Oh, no no no no no. The original estimate of the “economic benefits” (whatever the Hell that amorphous amorphism means) of the 34th America’s Cup was $9.9 B-as-in-boy billion.
“America’s Cup organizers are falling short in their efforts to raise private donations to help pay for the cost of bringing the America’s Cup sailing competition to San Francisco — and that could leave the city on the hook for about $20 million. The Board of Supervisors holds hearings Wednesday to discuss the shortfall. Supporters say even without all of the promised private funds, the city still benefits financially from hosting the America’s Cup.
Host: Michael Krasny
Guests:
Jane Sullivan, city spokesperson for the America’s Cup
John Avalos, San Francisco supervisor representing District 11″
I understand that Mayor Ed Lee has a cheerleading function as a part of his job. Fine.
But what’s this? What the Hell?
“We expect to have some 500,000 people on a daily basis…”
Just take a look on the YouTube, at around 9:30 and, mind you, this is AFTER everything blew up and people started realizing that the 2013 America’s Cup won’t be anywhere near as popular as advertised:
So, does Ed Lee actually believe that there’s a chance that the America’s Cup will attract anything close to a half million people “on a daily basis?”
No he does not.
So why does he say it?
Mmmm…
Now, speaking of cheerleading, @olivaglobal is the dude who was hired by the San Francisco Chronicle to promote the America’s Cup over the next 1.5 years. Here he goes:
“The America’s Cup is the world’s third-largest sporting competition, after the Olympics and soccer’s World Cup.”
Here it is in the flesh:
So, let’s think about this here. I guess the bullshit Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI) organization is allowing that the Summer Olympics and the World Cup just might possibly be bigger than an America’s Cup. But what about the Winter Olympics? Oh, and what about the Super Bowl?
Who actually believes that the America’s Cup, that thing where half the staff just got laid off and NBC needs to be paid in order to broadcast, is actually going to be bigger than a Super Bowl?
Nobody.
Not even the cheerleaders.
So why do they say these kinds of things?
All right here’s one more from the messed-up study what’s going to cost the taxpayers of San Francisco tens of millions of dollars. It discusses, and I’m srlsy, the “fleet of super yachts” what are going to be attracted to the bay area due to the America’s Cup, and then it talks about how much money we’re going to make by gassing them up and Windexing the shiny parts and stuff like that.
I’m srsly.
These cheerleaders are members of a modern day Cargo Cult and we’re all along for the ride.
And oh, we’re going to get the Golden State Warriors without funding the stadium at Piers 30-32? All right, so why then are we funding Larry Ellison’s ego trip of a boat race? Why are we allowing Him to get away with this?
I know not.
Screw the America’s Cup.
“The world’s most popular sport may be soccer, but in cold, hard dollars, nobody throws a party like the National Football League.
I’ll tell you, those canceled protests are oftentimes more interesting than the ones that go forward…
Check it:
“Commercial Office Buildings Missing the Mark in San Francisco’s Efforts to Achieve Zero Waste
Labor, Environmental Leaders to Release Report Outlining How Commercial Office Buildings Can Achieve True Zero Waste by 2020
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – POSTPONED members the BlueGreen Alliance and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 87 will join with local labor, environmental and civic leaders to release and show support for the report
Making Zero Mean Zero: Waste Diversion in San Francisco’s Commercial Office Buildings.
Findings in the report reveal actions at some of the city’s commercial buildings are hampering the city’s efforts to achieve zero waste and the report outlines recommendations to achieving true zero waste by 2020 — a goal of the city.
The report was prepared by the BlueGreen Alliance — a national partnership of unions and environmental organizations representing 14 million members and supporters.
WHAT: Labor, environmental, and civic leaders call for commercial office buildings owners in San Francisco to reduce waste and increase recycling. The event will feature Spanish speakers. WHO: BlueGreen Alliance California Director Lisa Hoyos, SEIU Local 87 President Olga Miranda, SEIU Local 87 Members, Supervisor John Avalos (District 11), Interim Supervisor Christina Olague (District 5) WHEN: POSTPONED WHERE: In front of San Francisco City Hall”
And do I think that 10% of all trips in San Francisco will be made by bicycle by 2010? Oh, wait, we missed that one already – that got pushed back to 2020, when 20% of all trips made in San Francisco will be made by bicycle, for sure, like totally man, like guaranteed. (And then when that doesn’t happen, the new goal will be 30% of all trips made in San Francisco being made by bicycle by the year 2030.) Anyway, nope!
