Posts Tagged ‘rental’

Our SFMTA is Now Selling Neighborhood Street Parking Spaces for $2000 per Year – Getaround – “Carshare” They Call It

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

It looks like this:

7J7C0009 copy (2)

If you have a car but don’t give our SFMTA any money, then the SFMTA views you as a deadbeat. Our SFMTA wants/needs to grow, and it’s going to get more of your money to do it, just saying.

So what’s stopping it from painting up the Sunset and selling off (aka “manage”) spaces out there as well? IDK

Le Update: “ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE CINEMA / ANNAPURNA PICTURES TO KEEP LE VIDEO ARCHIVE COLLECTION TOGETHER IN A NEW LOCATION”

Wednesday, December 9th, 2015

Just released.

So this is how it ends for Le Video, which, back in the day, managed to fight off a BlockBuster Video what was one week away(!) from opening up less than one block away on 9th Avenue.

But streaming? Nothing beats streaming.

So, it’s come to this.

If you want, read their Yelp reviews from the bottom up, you know, for a laugh.

(I should add that Alamo Drafthouse at the old New Mission is looking awesome, with ticket prices looking surprisingly low to this old-timer.)

“ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE CINEMA AND ANNAPURNA PICTURES JOIN FORCES TO KEEP LE VIDEO ARCHIVE COLLECTION TOGETHER IN A NEW LOCATION

San Francisco, CA – December 9, 2015 – Following the November closing of long-running San Francisco neighborhood video store and archive Le Video, it was announced today that Alamo Drafthouse founder and CEO Tim League, along with Academy Award-nominated producer Megan Ellison and he, has arranged for the preservation of the Le Video collection.

Bay Area residents will soon be able to access portions of the Le Video archive at San Francisco’s new Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Exact details are still pending, but Alamo Drafthouse will partner with Mission neighborhood video store Lost Weekend to rent selections from the Le Video archive in the spacious lobby of the new theater, along with a deeply curated collection of films from the Lost Weekend archive.

“The experience of going to my local video store when I was young made me the movie fan I am today,” says Drafthouse founder and CEO Tim League. “Despite the fact that great video stores like Le Video are closing all over the country, I am confident that a new iteration of the video store experience can exist, and even thrive today. A passionate video store clerk can do what no algorithm can. They can recommend your new favorite movie, one that can’t be predicted from your past viewing habits.”

The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema will open for Star Wars on the 17th of December.  The Lost Weekend lobby video store is slated to begin in January.  Subscribe to the Alamo Drafthouse newsletter or follow @drafthouseSF on twitter for news as it happens.”

So tune up your VHS machine and wait for 2016…

When I’m at the pearly gates
This’ll be on my videotape
My videotape
My videotape
When Mephistopheles is just beneath
And he’s reaching up to grab me
This is one for the good days
And I have it all here
In red blue green
In red blue green
You are my center when I spin away
Out of control on videotape
On videotape [x6]
This is my way of saying goodbye
Because I can’t do it face to face
So I’m talking to you before it’s too late
No matter what happens now
I shouldn’t be afraid
Because I know today has been the most perfect day I’ve ever seen.

(more…)

“Car Share” is Car Rental IRL – And Here’s the Proof – And Does the Phrase “Sharing Economy” Actually Mean Rental Economy?

Friday, December 4th, 2015

Yep. Surprise!

7J7C0782 copy

Just saying

Government-Subsidized “BAY AREA BIKE SHARE” Tries to Rip Off Tourist for $300, Only Steals $150 – When Will BABS Solve This Repeated Issue?

Monday, November 16th, 2015

Suffer Fabian:

“Wow, watch out guys, especially tourists, that’s a total rip-off! Wrongly assumed it would be like bike share services in Europe, 30 minutes free of charge and for a day pass (i.e. renting the bike for the day) would cost me 9$. Took 2 bikes for 2 days for my girlfriend and me thinking I would at the end cost me something like $36 – which sounds reasonable for those heavy, sometimes poorly maintained bikes. They charged me at the end more than $300! Ridiculous. Cannot see how this is a sustainable service. Ended up paying half after intense discussions which is some relief, however for $150 I could have rented out 2 high-end mountain bikes for that price.”

Here’s what the tourists see:

Capturefsfddd

I know there are more words around this image, but I’m just telling you what the tourists see.

Is BABS aware of this issue? Yes, but it just doesn’t give a fuck. They’re all like “fuck you, pay me,” or actually, they’re like oh, well, just pay half then. That’s the deal – get charged waaaaay too much money by mistake and then talk your way down to 50% of the overcharge. It’s like a unwritten BABS policy now.

And believe it or not, BABS would have only a 1.5 star Yelp rating but for its hectoring of customers who dare give it a one-star review, and but for the shill 5 star reviews.

