Posts Tagged ‘Scott Wiener’

A Tale of Two Recent Photos: Distracted Driving – Supervisor (and “Urbanist!”) Scott Wiener(?) + SFMTA PCO + Uber Driver with Handicapped Placard

Monday, April 11th, 2016

Let’s start with Future Senator and Current Urbanist Supervisor Scott Wiener, you know, if this from KevMo is accurate.

Capturefsfddd copy

I know why someone Living In America would own a car, but it’s surprising to see a sanctimonious Urbanist operating one. Is this aging Nissan his car? Wow. Does Jane Kim do this? IDTS.

Moving on, to this. Some deets on the PCO here and now onto the Uber driver. Uh, what’s he doing? Is he holding a phone up high so his eyes can easily switch back and forth from his device and The Road Ahead? IDK. And hey, what would be a nicer gift for an Uber Lyft driver than a handicapped placard? I’ve never seen this. Gee, I bet that really cuts down on the parking hassles one might have Ubering about Frisco.

7J7C3754 copy

Anyway, this is How We Live Now in 2016

From the Mind of CWNevius: An Ad for Senator Scott Wiener, More or Less – Today’s Topic is Tech Shuttle “Vilifiers”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

HERE YOU GO:

Vilifiers of tech shuttles are taking us for a ride

The Municipal Transportation Agency is just concluding an 18-month pilot program for the tech buses meant to calm fears…

REALLY, THAT’S WHAT THE PILOT WAS FOR, TO “CALM FEARS?” I THINK NOT, I THINK IT WAS FOR OTHER REASONS. IT WASN’T JUST A THERAPY SESSION FOR US IRRATIONAL “HATERS,” RIGHT?

provide a way for the shuttle companies to pay for using Muni bus stops.

UH, NO. THE PILOT FEES WERE A WAY TO PAY THE SFMTA TO RUN THE PILOT.

Most people thought…

IS THIS THE STANDARD? LIKE, DO “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MAYOR ED LEE’S JOB PERFORMANCE? NOPE! NOT CURRENTLY, ANYWAY. SO, DOES THAT “PROVE” HE’S NOT DOING A GOOD JOB? HEY, DID “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MOST OF SFGOV SERVICING THE NFL FOR FREE AND FOCUSING ON THE SUPER BOWL 50 PARTY FOR THE BULK OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS? NOPE! SO WHAT DOES THAT PROVE, CHUCK?

But the progressive wing of the supervisors, particularly Jane Kim

SO LET’S SEE HERE, JANE KIM SUCKS AND SCOTT WIENER IS OUR SUN, OUR MOON, AND ALL OUR STARS? IS THIS GOING TO BE THE THEME OF CHUCK’S COLUMNS FROM HERE TO ETERNITY / NOVEMBER 2016? I THINK SO.

“They’re playing politics,” says MTA Board director Gwyneth Borden. “We’re separate agencies, so they don’t get to tell us what to do.”

OH BOY, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ISN’T AN “AGENCY,” RIGHT? SO OUR LOCAL PARTY APARATCHIKS SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN TRYING TO EQUATE THE BOS WITH THE SFMTA. OF COURSE, THE SFMTA _IS_ AN AGENCY, BUT IT’S A BIG POS AGENCY THAT SHOULD BE DISBANDED. ITS PRIMARY JOB IS RUNNING MUNI BUT IT CAN’T REALLY DO THAT WELL, SO IT FOCUSES ON TRYING TO EXPAND ITS POWER, BUDGET, PAYROLL, ETCETERA. I’LL TELL YOU, PROP E FROM 1999 HAD SOME YARDSTICKS FOR THE SFMTA – CHECK OUT “SEC. 8A.103. SERVICE STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.” IT’S ALL “at least 85 percent of vehicles must run on-time.” HEY, ARE WE THERE YET? NO? SO WHAT DID THE 85% MEAN? OH, NOTHING? OH, IS 85% SOMETHING THE SFMTA TRIED TO COOK THE BOOKS TO TRY TO ATTAIN, BUT EVEN THEN IT COULDN’T? YEP. SO WHY DO WE HAVE THE SFMTA STILL AROUND THEN? OR MAYBE THE 85% FIGURE IS MEANINGLESS, JUST SOMETHING TO GET “MOST PEOPLE” TO VOTE YES ON PROP E BACK IN ’99? BOY, IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 2016. WHAT IF THAT ON-TIME FIGURE COMMITTMENT HAD BEEN 100% – WOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT NOW? OR WHAT IF PROP E PROMISED VOTERS A 110% ON-TIME PERCENTAGE? WOULD THAT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE? IDTS. IN ANY EVENT, THE BOS ISN’T JUST ANOTHER RUN OF THE MILL “AGENCY” FILLED WITH RUN OF THE MILL APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS, FTR.