And now, do I think that all the commercial office buildings of San Francisco will produce “true zero waste” by 2020? Nope!
Anyway, don’t go to City Hall at 11:30 AM tomorrow cause nothing’ll be going on…
“The Subway to Nowhere. House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 27, 2012. Remarks by Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA).”
“Mr. Chairman:
This amendment forbids further federal expenditures for the Central Subway project in San Francisco.
The project is a 1.7 mile subway that is estimated to cost $1.6 billion –– and those cost estimates continue to rise. Its baseline budget has more than doubled in nine years and shows no signs of slowing. The current estimate brings the cost to nearly $1 billion per mile. That’s five times the cost per lane mile of Boston’s scandalous “Big Dig.”
It was supposed to link local light rail and bus lines with CalTrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit, but it’s so badly designed that it bypasses 25 of the 30 light rail and bus lines that it crosses. To add insult to insanity, it dismantles the seamless light-rail to BART connection currently available to passengers at Market Street, requiring them instead to walk nearly a quarter mile to make the new connection. Experts estimate it will cost commuters between five and ten minutes of additional commuting time on every segment of the route.
Even the sponsors estimate that it will increase ridership by less than one percent, and there is vigorous debate that this projection is far too optimistic.
I think Margaret Okuzumi, the Executive Director of the Bay Rail Alliance put it best when she said,
This administration is attempting to put federal taxpayers – our constituents — on the hook for nearly a billion dollars of the cost of this folly through the “New Starts” program – or more than 60 percent. We have already squandered $123 million on it. This amendment forbids another dime of our constituents’ money being wasted on this boondoggle.
Now here is an important question that members may wish to ponder: “Why should your constituents pay nearly a billion dollars for a purely local transportation project in San Francisco that is opposed by a broad, bi-partisan coalition of San Franciscans, including the Sierra Club, Save Muni (a grassroots organization of Muni Riders), the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, and three of the four local newspapers serving San Francisco?
Why, indeed.
I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer to that question. But those who vote against this amendment had better have one when their constituents ask, “What in the world were you thinking?”
# # #
This amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act (HR 5972) was approved by the House on June 29th. The legislation next goes to the Senate.
Jerry Nickelsburg Senior Economist UCLA Anderson Forecast
Saurabh Ahluwalia Anderson School of Management UCLA
June 2012
Here’s the start and the end – you’ll have to click above to read the whole thing.
“California High Speed Rail (CHSRL) is once
again in the news as the governor and state legislature
take up the issuance of construction bonds approved
by the voter passage of Proposition 1A of 2008.
Under “project vision and scope” on the CHRSL Authority
website are listed three categories of benefits: economic, environmental and community.
In this article we focus on the economic benefits.
Specifically we look at economic growth and,
by implication, job creation. That is to say, we are
examining the benefit side of the equation and leaving
the cost side to other analysis.
Though CHSR Authority has developed and vetted a forecasting
model and has commissioned a number of economic
impact studies, these rely on relatively strong, though
perhaps plausible, assumptions. As an alternative,
we examine an actual case of high speed rail, one that
has been widely deemed a success, for evidence of
the magnitude of benefits measured by induced GDP
growth that one can expect from the building and
operation of CHSR over the next 40 years.
Our study of the Japanese Shinkansen system
from 1964 to present fails to provide evidence of
induced aggregate growth.
Rather, the evidence suggests high-speed rail simply moves jobs around the geography without creating significant new employment or economic activity. That is not to say that
CHSR is not justified by population growth, pollution
abatement, or other factors. However, the evidence
from Japan is relatively clear. As an engine of economic growth in and of itself, CHSR will have only a marginal impact at best.
Governor Brown claims CHSR to be a visionary
project along the lines of the U.S. Interstate Highway
System, The California Central Water Project, and
the Panama and Suez Canals. As with these projects,
Governor Brown claims HSR will result in job
creation, economic development, particularly in the
Central Valley, the accommodation of population
growth and a cleaner environment.
The California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) has a set of studies demonstrating a sufficient
benefit cost analysis, a business plan that claims
operating costs will be covered by setting prices at
the currently charged airline prices for travel between
Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
The principal economic benefits cited by the CHSR Authority are the
creation of 100,000 construction jobs for the duration
of the project, operation and maintenance jobs for
the running of the trains, and the creation of 450,000
jobs and faster economic growth as a benefit of the
existence of the rail lines.