It goes on and on:

I’m giving one star because the quality and condition of the bikes is absolutely horrible. All the bikes are heavy pieces of junk! Forget investing in more docking stations Bay Area bike share, invest in better bikes!! I’ve been to many cities around the world and all the bikes there looks way better than the ones we have here.

Perhaps BABS deserves its abysmal two-star Yelp rating?

Getaround Rent-A-Car Attains Personhood Status – Big Corporation Granted Coveted Residential Parking Program (RPP) Permits?

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

I thought you needed to prove that you lived (or worked, in some cases) in the area in order to qualify for the Residential Parking Permit Program.

Is Getaround Rent-a-Car now a resident in the 94117?

7J7C8346 copy

So you can’t park in Getaround Rent-a-Car’s (formerly public) parking spaces for even one minute, but Getaround Rent-a-Car can park in your spaces all day long?

Mmmm…

Grading the Getaround Rental Car Company on How It Maintains the Formerly Public Parking Spaces It’s Supposed to Maintain

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

Hey, here’s a question – why can’t our SFMTA issue tickets for blocking street sweepers if the spaces they’re taking up need cleaning?

7J7C9046 copy

And here’s an answer – the rental car companies don’t feel like getting tickets, so they had our laws written for their benefit.

Are there any other answers?

Not that I can think of…

 

Get Your Friends on the SCOOT Scooter Network and You All Can Become an Instant, if Temporary, Biker Gang – Like These People

Friday, October 23rd, 2015

7J7C7202 copy

7J7C7203 copy

Let’s Check Up on How Well Getaround Car Rental Company is Maintaining Its SFMTA-Designated Parking Spaces – Uh Oh

Friday, October 9th, 2015

I’ll just start with this:

The fundamental purpose of the SFMTA’s massive street sweeping program is to make money for the SFMTA.

So that’s been the situation over the years, but then came the rise of the rental car companies, you know, like Hertz and whathaveyou. So then the SFMTA made deals with Hertz and whathaveyou to lease those companies spaces for the rent-a-cars. One big hang-up could have been the logistical nightmare of moving the rent-a-cars during weekly street sweeping time.

But there was a solution, of sorts:

“Maintenance of on-street car share parking is an explicit condition of the on-street car share permit: Permittee shall be responsible for maintaining the designated Car Share Vehicle Parking Space and twenty-five feet in front and behind the space. Permittee shall maintain this area in such a manner that it shall remain free of debris, trash, glass, garbage, or other obstacles at a level consistent with the surrounding parking spaces to the satisfaction of the SFMTA and Department of Public Works. Permittee shall sweep and clean the parking space as needed and as determined by SFMTA. If maintenance problems are observed in a designated on-street car share parking space it should be reported to SFMTA Parking / Sustainable Streets. CSOs who fail to maintain any of their spaces will be warned, and if SFMTA and/or DPW aren’t satisfied with their response and ongoing maintenance performance we’ll revoke the permit, and/or make the space available to another qualified pilot participant CSO.”

Now, how many of these designated rent-a-car parking spaces have been returned to the public due to failure of maintenance? I’m guessing like zero. so far.

So let’s take a look at how things are going:

7J7C4997-copy

Not well, huh? Actually, I just now noticed all that vegetation under the rental cars in this old photo (’cause I’m not really sensitive to this issue, oh well).

Now, what SHOULD happen when PCOs are handing out the World’s Most Expensive Parking Tickets during street sweeping time is to look and see how Getaround or Hertz or whomever is doing and then hand out tickets for lack of maintenance right then and there.

Just saying.

Anyway, Getaround Rental Car, you want an exception to the street sweeping rules but then they you don’t follow up with doing the cleaning yourself. Why? Because you aren’t ascared at all over getting ticketed. And that makes the entire street sweeping program look like just another SFMTA “profit center” and it makes SFGov look like a tool of the “sharing economy” companies what are holding sway these days…

Getaround Rental Car Parked Just Outside Its Designated Space on Fell – Gets SFMTA Citation for Parking During Street Cleaning?

Friday, October 9th, 2015

So let’s see here. The Getaround rental car company is now leasing formerly public parking spaces from the SFMTA, right? It looks like this:

7J7C4997-copy

So now, when a Getaround rental car gets parked on Fell not in near the designated spaces during weekly street sweeping time, it’ll get a fat ticket, as here, one supposes, to compensate SF for the harm caused society for not having leaves swept up for another week:

7J7C7587 copy

(As I understand it, the Getaround rental car people have promised our corrupt SFMTA that Getaround would be responsible for cleaning up leaves in its spaces – that’s why Getaround rental cars parked in designated spaces don’t get ticketed during normal street sweeping time.)