OH NEW ISSUE: ISN’T THE SFMTA’S PILOT CONTRARY TO STATE LAW? I THINK IT IS. I THINK THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO CHANGE CA STATE LAW TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE, BUT I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT SINCE. OH WELL.

“As Supervisor Scott Wiener says…”

CWNEVIUS SHOULD LEAD OFF EVERY SENTENCE IN EVERY ONE OF HIS POLITICAL BITS LIKE THIS, ‘CAUSE THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE’S DOING.

The shuttle companies already have parking lots and white zones picked out for stops and will just use those.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT CHUCK IS TALKING ABOUT HERE. THERE ARE SOME PARKING LOTS THAT AREN’T CURRENTLY BEING USED, BUT ARE ALREADY “PICKED OUT” JUST IN CASE? IF I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT CHUCK’S TALKING ABOUT, HOW WILL HIS EVERYMAN, ARCHIE BUNKER-TYPE READERS UNDERSTAND WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT? HEY, WHAT IF CHUCK HAD AN EDITOR, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY TO RUN THINGS BY AFORE PUBLICATION? MAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

hubs

IDK, MAYBE. MOST OF THESE ROUTES FUNCTION LIKE LIMITEDS, RIGHT? LIKE THE NX JUDAH, WHICH HAS STOPS AT BOTH ENDS WITH A LONG-HAUL STRETCH IN THE MIDDLE. SO, WHAT IF THE NX HAD JUST ONE STOP OUT IN THE AVENUES? IT WOULD BE STILL BE USEFUL TO MANY, BUT PERHAPS NOT AS USEFUL AS BEFORE. I’LL TELL YOU, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT “PLAYING POLITICS,” THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON WHEN SCOTT WIENER SAYS THAT EXPLORING HUBS WOULD “DESTROY” OUR CORPORATE BUS LINE SYSTEM.

The pilot program created some changes, like taking big buses off narrow streets, and it seemed to be working.

REALLY? I DON’T KNOW THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CHANGES? I’LL TELL YOU, OUR SFMTA, WHICH HAS GOTTEN MILLIONS AND MILLIONS WORTH OF “BEHESTED” MONEY FROM, WELL, I’LL JUST LET YOU GUESS FROM WHOM, GENTLE READER, IS AWFULLY CAGEY ABOUT THE ENTIRE PILOT. HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, “WELL, WE HAD THIS INTERSTATE BUS TRYING TO MAKE A TURN AT THIS INTERSECTION AND IT WASN’T WORKING OUT, SO NOW WE’RE USING … SMALLER BUSES? OR, A DIFFERENT ROUTE? “IDK.

…hard-core progressives are mad as hell…

SO WHO ELECTED THIS HARD CORE, CHUCK? YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS OF FRISCO, AKA YOUR NEW-FOUND HOME? HEY, PERHAPS YOUR POLITICAL HERO SCOTT WIENER IS CONSISTENTLY RIGHT OF CENTER, SF POLITICS-WISE? ISN’T THAT TRUE? PERHAPS, BOTH CHUCK AND SCOTT ARE HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVES, SF POLITICS-WISE? DOES THIS TYPE OF DISCOURSE HELP MATTERS, ONE WONDERS?