But, critics of the business plan abound. The
Board of Supervisors from both Tulare and Kern
Counties, counties who would presumably benefit
from the increased connectivity and economic growth
potential of CHSR voted their opposition to the program
as “currently constituted.
Moreover, questions have been raised about construction costs and timing,
environmental impact, operating costs and ridership
forecasts.
The State Legislative Analyst’s Office,
while not taking a position on the desirability of
CHSR, has critiqued the decision making process and
the quality of information available for legislators to
properly evaluate the issue.
Conclusions
In this study we have looked for, and failed to
find evidence of economic development that could
be clearly identified with the introduction or
operation of high-speed rail in Japan. This is surprising
because, at least for the Tokaido Line, conditions
were ripe for economic development. To be sure the
prefectures along the Tokaido Line grew. The late
60s and early 70s were a period of transformation and
growth throughout Japan. But the data don’t admit a
clear story that high-speed rail was in and of itself a
differentiating contributor.
Is it possible that absent high-speed rail Kanagawa
Prefecture would have grown more slowly? That
is an experiment that can never be performed. But
when we keep in mind that Japan’s growth in the 60s
and 70s were due to exports of goods and Kanagawa’s
main city, Yokahama, is a major port city for the
Tokyo area, it is easy to conclude that the economic
growth would have occurred with existing low speed
rail and truck transport.
The lessons for California are two-fold.
First, high-speed rail tends to create sprawl as it lowers
the cost for commuters and makes more far-flung
locations possible bedroom communities. This may
be considered a benefit by some and a detriment by
others.
Second, the claims that a multiplier effect (or economic development effect) of 450,000 jobs as a result of the introduction and operation of CHSR are not likely to be realized. There may be good reasons
to invest in CHSR including the possibility that
CHSR is the optimal infrastructure investment for a
growing population; but the economic argument, the
jobs argument, does not seem to stand on very solid
ground.
I understand that Mayor Ed Lee has a cheerleading function as a part of his job. Fine.
But what’s this? What the Hell?
“We expect to have some 500,000 people on a daily basis…”
Take a look on the YouTube, at around 9:30 and, mind you, this is AFTER everything blew up and people started realizing that the 2013 America’s Cup won’t be anywhere near as popular as advertised:
So, does Ed Lee actually believe that there’s a chance that the America’s Cup will attract anything close to a half million people “on a daily basis?”
No he does not.
So why does he say it?
Mmmm…
Now, speaking of cheerleading, @olivaglobal is the dude who was hired by the San Francisco Chronicle to promote the America’s Cup over the next 1.5 years. Here he goes:
“The America’s Cup is the world’s third-largest sporting competition, after the Olympics and soccer’s World Cup.”
Here it is in the flesh:
So, let’s think about this here. I guess the bullshit Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI) organization is allowing that the Summer Olympics and the World Cup just might possibly be bigger than an America’s Cup. But what about the Winter Olympics? Oh, and what about the Super Bowl?
Who actually believes that the America’s Cup, that thing where half the staff just got laid off and NBC needs to be paid in order to broadcast, is actually going to be bigger than a Super Bowl?
Nobody.
Not even the cheerleaders.
So why do they say these kinds of things?
All right here’s one more from the messed-up study what’s going to cost the taxpayers of San Francisco tens of millions of dollars. It discusses, and I’m srlsy, the “fleet of super yachts” what are going to be attracted to the bay area due to the America’s Cup, and then it talks about how much money we’re going to make by gassing them up and Windexing the shiny parts and stuff like that.
I’m srsly.
These cheerleaders are members of a modern day Cargo Cult and we’re all along for the ride.
And oh, we’re going to get the Golden State Warriors without funding the stadium at Piers 30-32? All right, so why then are we funding Larry Ellison’s ego trip of a boat race? Why are we allowing Him to get away with this?
I know not.
Screw the America’s Cup.
“The world’s most popular sport may be soccer, but in cold, hard dollars, nobody throws a party like the National Football League.
All that fuss about the America’s Cup started with a grossly-distorted report from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Here’s the start of it:
“Executive Summary: The America’s Cup is the world’s third-largest sporting competition, after the Olympics and soccer’s World Cup.”
