question before the Commission. While it is clear that the citizens expect
political activity, particularly fundraising and spending, to be regulated, under which
state and local regulations are committees such as the two mentioned above most
appropriately placed?”

It goes on and on…

(more…)