They’re angry that the techies not only have good, high-paying jobs…

REALLY, CHUCK? SO ANY CRITIQUE OF OUR POS SFMTA IS BASED UPON THIS ALLEGED ANGER? IDTS. (AND HEY, CHUCK, DO _YOU_ HAVE A “GOOD HIGH-PAYING” JOB? OH, NO, BUT YOU’RE WORKING ON IT?)

Now they want them to leave

SO JANE KIM WANTS “TECHIES” TO LEAVE SF? REALLY?

wonderful, desirable place to live

ONE WONDERS IF THE MSM OF PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA HAS A CHUCK NEVIUS CHEERING ON THE GOV’MINT LIKE THIS?

haters

ELECTEDS KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS, TO USE TERMS LIKE THIS, SO THEY SHUNT THIS KIND OF HEAVY LIFTING TO THEIR PR PEOPLE. BUT, THE PR PEOPLE SIMILARLY KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS. SO THEY ASSIGN THE TASK TO … SFGOV HEAD CHEER LEADER [GIVE ME A] C! [GIVE ME A] W! [GIVE ME A] NEVIUS!

all in the name of “improving” the program.

SO, ANY ATTEMPT TO ALTER WHAT THE SFMTA WANTS TO DO MUST FAIL BECAUSE WHATEVER IT’S DOING AT WHATEVER TIME IS PERFECTLY FINE? OK FINE. HEY, SPEAKING OF FINE, DID CHUCK EVER PAY FOR HIS RECENT DOCUMENTED FARE EVASION FROM THE SFMTA? IDTS! (WELL, HE DIDN’T PAY IN MONEY, ANYWAY)

ALL RIGHT, LET’S HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW GREAT SCOTT WIENER IS, ALL THE WAY UNTIL NOVEMBER 2016 ESPECIALLY, AND THEN, AS NEEDED, BY SCOTT WIENER, OR OTHERS. CHUCK IS OUR MEDIA’S CHESTER, AFTER ALL…

END OF LINE.

A Few Points About the Proposed “Idaho Stop” “Bike Yield Law” Before Our Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, December 1st, 2015

SF’S BIKE YIELD LAW BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ COMMITTEE BY CHRIS CASSIDY ON NOVEMBER 30, 2015

…it’s going to take all of us uniting and speaking in one diverse and clear voice.

WHAT? LET’S ALL JOIN IN LOCK STEP TO BECOME “DIVERSE?” WTF. (GET ME REWRITE.)

common-sense safety legislation

WELL THIS IS SOMEBODY’S CONCLUSION. OF COURSE IF THIS EFFORT DOESN’T END UP INCREASING SAFETY THEN IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN “SAFETY LEGISLATION,” AND I, FOR ONE, DON’T SEE THIS AS AN OBVIOUS, SIMPLE, “COMMON-SENSE” ISSUE. AVERAGE BIKE SPEED OVER STOP LINES ON THE VAUNTED “WIGGLE” ROUTE ARE ALREADY TOO HIGH, RIGHT? WOULD THIS LEGISLATION GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO MAKE IT HIGHER?