UH, WHO MADE THIS UP? WHO BELIEVES THIS? FIRST OF ALL, “THE OLYMPICS” IS ACTUALLY THE SUMMER OLYMPICS AND THE WINTER OLYMPICS, SO THE AMERICA’S CUP WOULD HAVE TO BE NUMBER FOUR AT BEST. SECOND OF ALL, NOBODY REALLY CARES ABOUT THE AMERICA’S CUP.* SO, THE “INDEPENDENT STUDY” FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF WHATEVER THE HELL CHEERLEADING ORGANIZATION STARTS OFF WITH A LIE. PAR FOR THE COURSE.
Securing hosting rights to the Cup is therefore a prestigious and economically significant prize for any community.
NO, SEE, NO, YOU CAN’T DO THAT, YOU CAN’T START BUILDING YOUR CASE WITHOUT A FOUNDATION, CAN YOU? I SUPPOSE THAT IF ENOUGH PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE AMERICA’S CUP IS “PRESTIGIOUS” THEN IT WILL SOMEDAY BECOME SO, BUT WE’RE NOT AT THAT POINT YET. AC IS NO “PRIZE.”
The economic benefits of bringing the America’s Cup to San Francisco would come primarily through expenditures by racing syndicates, and through spending on hotels, restaurants, and retail and other services by both domestic and overseas visitors and Bay Area residents.
ALL RIGHT, THOSE TWO THINGS. BUT WHERE WILL THE DEFICITS COME FROM? WOULD YOU CARE TO DETAIL THOSE?
If the competition were to run for three months, this could lead to an additional 2.6 million spectators.
AND IF YOU START FLAPPING YOUR ARMS HARD ENOUGH, THIS COULD LEAD TO SUSTAINED FLIGHT.
While these impacts would be primarily concentrated in San Francisco, nearby counties such as Alameda, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and San Mateo would also benefit from increased visitor and maritime activity. This report endeavours to provide estimates of the economic impact of an America’s Cup match on the San Francisco Bay. Other economists have paved the way by providing estimates of the economic impacts of previous America’s Cups, including an analysis of the economic impacts of the 32nd America’s Cup of 2007 in Valencia, Spain. Starting with that study as a rough guide, this analysis makes a number of assumptions: that infrastructure cost and spending will be several billion dollars less; that spectator attendance will be considerably larger; that the media’s presence will be larger; and that the presence of super yachts will likely be smaller.
UH, BUT NOBODY REALLY CARES ABOUT THE AMERICA’S CUP THOUGH, RIGHT? THIS THING IS A CRUSHING DISAPPOINTMENT ALREADY, RIGHT? WEREN’T THERE SUPPOSED TO BE 18 TEAMS? AND THEN THE ORGANIZERS LOWERED THE ENTRY FEE TO A TOKEN AMOUNT BUT THERE’S STILL VERY LITTLE INTEREST?
From this, we estimate that the increase in overall economic activity in San Francisco due to hosting an America’s Cup could be on the order of $1.37 billion.
AND IF YOU START FLAPPING YOUR ARMS HARD ENOUGH, THIS COULD LEAD TO SUSTAINED FLIGHT.
This is three times the estimated impact of hosting the Super Bowl ($300-$500 million).
NOW HOLD ON, PEOPLE ACTUALLY _LIKE_ THE SUPER BOWL, ARE WE CONFLATING THE TWO EVENTS HERE? AND ACTUALLY, NBC _PAYS_ THE NFL FOR THE RIGHTS TO AIR THE SUPERBOWL (SOME YEARS, ANYWAY) BUT THE AMERICA’S CUP PEOPLE ARE _PAYING NBC_ TO AIR THE AMERICA’S CUP, RIGHT? SO ISN’T THE AMERICA’S CUP KIND OF THE OPPOSITE OF THE SUPER BOWL?
The potential increase in employment surrounding the event could be on the order of 8,840 jobs.
AND NEXT MONTH, I’LL INCREASE THE NET WORTH OF ALL MY READERS, ALL 14 OF THEM, BY $8,840, YOU KNOW, I’LL JUST GIVE THEM ALL MONEY, POTENTIALLY.
This increase in output and employment would likely yield a benefit to state and local government coffers of nearly $85 million.
NOOOPE!
Additional taxes alone to the City’s General Fund are expected to net more than $13 million, based on more than $24 million in revenue, and an estimated $11 million in tourism related costs.
NICE USE OF PASSIVE VOICE THERE. EXPECTED BY WHOM?
