Posts Tagged ‘rents’

Amazingly, the Corrupt SFMTA Gives the SFBC Money to Say that the Corrupt SFMTA Needs More Money

Wednesday, July 30th, 2014

Republican Sean Walker is financing a ballot proposition this fall and the SFBC is not amused:

Despite an official “Transit-First” policy in San Francisco, biking, walking and taking transit in our city have been historically underfunded…

Uh, riding a bike isn’t actually “transit,” which IRL is “a system of buses, trains, etc. that people use to travel around in a particular city or area.”

This lack of funding and priority, means Muni is too often overcrowded and unreliable…

Or perhaps MUNI is poorly managed? Oh you don’t care because you get hundreds and thousands from the SFMTA each year? Why don’t you disclose that fact before crowing the SFMTA’s party line? Oh, you used to post your tax returns but now you don’t because you’re worried people might actually look at them? OK fine.

…dozens of people are killed just trying to walk across the streets each year.

Not dozens. Too many to be sure but not “dozens.”

…livable streets…

Our streets currently aren’t “liveable?” What does that mean? How Orwellian is your fund-raising “framing” going to get?

…there is a group of San Franciscans who think that there’s actually too much space given to sustainable ways to get around…

Well now, if you give the voters of the 415 / 628 the chance to freeze for five years the amount of money the SFMTA MUNI makes from parking tickets, they just might say “Aye,” right?

Your San Francisco Bicycle Coalition will be working with partners to make sure our transportation system is moving forward

MUNI is a disaster, right? MUNI is not “moving forward.” How much does the SFMTA give the SFBC every year to say stuff like this?

Our Board of Directors voted last week to oppose this “Transit-Last” measure, while supporting two important transportation funding measures on this November’s ballot, which will advance and truly better balance our city’s transportation needs. The first is the Transportation & Road Safety Bond, a $500 million general obligation bond dedicated to transportation capital improvements, including modernizing our transit system and investing in bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Will this allow landlords to up rents in SF? Howard Wong, who is not on the SFMTA payroll, says it will “raise property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

(It’s important to note that this measure will not raise local property taxes, as it only infills expiring debt.)

What does this mean? Is Howard Wong incorrect?

And the second is a charter amendment linking population growth to transportation spending, specifically long-ignored transit & safe streets needs. 

So the corrupt SFMTA gives you money to say that the corrupt SFMTA needs more money?

Here’s the rest of what Howard Wong has to say, FYI:

Arguments against MUNI infrastructure improvement bond

What does the ballot measure do:

Raises property taxes and rents (50% pass-through) to pay for General Obligation Bonds of $500 million, with $350 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $850 million.

Funds “may be allocated” for transit and roads—carte blanche authority for unspecific projects.

If the Bond is rejected by voters, property taxes and rents would be reduced for everyone—not just for rich companies and the wealthy.

To read the Ordinance’s legal language is to oppose the Bond Measure.

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/Meeting_Information/BSC/agendas/2014/November/1-B%20Transportation%20Road%20Improvement%20GO.pdf

The Ordinance’s legal language makes no definitive commitment to any specific work:  “Projects to be funded under the proposed Bondmay include but are not limited to the following: 

Then, for eight project types, all eight begin with:  “A portion of the Bond may be allocated to…” 

In financial decisions, never sign a contract when the terms and deliverables are ambiguous.

Throwing billions of dollars at bad Muni projects hasn’t worked. 

Since 2006, Muni has cut service in every neighborhood, decreased annual vehicle revenue miles/ hours, eliminated 6 bus lines, shortened 22 routes, deferred maintenance, increased missed runs/ switchbacks/ late buses, increased fares/ fees/ fines/ meters (1,549,518 parking citations annually)…. Large project cost overruns have cut funds for infrastructure and maintenance.  The Central Subway alone has taken $595 million in state and local funds.  Huge subway cost overruns loom ahead, unveiled by the Central Subway’s cost engineer, whose whistle-blower’s complaint alleges a cooking of the books.