cautiously rolling through stop signs

I’LL TELL YOU, YOU CAN CAUTIOUSLY ROLL THROUGH STOP SIGNS LIKE EVERY DAY FOR DECADES AND YOU’LL GENERALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM FROM THE SFPD UNDER THE APPARENTLY NON-COMMON-SENSE RULES WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS KIND OF THING ALREADY IS A VERY LOW PRIORITY FOR THE SFPD EXCEPT IN PROBLEMATIC AREAS LIKE THE SO-CALLED WIGGLE ROUTE, WHICH ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD EITHER AVOID _OR_ WOULD USE MORE CAUTION THAN THE AVERAGE, TYPICAL WIGGLE RIDER. HERE’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN – THE SFPD IS GOING TO GET MORE COMPLAINTS FROM PEDS ON/NEAR THE WIGGLE. THIS INFO IS GOING TO GET TO THE MOTOR PATROL. THE MOTOR PATROL IS THEN GOING TO CAMP OUT ON THE WIGGLE. WHICH PART? WALLER AND STEINER, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS ALREADY. WHY SOME NON-PROFIT WOULD WANT TO FUNNEL MORE BICYCLE TRAFFIC THROUGH AN ALREADY OVERLOADED INTERSECTION IS A MYSTERY TO ME. IN ANY EVENT, YES, DURING THE RARE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PERIODS YOU WILL GET TICKETED FOR GOING OVER A STOP LINE EVEN AT A VERY LOW SPEED LIKE TWO MPH. SORRY. AS STATED, YOU CAN EASILY GET AROUND TOWN BY AVOIDING THIS SPECIFIC ROUTE, IF ONLY BY ONE BLOCK. AND IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COPS SITTING THERE, THEN YOU’RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION. AND IF YOU WANT A NON-WIGGLE ROUTE TO GET WHERE YOU’RE GOING, JUST ASK ME. MY ROUTE WILL HAVE FEWER TURNS TO BOOT. TURNS ARE BAD FOR SAFETY AND STRAIGHTER ROUTES ARE BETTER FOR SAFETY, RIGHT?

lowest traffic enforcement priority

I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU’D ENFORCE THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PEACE OFFICER – YOU KNOW THEY LEARNED US IN COLLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF MICROMANAGING INDIVIDUAL POPO. SO YES, OF COURSE, THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF TRYING TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION _DOES_ “SEND A MESSAGE” TO THE SFPD AS A WHOLE, BUT I WOULDN’T GET ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT’S NOT REALLY GOING TO MATTER IRL

The ordinance only applies to people biking through stop signs where others, including people walking, are not present at the intersection up their arrival.

OUR SFPD ALREADY DOES STING OPERATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE A FAKE PEDESTRIAN WAIT FOR A CAR AND THEN START CROSSING AN INTERSECTION TO SEE IF THE DRIVER WILL STOP. IF THIS LEG PASSES AND IF THE SFPD DECIDES TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY THEN THE SFPD WOULD NEED TO GET SOMEBODY TO START WALKING ACROSS, IDK, LET’S SAY WALLER AND STEINER, AND THEN IT WOULD BE FISH IN A BARREL TIME ONCE AGAIN.

The Bike Yield Law would be the first San Francisco law to codify that people walking always have the right of way

OH GEEZ, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE – PEDESTRIANS IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE’S NOTHING A BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS CAN DO ABOUT THAT. (SORRY, COLLEDGE, REMEMBER?)

This is about keeping our streets safe…

UH, NO IT’S NOT. IT’S ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO RIDE ON BIKES.

ensuring that SFPD officers are free to focus their attention on the traffic violations known to cause the majority of traffic deaths and severe injuries in our city.

ALL RIGHT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO “FOCUS ON THE FIVE” CVC VIOLATIONS THAT KILL PEOPLE IN SF, THREE OF THEM ONLY APPLY TO PEDESTRIANS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT “FAILURE TO YIELD” APPLIES TO A LOT OF DRIVERS WHEN THEY HAVE ACCIDENTS WITH PEDS, SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM ON THE TOP FIVE LIST FOR BAD PED BEHAVIOR LIKE JAYWALKING VIOLATIONS, SORRY. THE WAY FOR SIMPLE-MINDED PR TYPES TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE TOP FIVE “DRIVING” BEHAVIORS THAT KILL PEOPLE. SORRY.