Looking beyond the Bay Area, California’s economy would see increased economic activity of $1.43 billion. The U.S. economy as a whole would see increased economic activity of $1.85 billion.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE? IT’S A WIN-WIN, RIGHT? EVERYBODY WINS! HURRAY?
This increase would support the creation of 11,978 jobs.
UH, I THINK YOU MEAN GIGS, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT?
The figures produced here are likely to be compared to previous estimates indicating that hosting the Cup on the Bay would result in economic benefits to the region on the order of $9.9 billion.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THIS PIE IN THE SKY? DOES SOMEBODY OUT THERE THINK THAT HOSTING LARRY’S LITTLE BOAT RACE IS AS GOOD AS BILL GATES GIVING US $10 BILLION? REALLY?
We have consciously made an effort to be conservative in our analysis and to evaluate economic impacts for which there is a factual basis and which would be unique to the venue of the San Francisco Bay, and by focusing on readily quantifiable benefits as opposed to those that are more speculative.
WOW, CONSCIOUSLY? LET’S HOPE YOU DIDN’T STRAIN YOURSELVES.
WHOEVER WROTE THIS REPORT IS DELUSIONAL.
SIMPLY.
*NOW, WHAT ABOUT EVENTS BIGGER THAN THE POORLY-NAMED AMERICA’S CUP? HEY HOW ABOUT SOMETHING CALLED UEFA? I THINK THAT’S GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN EUROPE. PUT THAT ON YOUR LIST OF SPORTS BIGGER THAN LIL LARRY’S BACKYARD BOAT RACE.
“The world’s most popular sport may be soccer, but in cold, hard dollars, nobody throws a party like the National Football League.
Now, realize first that everything in San Jose is named for Norm Mineta, and here you go:
“Study Shows How To Improve Bicycle Commuter Safety; SF Bay Area, Portland, OR Are Case Studies
Mineta Transportation Institute’s free report evaluates risks, safety, planning, enforcement and more.
SAN JOSE, Calif., Feb. 22, 2012 — The Mineta Transportation Institute (transweb.sjsu.edu) has published a report that leverages literature review and case studies in the San Francisco Bay area and Portland, OR to recommend ways to improve safety for bicycle commuters. Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety includes chapters on risks, application of social psychology to bike safety, dimensions of effective practices, and more. The report also includes illustrative tables and photos. Principal investigator was Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., with several chapter contributors. The 157-page report is available for free PDF download from transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2927.html.
“A basic premise in this report is that cycling should be encouraged because as the number of cyclists increases, the attention of motorists and safety improve,” said Dr. Osland. “However, an important caveat is that the number of cyclists must be commensurate with the infrastructure built for cycling to enhance their safety. This report discusses and evaluates various bicycle commuter settings against a framework of what are called the 5 Es – engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation.”
Dr. Osland noted that, of those five categories, engineering is essential because the infrastructure is vital to protecting cyclists. Education is emphasized because safety is the central focus of the report. A number of case studies was included, and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in the Portland OR area was prominently featured as an effective example of the “education” and “encouragement” dimensions of the 5 Es. The report concludes with a discussion, and it notes the need for continued research or evaluation, with particular reference to using the social psychological model.
As part of the literature review, researchers found a large amount of crucial data, including:
– In 2008 males accounted for 87 percent of bicycling fatalities in the U.S. More cyclists are male, but females may follow the rules more.
– Bicycle accidents that involved a motor vehicle were a very small percentage of all bicycle accidents; however, the vast majority of fatal bicycle accidents involved a vehicle. This is why engineers suggest keeping cyclists separate from vehicles.
– Too many cyclists violate the rules of the road, yet enforcement is often lacking.
– Driver aggression, drivers “squeezing past” bicycles when there isn’t enough room for them to safely pass, and cyclists riding poorly were mentioned as problems in the Berkeley surveys.
– A lack of empirical data on outcomes makes it difficult to identify true best practices regarding safety education programs. However, wearing helmets, maximizing conspicuity, and maintaining one’s bicycle in good working condition while following the rules of the road seem logical.
Tables in the report include those detailing bicycle rider injuries and fatalities; risks associated with riding against traffic, with traffic, and on sidewalks; bicycle stress level values and components; comparison of several bicycle trip factors in the U.S. and Northern Europe; and more.
