Posts Tagged ‘section’

ATTENTION FRISCO LANDLORDS: You Can’t Charge a $49.50 Application Fee – Take a Look at This Example on Page

Friday, August 11th, 2017

Here we go:

7J7C7509 copy

Now let’s hear from the California Apartment Association:

“As you consider prospective renters in 2017, remember that your applicant screening fee can only cover the expenses you incur in the process. This includes the actual money spent gathering information, as well as time spent by you or your staff. But no matter how much you pay for tenant screening, your fee to applicants may not exceed $47.72. That figure represents this year’s maximum applicant-screening charge. Each December, the state of California adjusts its cap on applicant-screening fees based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. This year’s adjustment amounted to an increase of $1.05.”

A landlord not following what the CAA says is a bad sign from the get-go.

The kind of people who overcharge on the application fee are the kind of people who do other things wrong as landlords as well.

(OTOH, I’m sure many landlords would prefer naive, moneyed tenants who say, “Take my money, take my money,” as they are less likely to complain about other issues.)

Anyway, the cost of doing a background check has come down over the years, non? So why not just charge prospective tenants the eight dollars or whatever you are out of pocket? Cause I’ll tell you, this isn’t a good look, this nickel-and-diming at the start of a potential $40-something thousand dollar land deal.

Speaking of which, back in the day, Before the Aughts, back during DotCom 1.0, let’s say 1998 or so, you’d see 50 people showing up at open houses. They’d each pay an application fee of $50 or so and then the manager / landlord / agent would have a nice multi-thousand dollar tax-free payday just by depositing a bunch of checks at the bank. Not bad for a few hours “work.” And they wouldn’t even do a background check on you, the sucker prospective tenant, ’cause that would increase costs.

A cite from that era:

“Some landlords in the San Francisco Bay Area were found guilty of charging application fees of $50 or more and/or collecting application fees when no rentals were even available.”

That’s what happens when people treat the application process as a profit center.

Anyway, choose wisely, tenants.

(more…)

CONCLUSION: Rich People HATE Front License Plates, Even Though They’re Required in California

Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

See?

IMG_6996 copy

That’s typical.

VEHICLE CODE – VEH, DIVISION 3. REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES AND CERTIFICATES OF TITLE [4000 – 9808] ( Division 3 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. ), CHAPTER 1. Original and Renewal of Registration; Issuance of Certificates of Title [4000 – 5506] ( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. ), ARTICLE 9. Display of Plates, Tabs, and Stickers [5200 – 5206] ( Article 9 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

5200. (a) When two license plates are issued by the department for use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear.

What’s that, does this law apply to your Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi, Porsche and/or Tesla? YES, IT ESPECIALLY APPLIES TO THOSE.

What’s that, what about Steve Jobs? Well, he also regularly parked in handicapped spaces. Is he your lodestar? And if you want to copy him, you’d need to take off your rear license plate as well.

Sorry, rich ppl.

Presidio Update: Park Trail & Section of Ridge Trail Now CLOSED Due to COYOTE PUPPING SEASON

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

First up:

Dog owners report ‘aggressive’ behavior from coyote in Presidio

And then there’s this:

They want the Presidio Trust to remove the animals now before something worse happens. Debbie McMicking lives next to the Presidio and said, “I think it’s just a matter of time until one of them darts out and grabs a little kid.”

Oh geez. (Perhaps Yosemite should get rid of its bears next.)

children

Anyway, here’s the word from our Presidio Trust this AM:

“Coyote Management Update – Immediate Closure of the Park Trail and Section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail

During pupping season, coyotes are especially protective of their pups, and the parents may exhibit aggressive behaviors when they encounter other canines. In response to reports of aggressive coyote behavior towards dogs in the Presidio, the Presidio Trust is taking additional precautions to protect people and pets. Effective immediately, the Park Trail between West Pacific and Crissy Field and the Bay Area Ridge Trail between Arguello and Rob Hill Campground will be temporarily closed to all dogs on or off-leash. We expect to reopen these trails to dogs in August/September after pupping season ends.

Please visit www.presidio.gov/coyote for a map of the closure area and guidance for what to do if you encounter a coyote in the Presidio.

If you have an encounter with a coyote anywhere in the Presidio that concerns you, please report it to the Presidio Trust coyote hotline at (415) 561-4148 or by email to coyote@presidiotrust.gov.

Thank you.”

Here’s your map, dog owners

Park-Trail-Closure-Map

And here’s your Know Your Coyote ID Chart. Pretty bad-ass:

tagged-coyotes

They look like this, like small, timid, hungry dogs:

carousel-1-coyotes-in-the-presidio

Anyway, your dog doesn’t know how to follow the rules, but you do, right?