[LET’S OMIT A FEW MORE GRAFS WORTH OF FOCUS ON THE FIVE MISSTATEMENTS TO SAVE TIME]

Even after the events along the Wiggle this summer, SFPD leadership continues…

I’LL TELL YOU, SOME MONTHS, LATELY, SFPD’S PARK STATION HANDS OUT A TOTAL OF ZERO (0) TICKETS TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE RIDERS FOR ENTIRE CALENDAR MONTH. THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING YOU WANTED WITH ZERO FEAR OF GETTING TICKETED. ONLY JUST SAYING. SO, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, OUR SFPD HAS ALREADY LOWERED “ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY” ON BIKE RIDERS.

I’LL TELL YOU, FOR VARIOUS REASONS SFBC-ENDORSED MAYOR ED LEE (LIKE LITERALLY – BACK WHEN IT COUNTED, THIS ORG’S BOARD ACTUALLY ENDORSED HIS ELECTION) DOESN’T WANT TO VETO THIS IDAHO STOP* LEGISLATION AND FORCING HIM TO DO SO JUST MIGHT PISS HIM OFF. (HE’S ALREADY A LAME DUCK, WITH HIS SECOND TERM NOT HAVING EVEN STARTED YET?) ONE WONDERS WHY OUR SFGOV-FINANCED SFBC IS PUSHING SO HARD ON THIS NON-SAFETY NON-ISSUE AFTER GETTING A FAIRLY EXPLICIT PROMISE OF A VETO.

ONE WONDERS…

*I GUESS THE NUANCES OF IDEOLOGICAL “FRAMING” ARE LOST ON ME – WE DON’T CALL THIS CALIFORNIA STOP LEGISLATION IDAHO STOP LEGISLATION ANYMORE? OK FINE. 

Boy, Our DPW is Cooking Up a Deal for You: Pay a Small Parcel Tax of $15 or $39 to Avoid Unlimited Liability for Street Trees

Tuesday, November 10th, 2015

All the DPW wants is simply this:

All the money it can get its hands on.

To that end, it wants to tax you mo money. But this proposed schedule, as seen on the BOMA Blog, sounds like a very very good deal for you, J.Q. Public.

‘Cause the last thing you want is liability for trees you didn’t plant and also actually, trees you didn’t even want in the first place.

7J7C9040 copy

Say yes yes yes to this offer, homeowners, afore they change their minds!

Wow, Look at How Proud San Francisco Firefighters are About Supporting Our Annual Stripper Club Christmas Toy Drive – And Look, Airbnb!

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

Get up to speed here and then try to see who’s sponsoring this year’s shindig here. These days, our local SFFD union doesn’t seem all that proud of this Christmas tradition at all:

Capturesfsfsss

And check it, from our local Paper Of Record last year:

Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.

Oh My, Airbnb’s Huge Donations to Local Dems Pay Off! – Scott Wiener as Puppet – Annual SFFD X-Mas Toy Drive Now Stripper-Free?

Monday, August 10th, 2015

Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline.

Ever since I can remember, SFFD Local 798 has sponsored an annual Christmas Toy Drive, you know, for kids! And our local strip clubs have been involved – imagine smiling faces and giant checks for 25 large.

(I can recall riding my bike to the stoop of the Gold Club (aka Conference Room G? Good one, Yelp!) on Howard Street back in The Aughts during my lunch hour – somebody (some blogger/media type, I forget who) wanted a photo of the scene. I get there, and it was so sad. Three strippers had been driven there just for a press conference, but at least one of them didn’t get it. “Is my picture going to be in the paper? I don’t want my family to see that!” (Girl, do you have agency? No? OK fine.) Obvs, there wasn’t a meeting of the minds on this deal and it gave me a sad, so I left. And then they decided to move the venue of the presser, ’cause people were worried about have the embarrassing GOLD CLUB marquee in the photos.)

Anywho, this whole program with the strippers…

stripper

…has not been without controversy.

Oh, check it, from our local Paper Of Record:

Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.

Now let’s think here – who could replace the strippers this year? It would have to be an image-sensitive entity with a worser image than the sex trade, but with loads of cold hard cash to spend all over town.

Uh, what about Airbnb? (You know they have a big election coming up come November.)