So, what’s the difference where Getaround rental cars park on Fell? Something to think about…

Whoo Boy: “LEGAL REVIEW FINDS PROP. F LAWSUITS MAY RESULT IN $435,000 AWARD FOR MINOR, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS”

Friday, October 2nd, 2015

Airbnb is pulling out all the stops here.

Let me just say that first of all, no “minor” violations of San Francisco’s short term rental laws will result in anything like a $435K award. Sorry. And also, by the time any “awards” are handed out, said violations are no longer merely “alleged,” but actually proven.

And now, on with the show:

“Noted Law Firm Browne George Ross LLP Provides Review of Legal Impacts of San Francisco’s Prop. F

Proposition F creates a profit-motivated private right of action even if the City and County of San Francisco finds no violation.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? YEP. WHAT PROP F ADDS ON TOP OF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF $250-$1000 A DAY, ASSUMING THAT THE RESIDENTS BRINGING SUIT ACTUALLY WIN. THE REASON THAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SFGOV DOES IS THAT SOMETIMES SFGOV LIKES TO SIT ON ITS HANDS AND DO NOTHING, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IT’S DONE VERY LITTLE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THE LIKES OF WHICH WE’VE BEEN SEEING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND, IN FACT, THE LITTLE THAT SFGOV HAS BEEN DOING LATELY WAS SPURRED ON BY THE PROSPECT OF PROP F. SO ACTUALLY, PROP F IS GOOD BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY PAYING OFF. AND, AS FAR AS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED” IS CONCERNED, SOMETHING SIMILAR IS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING LANDLORD REFUNDS OF RENTAL DEPOSITS. SO IF A LANDLORD IMPROPERLY RETAINS AN APARTMENT SECURITY DEPOSIT, THE TENANT CAN SUE FOR NOT ONLY THE WRONGFULLY RETAINED PART BUT ALSO AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE DEPOSIT AS A KIND OF SPECIAL DAMAGES. SO A LANDLORD’S MOUTHPIECE COULD ARGUE THAT THE TENANT SUING IS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED,” BUT THAT WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE TRUE, RIGHT? AND IN FACT, THIS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND LAW SCARES LANDLORDS INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO THAT NO LEGAL ACTION EVER NEEDS TO GET KICKED INTO ACTION. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

In other words if someone wishes to sue their neighbor even after the city and County of San Francisco has determined there is no violation, an unscrupulous individual can still file a lawsuit and simply claim damages amounting to as much as $435,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

WELL, THIS LOS ANGELES-BASED LAW FIRM IS SIMPLY ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER USING AIRBNB OR WHATEVER TO VIOLATE OUR LAWS WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AFFECTED. BUT LOTS OF AIRBNBERS DON’T EVEN LIVE IN SF, RIGHT? SO IT’S RATHER MORE RESIDENT SUING AIRBNBER AS OPPOSED TO “NEIGHBOR SUING NEIGHBOR,” RIGHT? AND HEY, HOW CAN AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL” GET AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? AND HEY, “NOTED” LA LAW FIRM WHAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF AFORE, HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER REPRESENTED AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL?” HMMM… THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ON. IN ANY EVENT, UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS  WITH WORTHLESS CASES WON’T WIN AT COURT SO THEY WON’T GET ANY DAMAGES AT ALL, RIGHT? AND LET ME JUST SAY, ANY AIRBNBER WHO ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING $435K PLUS HAS REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWED UP. THESE WILL BE UNIQUE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY.

Because litigation is so incredibly expensive, time consuming and stressful many people will pay to get out of suits even though they have done nothing wrong.

BOY, WHAT A PITCH FROM A LAW FIRM – YOU DON’T NEED US, JUST PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYBODY EVER ASKS FOR AND THEN WAIT FOR THE NEWS TO SPREAD AND THEN GET SUED AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND NOTE HERE, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR AIRBNBERS (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR SOME) – I’M SAYING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR SAN FRANCISCO. AND ACTUALLY, PROP F WOULD BE GOOD FOR LOS ANGELES LAW FIRMS, POSSIBLY, IF LA-BASED AIRBNBERS GET SUED IN SF AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL ATTORNEY, THEN MAYBE EVEN THIS LA FIRM COULD GET IN ON THE ACTION.

Proposition F will exponentially exacerbate the problem by encouraging an untold number of new lawsuits, thus delaying even more those who appropriately seek justice through San Francisco Superior Court

WELL LET’S SEE HERE. PROP F WILL BE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS SF SUP CT IS CONCERNED. IT’S NOT GOING TO EXPONENTIALLY DO ANYTHING.

FIN.