The Giants, Stephen Curry, and Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 was a Tough Year for This Heroes Section of the San Francisco Public Library

Monday, November 21st, 2016

SFPL, Park Branch, Haight Ashbury, USA. (Thanks, Andrew Carnegie, sort of.

20161119_154525-copy

(Oh, maybe that’s not for our San Francisco Giants.)

Anyway, sometimes you win the most games in a year or win the most votes in an election, but you don’t end up winning the big prize at the end.

20161119_154440-copy

What Those “BICYCLES ALLOWED USE OF FULL LANE CVC 21202” Signs Mean – “The Exception Swallows the Rule?”

Monday, August 4th, 2014

Well, here’s the sign:

I’m reading that as “BICYCLES ALLOWED USE OF FULL LANE CVC 21202”

Now here’s what that section of the California Vehicle Code actually says:

“V C Section 21202 Operation on Roadway

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations…”

That’s the rule.

There are exceptions of course – see them below.

But you don’t want the exception to swallow the rule, right?

Oh, what’s that, you do? Oh, OK. Well, that would explain all the T-shirts, but you’re celebrating the wrong CVC section. What you’re looking for is CVC 21200, actually.

And actually, what 21202 does is take away your right to use the whole lane.

Now of course, in the opinion of some, all lanes are “substandard width lanes,” so if that’s the case, one of the exceptions listed below will “swallow the rule” and, therefore, 21202 doesn’t mean anything.

But IRL, the rule means something, just saying. 

Oh what’s that, you’ve been told different? Well, people tell you different because of their ideology. Hey, would you prefer to hear from a bicycle advocate who’s not an ideologue? Well, here you go:

“Ride to the Right, But Within Limits – When riding slower than the normal speed of traffic, you are required to ride as far right as “practicable” (meaning safe). You are not required to ride as far right as possible, which may not be safe. You are allowed, but not required, to ride on the shoulder. CVC 21202CVC 21650CVC 21650.1 9″

Hey, how would that look as a T-shirt? Not so hot, really. It would sound like a lecture, you know, like we all need to keep to the right ‘n stuff.

But it’s the Truth, like it or lump it.

“(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

Cold Busted: Do SFMTA Parking Control Officers Even Try to Follow the Law? Take a Look

Thursday, January 9th, 2014

Leave us review California Vehicle Code Section 40202(a):

“The notice of parking violation shall also set forth … the last four digits of the vehicle identification number, if that number is readable through the windshield...”

Except some DPT meter maids are in the habit of not writing down the last four digits of the VIN. Check it:

Some SFMTA parking citation officers thought they found a loophole by simply entering “cannot read,” “covered,” or “unable to locate” in the VIN field space of a citation. 

03/07/12: Officer NW (Badge #206) wrote 66 citations of which he said he “cannot read” the VIN plate information on all 66 of them!  

02/01/12: Officer TA (Badge #12) wrote 27 citations of which he said he “cannot read” the VIN plate information on all 27 of them.”

So am I saying I believe the factual statements of some random Change.org petition over anything spun out by the SFMTA?

Yes, yes I am.

Now is this VIN requirement kind of a technicality, and is it kind of a pain to be looking for VINs when the PCOs need to make their quotas in order to pay for Ed Reiskin’s generous benefits package? Yes and yes.

But that’s the law. Perhaps the SFMTA should try to change the law if it’s so hard to obey.

Let’s hope that the SFMTA keeps a closer eye on its PCOs in the future…

Now let’s travel back to the past:

Via the excellent Uptown Almanac comes news of this anti-MUNI bumper sticker campaign:

Beej Weir with deets here and here.

“The bottom of the sticker reads: “ASSAULTING A PARKING CONTROL OFFICER IS A CRIME. SO DON’T GET CAUGHT.”- WACKO 1

As previously noted, harsh.

California Penal Code 241 — Assault, punishment. (“(b) When an assault is committed against the person of a parking control officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a parking control officer, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

So much for “Good People, Tough Jobs.”

BARTtv is Back on the Air: Explaining Why BART Detained Journalists Yesterday – No Linton Johnson, No Comments Allowed

Friday, September 9th, 2011

Well here’s BART’s version of the story of last night’s events at Powell Station.

IMO, the MSM on hand weren’t too satisfied with what they were hearing, but listen for yourself:

The nugget’s at 4:30 or so where some woman starts off with, “Actually…”

Normally, you can comment on YouTube videos, but not this particular one, for some reason.

All right, OpBART V – A New Beginning, is the next protest against BART’s shooting and 1st Amendment policies. It’s coming at 5:00 PM on Monday, September 12th, 2011

Uh Oh: Is Our Cafe Gratitude Running Afoul of CA’s “Tip Pooling” Law? – “Direct Table Service” and “Chain of Service”

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Comes now Cafe Gratitude server Sarah Stevens, who alleges that she is:

“…required to participate in an unreasonable and uncustomary tip pooling scheme that leaves her with a very small percentage of the tips she earns as a server. Specifically, Stevens alleges that after tipping out 20% of her daily tips to the “central kitchen” — an offsite kitchen on 14th street — Stevens then splits the remaining 80% of her tips equally with all of the Café Gratitude staff, including the “shift leaders” and retail employees.”