Hey look, no strippers, but it’s Supervisor Scott Wienerhe‘s Airbnb’s biggest friend in town, right?

fdgf

Hey what about Airbnb itself – take a look at what they have to say about all this, after the jump.

Hey Airbnb, is this the kind of thing you were looking for when you gave the SFDems five figures not too long ago?

Hey Airbnb, you let the strippers do this work for years and years just until you have a big election coming up and you want to show yourselves as a great corporate citizen?

Just asking.

(And also asking: What of poor Lexus, Mercedes, and Porsche? They’re OUT, after all these years of giving to the kids?)

I’ll tell you, I have no beef against the idea of Airbnb per se, but man, your sausage factory isn’t pretty, A.

In fact, it’s offal.

All right, click on over to get Airbnb’s side of the story from their fresh news release. (And don’t forget to read the fine print – see if you have to sign away your first-born when you  click on an ad for Airbnb…)

(more…)

Little-Known Fact: From 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, the Bathrooms at Most SFFD Stations are Public – Anyone May Use Them

Monday, June 8th, 2015

You know, I thought we were done hearing about area blogger/gadfly Michael Petrelis and the bathrooms of SFGov, but we’re not.

Here it is:

SF Fire Dept: Homeless Can Now Use Our Toilets to Poop

And here’s a list of stations.

Hey, wasn’t this policy, or whatever you want to call it, in effect before gadfly Mike Petrelis took wing? I think so.

All the deets, from last month:

“Thank you for your advocacy to increased toilet access for San Franciscans. We are pleased to update you on the following efforts to increase bathroom availability:

Fire Station Restrooms: Nearly all of the San Francisco Fire Stations are open for public restroom use. Any member of the public may ring the Fire Station doorbell and will be let in to use the toilet between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Automatic Public Toilet Program: There are 25 self-cleaning public toilets in San Francisco. Here is a list of the locations:

“1. Fisherman’s Wharf: Jefferson & Powell Sts. 2. Fisherman’s Wharf: Jefferson & Powell Sts. 3. Bay & Taylor Sts. 4. Coit Tower, Pioneer Park 5. Washington Square: Union St. & Columbus Ave 6. Pier 7 7. Justin Herman Plaza 8. Market & California Sts. 9. Transbay Terminal: Mission & 1st Sts. 10. St. Mary’s Square: Pine & Quincy Sts. 11. Union Square: Geary & Powell Sts. 12. MacCauley Park: Larkin & O’Farrell Sts. 13. Boedecker Park: Eddy & Jones Sts. 14. Market & Powell Sts. 15. Civic Center: Grove & Larkin Sts. 16. UN Plaza: Market & 7th Sts. 17. Embarcadero & Harrison Sts. 18. Stanyan & Waller Sts. 19. Market & Church Sts. 20. Market & 17th Sts. 21. Mission & 16th Sts. 22. Twin Peaks 23. Mission & 24th Sts. 24. South Van Ness Ave & Cesar Chavez St. 25. Drumm & Clay Sts.

“Pit Stop Program: San Francisco Department of Public Works has expanded their toilet access program from six toilets in three locations in the Tenderloin to include two toilets in the South of Market and to the Mission District where the Pit Stop program has taken over a JCDecaux public toilet.

“Outreach: To ensure that homeless individuals are aware of the bathroom options, flyers will be distributed at homeless shelters, via SFHOT, and at the Project Homeless Connect Every Day Connect office. Thank you again for your advocacy on this issue.

“Signed,
Chief Joanne Hayes-White, San Francisco Fire Department Director
Barbara Garcia, San Francisco Department of Public Health Director
Bevan Dufty, Housing Opportunity, Partnerships and Engagement (HOPE)”

A Few of the Problems With Scott Wiener’s Announcement of a Massive Increase in Bay Area Bike Share (BABS)

Thursday, April 2nd, 2015

[UPDATE: Oh, another press release has arrived – see it after the jump. I don’t know, maybe if I got hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from SFGov, I’d fall into the Reality Distortion Zone as well, who knows. In the meantime I’ll just try to make SFGov better, and I’ll leave my pompoms with the mothballs]

The news of the day:

We’re moving forward w massive expansion of in , 4 other cities. Huge step forward 4 :

All right, I’ll bite.