Illustrations include before-and-after photos of street redesign; examples of safety posters; a children’s bike rodeo; an example of a “bike garden” in Switzerland, where cyclists can practice safety skills; bike safety web pages; street markings and signs; and more. Of special note are the maps detailing the city of Berkeley, Calif. bicycle boulevard network, built on existing and newly-created calmed streets.
The complete 157-page report, including an application of models to the 5 Es, is available for free PDF download at transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1003.html
ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., is professor of management at San Jose State University. He received his doctorate and MBA from Case Western Reserve University. He also holds a Master of Social Work and a post-baccalaureate in accounting. He has taught full time since 1993. Before that he worked in Latin America and West Africa for 13 years for Chiquita Brands, for ten years in several countries for Plan International, and for the Peace Corps in Colombia. His research interests include case writing, business and society, and international HRM, with over 60 published articles, cases and chapters, and a comparable number of conference presentations..
ABOUT THE MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) conducts research, education, and information and technology transfer, focusing on multimodal surface transportation policy and management issues, especially as they relate to transit. MTI was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under TEA-21 and again under SAFETEA-LU. The Institute has been funded by Congress through the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Research and Innovative Technology Administration, by the California Legislature through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by other public and private grants and donations, including grants from the US Department of Homeland Security. DOT selected MTI as a National Center of Excellence following competitions in 2002 and 2006. The internationally respected members of the MTI Board of Trustees represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from the Board’s assessment of the transportation industry’s unmet needs. That led directly to choosing the San Jose State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. Visit transweb.sjsu.edu
University of California President Mark G. Yudof moved on two fronts today (Tuesday, Nov. 22) to address policing issues in the wake of the pepper spraying of UC Davis students and other incidents involving law enforcement officers and protesters.
Acting in response to a written request from UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, Yudof agreed to conduct a thorough review of the events of Nov. 18 on the Davis campus.
As a first step, Yudof reached out to former Los Angeles police chief William J. Bratton to undertake an independent fact-finding of the pepper spray incident and report back the results to him within 30 days.
Bratton, who also led the New York City police department, now heads the New York-based Kroll consulting company as chairman. He also is a renowned expert in progressive community policing.
“My intent,” Yudof said, “is to provide the Chancellor and the entire University of California community with an independent, unvarnished report about what happened at Davis.”
Assembly Speaker John A. Perez also had made a request to President Yudof and UC Regents Chair Sherry Lansing for an independent investigation.
Under the plan, Bratton’s report also will be presented to an advisory panel that Yudof is forming, again at Katehi’s request. The panel will consist of a cross-section of students, faculty, staff and other UC community members.
The advisory panel, whose members will be announced at a later date, will review the report and make recommendations to Chancellor Katehi on steps that should be taken to ensure the safety of peaceful protesters on campus. She will present her implementation plan to President Yudof.
On a second track, Yudof appointed UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley Jr. to lead a system-wide examination of police protocols and policies as they apply to protests at all 10 UC campuses.
This effort will include visits to campuses for discussions with students, faculty and staff, and consultation with an array of experts.
The review is expected to result in recommended best practices for policing protests across the 10 UC campuses.
“With these actions,” Yudof said, “we are moving forward to identify what needs to be done to ensure the safety of students and others who engage in non-violent protests on UC campuses. The right to peaceful protest on all of our campuses must be protected.”
The hard-core NIMBYs at San Francisco Beautiful (our Comcast monopoly’s L’il Buddy) ended up going two for two yesterday in their crusade ensure that dial-up internet service is the best that some San Franciscans can get. That is, they won a stay from Superior Court Judge Harold Khan temporarily blocking the installation of AT&T sidewalk boxes and they’ll have no requirement to post a bond to keep their stay.
This is, of course, despite the fact that the Board of Supervisors recently approved the installation.
“Residents across the City, as well as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, have voiced support for competition and choice when it comes to TV, high speed internet and digital phone service.
Despite today’s decision to issue a temporary stay, AT&T believes it ultimately will prevail in the litigation and it remains committed to bringing San Francisco a next generation IP network.”
Which, you know, sounds good to me, but I’m not a NIMBY.
So, when you see these existing boxes, which Judge Khan has no control over, what’s your reaction? Do you say, well there’s graffiti on a telephone box or an electricity box or a mail box so we shouldn’t have telephones and we shouldn’t have electricity and we shouldn’t have mail service? I don’t know.
Click to expand
Let’s hear from the NIMBY side of things after the jump, but I warn you, it’s barely legible.
