Posts Tagged ‘Supervisor Scott Wiener’

What People are Thinking But Not Saying About the Michael Petrelis / Supervisor Scott Wiener Peeping Tom Conviction

Friday, June 14th, 2013

All right, so we have last year’s post, peaking-at-wieners-wiener-in-city-hall,” from blogger Michael Petrelis:

“Scott Wiener was standing at the urinal and had just started to tinkle as I entered and the camera took 4-6 seconds to focus, enough time for him to put away his wiener and zipper up.”

Of course when I think of the word “peeking,” I’m thinking it’s to:

“Look quickly, typically in a furtive manner.”

Now let’s see how California Penal Code subdivision  647(j) might apply here:

“647. Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor…
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.”

So, where’s the “injustice” here?

I’m not seeing it.

Les mise-en-scene. (This shot could be used to show how the mirrors on the second-floor bathroom at City Hall were mounted too low, just saying)

So this…

“It gives me great pleasure to announce that my legal hassle with an elected official, after he abused the power of his office as a member of the Board of Supervisors to put me through the law enforcement wringer over eight months and waste $26,000 in City dollars, has concluded.”

…is wrong. It’s the kind of thing you’d say after getting acquitted perhaps, but it doesn’t apply to this case, IMO.

And this too…

“Had I taken a photo of an ordinary gay citizen in a public men’s room, and he complained to the legal authorities about it, I seriously doubt the complaint would have resulted in the investigation and prosecution I have faced.”

…is wrong. I mean, this is testable, right? Go do the same thing again to an ”ordinary gay citizen in a public men’s room” and you just might have another expensive legal hassle from The Man.

Supervisor Scott Wiener is super-human. That’s why he’s so tall and why he only needs to sleep just three hours* every Earth-day, correct? He came to our planet to fight for the rights of millionaire property owners and members** of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which is his right to do.

He should be able to do so without having to worry about camera-toting Mike Petrelis whenever nature calls.

Anyway, that’s not necessarily what people are saying online.

It’s just what most people are thinking.

*Or so I’ve been told, something like that. Prove me wrong!

**The members with unpopular restaurants especially. These crybabies want a free market except when they don’t. Someday we’ll get San Diego-style cleanliness letter grades posted in front of restaurants the way Chris Daly wanted. Someday.

The Lincoln Lawyer: Know Your Tall, Bearded, Republican Pols – Supervisor Scott Wiener and President Abraham Lincoln

Monday, December 3rd, 2012

Have you seen the Sunday NYT? It features San Francisco’s very own Supervisor Scott Wiener.

Check it and note the closeted Republican theme.

All right, babe, try to pose like Abraham Lincoln – that’s it, sober, sober, c’mon give me a lot more sober, that’s it, hold it, hold it, CLICK:      

Click to expand

Oh what’s that, Gentle Reader? You’ve been to City Hall and you know for a fact that the wood inside the big chambers up on the second floor doesn’t actually glow IRL.? All right, well let’s tone that down, thusly:

How about a Lincoln hat? Here you go:

Now we’re going to lose the hat but go full desaturated. I think we’ve reached endgame:

Links:

Lincoln (2012 film)

The Lincoln Lawyer (film)

Log Cabin Republicans

I Don’t Know, Supervisor Scott Wiener’s Plan to Rein-In NIMBYish Historic Districts Sounds All Right to Me

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Here’s what showed up in the email, below.

Is this like preaching to the converted or something? I mean, why on Earth would we want more historic districts in San Francisco? Aren’t they, and their boosters, part of the problem?

Anyway, here’s the spiel, choose or lose:

“SPEAK UP NOW FOR PRESERVATION IN SAN FRANCISCO!

On Thursday, December 8, the Planning Commission will consider comprehensive revisions to Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, in addition to a series of controversial amendments introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener.

Attend the Planning Commission hearing:

When: Thursday, December 8, 12:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #9)
Where: City Hall, Commission Chambers, Room 400
Why: To voice concern over Supervisor Wiener’s proposed amendments that would roll back protections for historic resources in San Francisco.

Email the Planning Commission: If you are unable to attend the hearing, please email the Commissioners (with a copy to Desiree Smith at dsmith@sfheritage.org):

Christina Olague c_olague@yahoo.com
Ron Miguel rm@well.com
Michael J. Antonini Wordweaver21@aol.com
Gwyneth Borden plangsf@gmail.com
Kathrin Moore mooreurban@aol.com
Hisashi Sugaya hs.commish@yahoo.com
Rodney Fong rodney@waxmuseum.com

KEY POINTS

OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendments that would impose unique procedural hurdles on the designation of historic districts:

 Although only 11 local historic districts have been created in 45 years, Supervisor Wiener would require 66% owner support before community groups can nominate a historic district.

 The intent of Proposition J was to update Articles 10 and 11 to reflect best practices nationwide; the 66% owner consent threshold is a relic of the original ordinance adopted in 1967 and is out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice today.

 Other procedural hoops proposed by Supervisor Wiener, including a mandatory written vote or survey of all property owners, would make the process more costly and time-consuming.

 No other zoning changes in San Francisco are subject to similar owner consent requirements; historic districts should be treated the same as other neighborhood planning initiatives. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to make compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards optional:

 The proposed language would effectively eliminate any minimum standards for the treatment of historic buildings in San Francisco. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to exempt large classes of projects from historic review altogether, including downtown housing development projects:

 The proposed language is a misguided attempt to exempt an entire class of projects from historic review, clearing the path for demolition, insensitive alterations and new construction regardless of the significance of the structure or the surrounding historic district.

For further backgroud and to read Heritage’s past comment letters, go to sfheritage.org”