Bond Does Not Restore Muni Service Cuts

Muni has cut neighborhood transit, cross-town routes, night service and route frequency, hurting the low-income, families, disabled, youth and seniors.  …  Eliminated bus lines will not be restored—Lines 4, 7, 15, 20, 26, 34, 89…  Shortened bus routes will not be restored:  Lines 1, 2, 10, 12, 16X, 18, 21, 29, 36, 38, 42, 48, 53, 67, 88, 91, 108…  Muni has been an integrated citywide transit system, interconnecting outlying neighborhoods.  By cutting neighborhood transit, driving is encouraged—then penalized by more fees/ fines/ parking elimination.

Learning From the Past:  SFMTA’s Poor Spending Habits 

·        In 1999, Prop E created the SFMTA (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) with more powers, more General Fund dollars and a 85% on-time performance mandate.  Instead, Muni falsified on-time performance data and paid bonuses to its Director.

·        In 2003, Prop K extended the transportation sales tax and provided a list of projects.  The Central Subway’s listed cost of $647 million escalated to $1.578 billion.  The citywide Transit-Preferential Streets Program and Bus Rapid Network were never implemented.

·        In 2007, Prop A gave SFMTA more funding authority, revenue-bond-authority and even more General Fund dollars.  Instead, work orders sent the new funds to other city departments.

·        In 2011, voters approved a Road Repaving Bond of $248 million, with $181 million in interest payments, for a total debt load of $429 million.  Debt isn’t efficient for maintenance.

·        SFMTA’s budget grew by hundreds of millions of dollars to $978 million.  Number of employees grew by thousands to 4,921.  Salaries have soared.  And riders get service cuts.

Mayor’s Transportation Task Force (TTF) and Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP)

This proposed Bond, a second Bond, future fees and taxes will not meet objectives.  Only 49% of the TTF”s recommended funding goes to Muni.  TTF’s proposed $2.955 billion does not remotely solve Muni’s $25 billion in 20-Year Capital Plan Need.  The proposed TEP continues transit cuts to neighborhoods, shifting service to rapid corridors.  Better planning is needed for a citywide integrated Muni system.  Oppose this Bond Measure.

Sincerely,

Howard Wong, AIA, a founding member of SaveMuni

www.SaveMuni.com

www.SaveNorthBeachVillage.org

CONCLUSION: The Gannett Co Inc’s THE BOLD ITALIC Website is From and For People Who Don’t Live in San Francisco

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

[UPDATE: Ah, well, TBI reacts by fixing the MACALLISTER typo, but by not fixing the map. You see, Gough doesn't dead end here and Laguna doesn't dead end here neither. The Bold Italic is written like it's produced by minimum security prisoners in upstate New York making 11 cents per hour, IMO.]

Here you go, Where Are The Cheaper Rents in SF?”

Gannett Co. Inc’s money-losing (millions and millions so far) San Francisco media experiment is, once again, taking on an issue of concern to newcomers:

Where Should I Live And What Does Where I Live Say About Me?

Except this time it’s a dump from TBI “partner” Zumper, whatever the Hell that is.

So all there’s for the low level TBI people to do is make the accompanying graphics to break up the grafs.

Oh, here we go:

So, you know why the rents are cheaper here generally, GANNETCOINCTHEBOLDITALICZUMPER? It’s because of all the federally-subsidized housing projects. 

Oh, but you knew that and you showed that you knew that. So that’s good, I guess.

But actually, the area you’re showing is mostly PJ’s and concomitant parking lots? So the small number of readers you have won’t be able to actually move in, right? I can think of just one small area, in the upper right, where your data points come from. Is that what you’re talking about, TBIZumper?

Anyway, that’s why streets like Buchanan and Octavia dead end here, because of the Redevelopment, right?

Except Laguna doesn’t dead end, it does go through, right? Do you know that, TBI? The map says that you don’t know that. (And a good thing that Laguna doesn’t dead end, else the climate in this area would be even more muggy, if you know what I mean.)

And how many people at TBI looked at “MACALLISTER” and said, “Looks good to me, no problems here?”

But check it, the typos aren’t the problem, they are just the symptom of your problem.