Improper involuntary tip pooling? No thank you!

Today’s special – Greens ‘n Gruel. All right, eat up, after you thank me!

Via Johann F

Per John Birdsall, CG is engaging in shady behavior:

“I Am Shady RT @EastBayExpress Cafe Gratitude sued for labor-code violations http://t.co/Dr9qHQd

Uh Oh. If Sarah can prove what she’s saying, she’ll have a nice case against CG, leaving aside other issues, like her not getting proper breaks ‘n stuff like that.

‘Cause our Department of Industrial Relations does not approve of servers splitting tips with anyone who doesn’t provide “direct table service.”

Check it:

“According to a California court, Labor Code Section 351 allows involuntary tip pooling. Therefore, your employer can require that you share your tips with other staff that provide service in the restaurant. In this regard, it’s DLSE’s position that when a tip pooling arrangement is in effect, the tips are to be distributed among the employees who provide “direct table service.” Such employees could conceivably include waiters and waitresses, busboys, bartenders, host/hostesses and maitre d’s. Employees who do not provide direct table service and who do not share in the tip pool include dishwashers, cooks, and chefs, except in restaurants where the chefs prepare the food at the patron’s table, in which case the chef may participate in the tip pool. Additionally, tip pooling cannot be used to compensate the owner(s), manager(s), or supervisor(s) of the business, even if these individuals should provide direct table service to a patron.”

(California’s laws are biased towards waitstaff at the expense of food preparers, IMO, for whatever reason.)

[UPDATE: Stop the presses! An employment lawyer in the Comments section has just pointed out the “chain of service” concept that some judges worked out a couple years ago. News to me. Anyway, the trend is that our courts are more accepting of mandatory tip pooling schemes than they were a few years back. But still, management has to keep its paws off of tip money in CA no matter what.]

Anyway, from where I’m sitting, this looks like game, set, and match for server Sarah. You hear that, restaurant owners? This is a dead bang, this is a lead pipe cinch. Just saying.

Thank you!

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Demands Response from 414 Mason, Site of Tourist Slaying

Friday, August 13th, 2010

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J Herrera is going after the owner / operator of 414 Mason, the site of the recent Union Square shootout that resulted in the death of German tourist Mechthild Schröer. (The SFPD is still working on this case – they were down in Fremont yesterday.)

Mr. Herrera is alleging that the August 8th party was illegal and overcrowded. All the deets are below.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior, DJH:

Herrera initiates legal action against teen party venue in Union Square tourist shooting. Demand letter to owner, operator of rental space alleges Fire Code violations, unlawful business practices in ‘horrific incident’ 

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 13, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has taken a step toward suing the owner and operator of a Union Square venue where an illegal, overcrowded party for high school-aged youths last Sunday was marred by gunfire that injured two teens and took the life a German tourist. 

Herrera’spre-litigation demand letter to Joseph Ursino, owner of the building at 414 Mason Street, and Curtis Matthews, who rented out the party space, alleges that the two face, “at a minimum, civil liability for violating the California Fire Code and for unlawful business practices.”  Such violations can be punishable by fines and penalties as well as disgorgement of all profits related to the unlawful conduct.  The letter sent this morning acknowledges that the City Attorney’s Office is also evaluating the potential liability of Labriette Collins, the event’s promoter. 

“Because of the tragic circumstances and grave public safety concerns surrounding the event and how you and others managed it, I will seek full legal redress to affirm public confidence in laws intended to protect the safety of San Francisco’s residents and visitors,” Herrera’s letter states.  “Vigorous enforcement of these laws is additionally essential to guarantee fair treatment to the vast majority of responsible entertainment business operators, who invest the care and expense necessary to abide by the law, and who comprise one of our City’s most important economic sectors.” 

All the deets, and the demand letter itself, after the jump.

(more…)

Harsh: “Crappy People, Crappy Jobs” Campaign Mocks MUNI’s “Good People, Tough Jobs” PR

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Via the excellent Uptown Almanac comes news of this anti-MUNI bumper sticker campaign:

Beej Weir with deets here and here.

“The bottom of the sticker reads: “ASSAULTING A PARKING CONTROL OFFICER IS A CRIME. SO DON’T GET CAUGHT.”- WACKO 1

As previously noted, harsh.

California Penal Code 241 — Assault, punishment. (“(b) When an assault is committed against the person of a parking control officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a parking control officer, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

So much for “Good People, Tough Jobs.”