Posts Tagged ‘security’

The Richmond District’s Classiest Entranceway: Fish and Bubbles

Monday, November 14th, 2016

20161111_145111-copy

UCSF Popo Enter the Tenderloin – “UC Hastings Entering Public Safety Partnership with UCSF Police

Wednesday, October 26th, 2016

I had missed this news, but you can’t miss all the new UCSF vehicles on McAllister these days. Changing things was quite a big issue earlier this year. Anyway:

“Affected members of the UC Hastings Public Safety officer’s unit have been presented various employment options if they meet required qualifications, as police officers, security guards, or security guard supervisors for the UCSF Police Department. For officers who do not qualify (or elect to not apply) for jobs with the UCSF Police Department or alternative positions with UC Hastings, the College will offer conscientious separation terms.”

20161024_161821-copy

So that’s that – the oldest and largest law school in the West is now a little closer to the UC Family.

img_6571-copy-449x675

How Come “McGill’s Security K-9 Patrol” Doesn’t Have Its Own Reality TV Show Yet – I WANT TO PARTY WITH THIS CREW!

Wednesday, October 5th, 2016

As seen on Market:

7j7c2584-copy

What does Dawg the Bounty have that this crew lacks?

Move In Right Next Door to Mark Zuckerberg in the Mission for Just $3.5 Million? Open House Tomorrow, March 8th

Monday, March 7th, 2016

Shown in the middle here – Zuck’s place (under construction at the time of the photo) is on the left

Capturefsfdder copy

(And consider that the Zuckerbergs paid $10 mil.)

All the deets on Your New Home:

3442 21st St,
San Francisco, CA 94110
5,139 sqft

FOR SALE
$3,495,000

Experience the pinnacle of San Francisco living – be inspired by bridge-to-bridge views from this trophy property atop the Liberty Hill Historic District. This grand scale Marina-style building sits on a 30′ x 114′ lot and features two full-floor flats and a two-level garden apartment (unwarranted). The home is detached on 3 sides providing abundant light and a serene sense of openness to each of the units. The top 2 floors feature over-sized, light-filled rooms, hardwood floors, crown molding, and wood burning fireplaces. A lush rear garden, abundant storage, workshop and parking for 3 cars finish this home perfectly. Located at the crest of Fair Oaks, the home is dramatic from the entry facade to the panoramic views from each level

OPEN HOUSE
3/8 12pm-1:30pm

FACTS
Lot: 3,419 sqft
Multi Family
Built in 1928
3 days on Zillow
Views since listing: 864
All time views: 865
6 shoppers saved this home
Price/sqft: $680
MLS #: 442697″

This Infamous Mall in Bucolic Placer County, CA is on the Front Lines of Terrorism, Apparently – “IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING”

Thursday, January 21st, 2016

I don’t know, man:

IMG_9482 copy

And yes, that’s a real security guard, locked and loaded for bear.

And when I say infamous, I mean this flash mob thing from aught-ten.

And, oh yes, no photos allowed, of course.

I just don’t know, man…

Google Maps Car Catches Mark Zuckerberg’s Security Team Car Illegally Parking in the Mission – Also, Illegal Window Tinting?

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Here you go, start here.

And now check it out:

Capturejjs copy

Is that a legal space? Nope.

Sorry.

Now let’s talk window tinting for the driver and front passenger windows.

Just raising the issue.

Looks pretty dark to me.

OTOH, he _did_ just buy naming rights at SFGH – so those are your pros and cons…

Semi-Automatic For The People: The Armed Guards at the End of Haight Street – Whole Foods + McDonalds

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Sometimes, when you have a sidearm, all you need to do is grab your belt buckle and lean against somethin’.

The Man With No Name, at the West End of the Haight-Ashbury:

7J7C0152 copy

At the current time, there are handguns all over the intersection of Haight and Stanyan. Whole Foods has always had a large security crew here (some armed, some not, one supposes) and starting the past couple months or so, the McDonalds across the street now once again has an armed guard.

Do you think that’s groovy, Man?

Anyway, this is how things stand during the Summer of 2015

Prediction: The First Gold Apple Watch Theft/Robbery in San Francisco Will Occur in June 2015

Tuesday, February 24th, 2015

Do you love gold?

Lots of criminals do.

And pretty soon, they’ll realize that the value of the gold in some new watches from Apple is very very high.

Let’s see what the SFPD has to say:

“As with any new technology, of course there is a concern that thieves will prey on victims with the new technology,” San Francisco Police Department public information officer, Albie Esparza said. “Criminals are opportunistic. If there is a demand, there will be supply. It’s simple business economics.”

So, I don’t care what security features your multi-thousand dollar gold iWatch has, there’s nothing stopping somebody from taking your shiny and then melting it down to sell the gold for $1000 an ounce.

We’ll see…

Now here’s a guy at the Original Aple Store at 1 Stockton in Union Square trying and failing to shoplift some $350(!) Beats headphones:

Apple realizes that its new watches will need to be protected just as at any other Union Square jewelry / bling bling store.