From TBI:

“…here in San Francisco, we’re striving to create our own culturally significant publication that captures the city in such a thoughtful way…”

So, TBI, do you really think you’re a culturally significant publication? Do you really think you’re capturing the city in a thoughtful way?

I don’t.

So, TBI, do you really think you’re:

“a San Francisco-based website building a cultural narrative of the city for both locals and tourists?”

Well, I can see that you’re aimed at tourists but I don’t know about cultural narratives and whatnot.

All right, enjoy your high burn rate.

And enjoy your unsustainable clubhouse on Page while you slap a few graphics onto your partners’ pretty-much-worthless content.

And enjoy your self-indulgent field trips that really really super serve your readers.

END OF LINE.

Mid-Market Promise: “SHOPPING PLACE” – Mid-Market Reality: “SLEEPING PLACE” – Twitter Loin Update 2013

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

Hey Twitter! You’re worth $20 billion now or something?

Great!

So why not pay your share of your fucking taxes now? You know, pay them assuming the Newsom tax of 2004 is still in effect. You remember him, right? That Al Jareera correspondent and Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom who signed the “job-killer” Twitter tax into law less than a decade ago? (If you need help on figuring the details, I’ll provide it no prob. And yes, before he was against the Twitter tax, he signed it into law.  But then a few years later he used a certain building for his campaign HQ  for free ‘n stuff. Can you guess which one, Twitter? Hint: It’s a big boxy thing in the Twitterloin!)

Or, in the alternative, why not just cut a check for $20 million (or $50 million) and send it off to San Francisco’s General Fund? Wouldn’t that be more effective than the half-assed $2,000,000 Supervisor Jane Kim slush fund that was supposed to be used to provide WiFi to all the Twitterloin by now? I think so.

What’s that, no you say? No? OK, well, instead, why not just come out and say that you don’t support the unnecessary MUNI bus Twitter Line betwixt the Twitter Building and CalTrain? At least that would save us some money, right?

San Francisco’s Twitterloin Enterprise Zone, Market Street sidewalk near 6th Street, 2013:

Click to expand

Most people in San Francisco don’t want you here, Twitter.

Just saying…

Microsoft: Not Evil

Amazon: Not Evil

Google: Not Evil

FaceBook: Evil, from the beginning

Instagram: Started off not Evil but Evil now.

Twitter: Started off not Evil but… 

Is Carpetbagging CW Nevius the Randy Shaw of Haight Ashbury? Is The Nevius in Favor of Commercial Rent Control?

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

San Francisco Chronicle writer CW Nevius blew into town just last year to live in District 6, but already he’s adopted far-off Upper Haight as one of his causes.

See?

“…shops continue to have an alarmingly difficult time of making a go of it, even if the corner of Haight and Ashbury is still on every tourist’s must-visit list…. They’ve reached out to the San Francisco Travel Association to aggressively market the area and are considering street lighting and flower planters to dress up the street. But none of that is going to matter as long as Haight landlords continue to burden the corridor with unreasonable rents.

Always with the real estate, huh? As it is with fellow East Bay carpetbagger and Official Nevius Buddy (ONB) Randy Shaw, who just loooooves getting money from the City and County of San Francisco and, coincidentally, cheerleading for real estate interests and the campaign of Mayor Ed Lee.

Anyway, you’d think that commercial property owners in the 94117 would know exactly how much to charge for rent, but you’re WRONG WRONG WRONG! Only The Nevius knows the precise amount you should charge.

He knows What’s Best For Us.

Click to expand

Oh Nevius, please, please tell us more!

Don’t stop. Don’t ever stop your part-time, six-figure job.

The White Gods!
Come from the East at last!

Why Does the San Francisco Controller’s Office Consider Rising Residential Rents a “Positive?” Plus, BART Traffic Way Down

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

See if you can make heads or tails from this recent chart taken from the BOMA.

Maybe this chart has been dumbed down too much?

Anyway, check out the Average Saturday Exits of shoppers and pickpockets using BART to get to Union Square:

Click to expand

Ouch.