1. Just listen to yourself, Scott Wiener:

“Forward … massive … huge … forward”

Are you running for re-election 24-7?

2. So what do words mean? If I pay $9 for the privilege of riding a super-heavy bike for less than a half-hour, how is that “transit?” Let’s see here, transit, of course, is:

“…a shared passenger transport service which is available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicab, carpooling or hired buses which are not shared by strangers without private arrangement. Public transport modes include city buses, trolleybuses, trams (or light rail) and passenger trains,rapid transit (metro/subways/undergrounds etc) and ferries. Public transport between cities is dominated by airlines, coaches, and intercity rail. High-speed rail networks are being developed in many parts of the world.

So bikes isn’t transit, d’accord? D’accord.

3. Isn’t your vaunted “Motivate” company really just Alta Bicycle Share? Don’t they have / had / will have a lot of workers’ rights / union organizing problems? Oh yes, yes they do / did / will! And yet, Scott Wiener goes after Google / Rebecca Prozan for what, what exactly? Imagine the blowback if Google or Facebook or Apple or one of its contractors started firing employees for union organizing? Well, let’s take a look at Motivate / Alta right here – and this is its side of the story. Take a look, take a look right here at your vaunted “partner.”

4. Does a “public-private partnership” imply a massive advertising deal is coming our way? Enquiring Minds Want To Know. I hope your partner’s “advertising partner” will be Coke, cause, you know, Coke Adds Life, right?

5. How often do the existing bikes get used these days? Not that much, right? And has traffic in San Francisco actually “improved” since Alta’s bike share thing came into SF? I don’t think so. I think it’s gotten worse, actually.

6. And is Scott Wiener really claiming credit for Bay Area Bike Share “oversight?” Well, how’s he doing? Not so hot, based upon its abysmal 2-star rating on Yelp, right? (And Yelp gives you one star just for showing up – like a two star restaurant won’t be in business very much longer. Of course, a fee and tax payer backed bike share program can last forever, right?) And these poor reviews don’t factor in the tens of millions of dollars the existing small program already costs us. What’s the public subsidy per ride? It’s pretty massive. And yet, people don’t seem to like it all that much. Mmmm… How many bikes could we just buy for people and give away for that same amount of money?

7. Oh, this isn’t your deal Scott Wiener? You’re simply “applauding” / patting your self on the back?

So Scott Wiener, to review, BABS isn’t transit, it isn’t very good, it’s costs us a lot of money already and the private part of your new public private partnership has a record of being quite hostile to organized labor.

Oh well.

SUPERVISOR WIENER’S STATEMENT APPLAUDING NEW PROPOSAL TO EXPAND BAY AREA BIKE SHARE

Proposal announced today by the Mayors of five Bay Area cities and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission – on which Supervisor Wiener serves — will expand the regional bike share network through a public-private partnership

San Francisco – Today Supervisor Scott Wiener released the following statement after the Mayors of San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville announced a proposal to partner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to expand the Bay Area bike share program by entering into a public-private partnership with Motivate:

“I applaud this proposal to dramatically expand bike share in San Francisco and the Bay Area,” said Supervisor Wiener, who serves as a Commissioner on the MTC. “A robust and sustainable bike share network is a key part of being a Transit First city and will allow us to reap the benefits of bike share, including reducing traffic, improving public transit, and stimulating the local economy. I’ve been an active supporter of bike share at both the MTC and the Board of Supervisors, and I will continue to work to bring this critical transit program to more neighborhoods in San Francisco.”

Supervisor Wiener has been involved in Bay Area Bike Share for several years, including oversight hearings and workings with the MTA, MTC, and other stakeholders to ensure a full rollout of the program.