But once its on your wrist, security will be YOUR problem.

Choose wisely.

Can the Managers of the New 100 Van Ness Apartment Building Get Away with Making “Security Deposits” Non-Refundable? We’ll See

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

Click on “Lease Now” to see this:

“*To reserve your new home, please click the “Get Approved” button above to complete our rental application and start the screening process. You will be required to submit a payment of $35.00 for the non-refundable Application Fee and the Security Deposit of $500-$1000 for the apartment is due within 72 hours by drop off or overnight mail. After three days from the date of application, the Security Deposit is non-refundable.”

Well, first off, “home.” Like, it’s not even a condo, man. How about “apartment” instead?

And second off, I ain’t never paid no nonrefundable application fee. What you do is ask how much the  credit / eviction check costs them and then offer to pay that. If that’s a no-go, then perhaps you shouldn’t move in? (I realize that building employees have to deal with flaky people all the time, but I’m not the flaky people category, I don’t think.*)

What really grinds my gears is the idea of any building manager talking about any kind of “non-refundable” deposit. Such a deposit does not exist under California law.

Check it:

(m) “No lease or rental agreement may contain a provision characterizing any security as “nonrefundable.”

You want to quibble? Fine, quibble, but this non-refundable status is agin the law, agin the law I tells you!

Most people in Cali can market apartments without prima facie violations of Cali law. So why can’t you, 100 Van Ness? Why can’t you?

Just asking.

Oh what’s that, what’s $35 to somebody who thinks moving into the Outer Twitterloin at $4000 for a one-bedroom is a good idea? All right, well, maybe it’s not a good idea to move into this building. Realize that most of the non-BMR people are probably not going to renew after their first year (just like at the abysmal “luxury” Fillmore Center apartments near Japantown, where you can pay thousands and thousands per month in rent, and for what). So, why are so many people going to move out of 100 VN after just a year? Think on that. Part of the reason might have to do with dealing with the 20-somethings in “building management.” Are they going to come in and say, uh oh, you walked on our cheap, brand-new hardwood flooring in high heels so here’s a bill for $7,000 for reflooring? Maybe. (Stuff like that happens just around the corner of 100VN all the time.) And there’s the nabe, which might wear you down over the months. OTOH, maybe this building is a dream come true for you, right next to Van Ness Station and not too far from the Civic Center BART Station. Fine, be my guest. Enjoy. But the same 20-something chicas who don’t understand why it’s not kosher to expropriate four-figure “Security Deposits” in the Great State of California just might not be aware of all the other laws what protect you.

Oh, what’s that, it’s OK to retain a “holding deposit?” Well, we aren’t at that point yet, because you all labeled it a “Security Deposit.” I’m now satisfied that you all don’t know what you’re doing. Welcome to Cali, 100VN Management. It’s going to be a bumpy ride…

END OF LINE

*Like the last time I bought a car, I didn’t even test drive it. No salesperson neither – the “big guy” had to assign a salesperson to me at the end of the sales process in order to “get the transaction to go through.” This sales process took about seven minutes. Later on, the salesperson had to “orient” me. I asked for the 30-second version of his 20-minute spiel. It was basically this: “Never press this button.” And I’ll tell you, that was good advice. I had already figured the downsides of pressing the button and if I hadn’t, then I would have figured things out fast, like during the times that I pressed that button by mistake. In any event, what he meant was, never press this button unless you know what it does and the conditions are right for it.  The point is that I’m not a flake so I never pay no nonrefundable application fee and you shouldn’t either. Sometimes, like back during Dot Com 1 in the late ’90’s, landlords would harvest thousands of dollars in application fees for just one unit over one weekend. Did the LLs actually run the checks potential tenants paid for? Nope. That’s what made it a scam. A nice, four-figure, income tax-free scam. These days, they charge you $35 to run a check that costs them even less than before, like a few bucks max. Oh well.  

Surprise! San Francisco’s $4.5 Billion Bid for the 2024 Olympics Didn’t Include Security – Cost? “Multiple Billions” More

Wednesday, January 14th, 2015

Well, here’s the news from Boston, the recent “winner” of the 2024 Olympics U.S. bid beauty contest:

“The Games are larger and the world is a different place than 2002 [Salt Lake City Olympics]. I imagine the security costs are going to be in the multiple billions of dollars.”

Our bid came in at exactly the same dollar amount as Boston’s. Why was that? Because that’s the guidance that SF received from the USOC.

The question is whether that was an honest number. The answer is that it was not.

I’m thinking that the costs of Boston’s possible hosting could be in the $15-$20 billion territory  – that certainly seems realistic.

That was the size of the bullet we just dodged…

Of course it could be the case that Boston will simply spend $50-$100 million simply preparing a losing bid at the corrupt IOC. That looks to be the best case scenario for us at this point.

And uh oh, the URLs SF2028.org and SF2032.org are already registered, so let’s include the cost of that as the first expense of our next futile bid…