La mise en scene from Mission looking south:
Cranes = money, for certain people, right?
La mise en scene from Mission looking south:
Cranes = money, for certain people, right?
Here’s the Word on the Street:
“Attached you can find a PDF with Jadwin’s emails about the project, and I have attached a few JPEGs for your convenience.
It is unbelievably stupid to move these N Judah stops (especially given how important these loading spots are for restaurants, etc.), but this “Streetscaping” in an “activity zone” is over the top idiotic.
You can find more information here:
It is completely wrong that this “parklet” is being maintained where passengers will be disembarking.
Even worse is that Michael Rieger failed to reach out to the businesses and residents living here before making plans and setting up a bogus online “survey.”
Jadwin is just the worst. She led the charge to close down the HANC Recycling Center. :(“
So that’s all I know on this proposal.
IMO, SFGov should strive to attain competence at its core missions, so I don’t get this kind of “streetscape” “activation” focus.
I’ll tell you, pedestrian safety means pedestrian safety.
But “pedestrian rights” means the opposite, it means letting peds go around willy-nilly and getting themselves killed.
Anyway, if you want to see peds jumping the green and standing around in intersections, head on over to McAllister and Hyde. Before it was bad enough, but now, peds will have a shorter distance to jaywalk?
The last thing you want to do is embolden* the already-emboldened, right?
On It Goes
*BTW, there were peds improperly in the intersection at the time Chris Bucchere collided with Sutchi Hui. Perhaps all the peds in the intersection had jumped the gun. That intersection offers a very short path for peds – in some ways that’s a good thing, but in others that’s a bad thing, particularly at the intersection of 17th, Castro, and Market. Of course, Bucchere couldn’t have “entered the intersection legally” cause the limit there is 25 MPH. And of course, he made no effort to slow down once he recognized the problem. So of course, there’s enough blame to go around.
…the party line from both SFGov and the SF “Vision Zero Coalition*” is that there’s a chance of eliminating all transportation deaths in San Francisco starting from 2024 and then continuing in perpetuity.
The arrangement looks something like this:
The way to prevent transportation deaths is to get inside the heads of people to find out what went wrong. The Vision Zero Coalition calls that kind of approach “victim-blaming” and then focuses on traffic bulbs and tree-filled medians.
Here is reality, from 2014:
“The Police Department found that in the 17 pedestrian deaths, drivers were responsible for eight and pedestrians were responsible for nine. Bicyclists were responsible in all three instances when they died.”
One area where SFGov could apply an NTSB-style safety culture approach would be with MUNI operators in particular and SFGov employees in general. But there’s no chance of that happening, I don’t think. So SFGov isn’t serious. SFGov likes to host photo ops, but SFGov isn’t serious.
*All these groups:
Alamo Square Neighborhood Association
Central City SRO Collaborative
College Hill Neighborhood Association
Community Housing Partnership
Council of Community Housing Organizations
Excelsior Action Group
FDR Democratic Club of San Francisco
Folks for Polk
Friends of Monterey Blvd.
Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association
Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco
Lighthouse for the Blind
Mission Community Market
Mission Economic Development Association
National Federation of Filipino American Associations
North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
SF Housing Action Coalition
SF Bay Walks
San Francisco Unified School District
Senior & Disability Action
South Beach Mission Bay
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Walk San Francisco
Yerba Buena Alliance
There’s a reason why I ask:
“If you’re a Boston city employee, there’s now an official decree: don’t badmouth the Olympics. Documents obtained by the Globe through a public records request to City Hall show Mayor Martin J. Walsh has signed a formal agreement with the United States Olympic Committee that bans city employees from criticizing Boston’s bid for the 2024 Summer Games.”
And didn’t we agree to a similar contract eleven years before the 2012 Olympics? I think so.
So it would make sense that we signed, or would have signed, the same agreement with the USOC had we not lost the vote earlier this month in Denver, right?
So, SF2024 was cool with that? So like tens of thousands of City and County workers would have been gagged by Mayor Ed Lee?
You see, this is why the corrupt IOC prefers dealing with backward governments like those in China and the former Soviet Union.
Anyway, there’s a way to find out, right?
Have at it.
(BTW, some of the 2024 Olympics people around town have already turned into the 2028 Olympics people. That means they are rooting for Boston to lose at the IOC vote, the better to have an American city chosen in 2028. How good-spirited they are, these Olympic Dreamers!)