Motivate’s proposal includes expanding the number of bikes in San Francisco to 4,500, up from the current 328. The number of bikes regionally would increase to 7,000 from 700. This expansion would not be funded by public tax dollars. The MTC’s Administration Committee will consider the proposal at its next meeting on April 8th, after which it will go to the full Commission. New stations are slated to be installed starting in 2016.

(more…)

One Problem, Just One, With SFGov: Planting Trees Without a Plan to Take Care of Them

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

(There is unrest in the (urban) forest / There is trouble with the trees)

Well, read the news and turn the pages – a good part of San Francisco’s “urban forest” is toppling over this AM because of rain. Not due to wind, just a little rain.

Did former Mayor Gavin Newsom run for CA Governor on the number of trees “he” planted in SF? Yes he did. Is that a good thing? No, it’s not.

Here, take a look at what’s going on down in Los Angeles County these days.

Could it be that local governments want to plant too many trees willy-nilly, the same way an alcoholic wants to drink too much?

A solution for that would be a conscious effort to stop planting trees. And also, getting rid of the policy of keeping trees in places where they don’t belong. This is a money issue, this is safety issue.

Oh, here are some facts:

There is no urban forest. A forest, by definition, can’t be in an urban area. Oh, what’s that , you’re just being aspirational? Oh, you’re just “framing” the issue because you want more trees everywhere and you’ve been able to send the bill to Other People Later On? Oh, okay, well, keep on keeping on then.

San Francisco doesn’t have any kind of “canopy.” Just look up – if you can see the sky or the fog, then there’s no canopy. Oh, what’s that , you’re just being aspirational? Oh, you’re just “framing” the issue because you want more trees everywhere and you’ve been able to send the bill to Other People Later On? Oh, okay, well, keep on keeping on then.

– San Francisco doesn’t have any kind of “cloud forest.” It can’t. We have trees and we have clouds but that’s not enough to have a cloud forest. Of course we have fog and a whole mess of trees from halfway around the world, you know, that don’t really belong here, but that’s not enough.

– Sutro Forest isn’t a “forest.” Do you want to call it a stand or a grove instead? That’d be nice. That’d be accurate too.

Anyway, Supervisor Scott Wiener’s ideas about spreading the cost of tree maintenance over a larger group of tax and fee payers have merit, IMO.

Big Sugar Causes a Traffic Jam on Chestnut Street on the Eve of the Prop E Vote, Same As Any Other Day

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

Let’s take a look here, aging Rolls Royce* on the left and lots of stalled cars ahead, starting at the 2000 block of Chestnut – this is just another day in the Marina Landfill:

7J7C9098 copy

Oh, here’s the culprit:

7J7C9101 copy

And here’s the payload, trying to hide behind a passerby.** Hey, take your time, Coca Cola!

7J7C9102 copy

Do the vaunted “planners” of San Francisco have a plan for this kind of thing? Oh no, you all just don’t want to deal?

Don’t you think this kind of situation lowers your credibility, Planners?

And oh yes, Prop E 2014 itself. Well, all the money coming in from out of town certainly has had the effect of making certain local institutions look foolish, that’s fo sho. There are pros and cons to it, of course. Direct intake of liquefied sugar certainly can be a factor in getting the diabetes, but there are others too, right? Perhaps Dr. Scott Wiener will help you work on those after the election…

*That would be your Old Marina, you know, Facie Terraemotus. Now make sure you don’t say nothing bad about Saint Joseph DiMaggio, the Patron Saint of the Marina, in front of Old Marina – they’ll get super pissed off. But, you know, before Joltin’ Joe had left and gone away, he was known for being a big jerk on Chestnut Street. Yelling at barbers for no reason, stuff like that. There’s an appointment system, Joe – what makes you so special? Anyway, area Supervisor Mark Farrell remains a big fan of DiMaggio, for some reason… 

**That would be your New Marina, you know, Post Terraemotus.