UPDATE: Oh, here you go, looks like it’s referred to as a Joinder Agreement, and most likely it was signed by somebody with authority last month, one presumes the Mayor, if he’s going to be gagging all SFGov workers. This was a requirment to advance to this month’s vote, it looks like:
long-suffering playground [IRL, it’s an extremely popular playground. Its current Yelp rating is 4.5 stars, which is the very definition of almost perfect, right? And hey look, what about the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Yelp rating – it’s much lower, it’s actually just 2.5 stars, right? Is RPD “failing?” Should we simply fire everybody and start over? Hey, why don’t we start using objective measurements, like asking the playground’s existing customers what they think? Is that too radical a notion?]
finally [This “framing” assumes 100% of what the millionaire-run Parks Alliance nonprofit says is accurate]
Victim to time [Well sure, you could replace this or that at this location, but what’s so wrong with it? What makes it a useless tear-down?]
frequent wear and tear [Because it’s popular? We’re going to change it because it’s popular and it gets used?]
grown-up play [Turns out it was sixth-graders who busted the slide, per the word on the street]
the playground pales in comparison to other high-tech kids’ play areas in the city. [What on Earth could make a playground “high tech?” Like, “sure this playground is great, but I feel it doesn’t employ the most recent application of science?” Like, who says that? IRL, it’s perfectly fine.]
“failing playgrounds” [But the Panhandle Playground isn’t “failing,” right? Ask all the people who use it and try to find one person who would give it a letter grade of “F“]
“low household income” [Is this area a low household income area? WTF to that. In fact, the 94117 is an extremely high household income place, right? It’s off the charts, actually, nationally speaking. And even locally, it’s anything but a low household income area.]
low Parks Alliance Report Card grades and rankings. [Oh, here we go, here’s the problem. What’s the PARC and why does it matter?]
“an early holiday gift to District 5.” [London Breed is thinking “CHRISTMAS” but she says holidays – good for her. But who’s paying for this gift? Oh, we are? So it’s not really a gift, is it, London Claus?]
high-tech play matting [I have no fucking idea what this means. Currently, the joint is basically a giant sand box. Is this a bad thing? One supposes that some think so, but one doesn’t know.]
What would you like to see improved upon in our small neighborhood playground? [Keeping it the same, except for maintenance, which, if it’s lacking, then whose fault is that? Cough RPD, cough]
Wouldn’t it be ironic, dontcha think, if the Yelp ratings of the Panhandle Playground go down after we spend all those millions of dollars on this simple, functional playground?
Per this bit on SocketSite, SFGov thinks it has 50 “failing” playgrounds. Does that means that all of them get an “F” grade, that they’re all basically worthless?
If you polled people who actually use the place, the grade you’d come up with is “A,” or possibly “A-,” something in that area.
I think what SFGov / RPD / all those people with clipboards from that big non-profit what’s run by the wealthy, white and wizened actually mean is that the Panhandle Playground isn’t brand-new. What they mean is that it hasn’t kept up with the latest trends in playgroundom the past decade or so due to the fact that it hasn’t been replaced the past decade.
In other words, what they’re saying is that the Panhandle Playground isn’t “world-class.”
Oh, what’s that, Parks Alliance, there were more than 2.5 pieces of litter per square meter or whatever on the day that you dropped by with your clipboards? OK, so don’t you mean that the RPD is failing then?
Oh, what’s that, Parks Alliance, you’re concerned about the health effects of “x.” You know, I don’t think you want to go there, Parks Alliance. Cause then you’d have to look at the other stuff RPD is doing lately, like, say, the Beach Chalet soccer fields. Now I’ll tell you, I’m 90%+ sure that all the things people are worried about with the new artificial turf aren’t going to turn out to be a problem, but that’s not an absolutely assurance. You could say the same for whatever it is that makes you say that four dozen playgrounds in SF are “failing.”
You know, I could take my clipboard and go up to somebody’s 2004 Honda Accord with low miles and I could say, “Oh, no sat nav – minus five points. And oh, dirty windshield – minus three points. And oh…” And then I could put the car on my list of “failing” commuter vehicles, even though the person who drives it every day M-F thinks it’s a great ride and even though it passes its smog test every year or two and even though it starts up every time without fail. Who, oh who will appoint me chairman of the “Failing Hondas Task Force?”
(Oh hey, you know what RPD is disappointed about? It’s bummed out that the Maude Flanderses and the Reverend Lovejoy’s Wifes of the 94117 haven’t formed something like the Friends of the Panhandle Playground to raise $800k or so to give to RPD, you know, the way things worked with Presidio Heights and Mountain Lake. Oh well. Sorry RPD.)
In any event, a big bag of money fell from the sky and SFGov is going to spend it the way it wants. IMO, SFGov spends too much time focusing on the aesthetic concerns of millionaires who appoint themselves to the boards of the non-profits they create.
So, go for it, send a reporter over to the Panhandle to check things out, to see why SFGov wants to spend months and months tearing out a perfectly good playground, to see why SFGov wants to scrap a Honda Accord with low miles, and a dirty windshield…
Free Kool-Aid, after the jump, drink up, it’s free, well, not really, but you’re going to end up paying for it anyway, so might as well.
(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.
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.