2) People were getting carded at the gate, so what to do? How about hang out betwixt Kezar and Stanyan, how’s that? A high school scene:
3) Alternatively, there’s always the bum rush. Hundreds made it through this one rupture over a period of about three minutes. Security guard in the yellow on the left there knew just what to do – he shut things down with a quickness. You can see some of the lucky ones past the gate to the left of the unecessary ambulance. Why would you bum rush? You’re a minor, you want to bring in your glass bong, and/or you didn’t want to wait so long in line – those are my top three guesses:
4) Traffic was going pretty good until SFGov started shutting down streets:
I don’t know why they do this – seems an overreaction:
So Hayes Street temporarily becomes New Fell Street
Count the #21 Hayeseses totally stuck in traffic:
5) So when SFGov complains about how much money it has to spend on Annual 420 Day, leaving aside how much effort it puts into promoting tourism, like how it sent its white collar worker$ to “volunteer,” you know, on the clock, for the NFL’s Super Bowl Experience or whatever the Hell it was called last year, take a look at this unecessary featherbedding – it’s a street sweeper sweeping nothing. How much does this cost, a $1000? IDK
Anyway, all this foo forall seems a make-work program for SFGov to placate the millionaire homeowners in the area, you know, on Annual 420 Day.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Denies SFPOA Attempt to Block Use of Force Policy Implementation
San Francisco, CA – Supervisor Malia Cohen issued the following statement today regarding Judge Richard Ulmer’s denial of the San Francisco Police Officers Association’s (POA) request for a temporary restraining order to block implementation of the updated Use of Force policy for the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD):
“We are committed to supporting progressive, forward-thinking policies that provide necessary reform for SFPD, including giving the 20 year old Use of Force policy an update that brings it in line with 21st century policing strategies and our 21st century values as a city,” said Supervisor Cohen. “Judge Ulmer’s dismissal of the POA’s unnecessary lawsuit sends a clear signal that it is time for us to move on from this dispute over shooting at moving vehicles and using carotid restraint. The City will continue to work towards the highest caliber of reform that is in the best interest of both citizen and police safety. It is time for the POA to join that reform movement.”
The policy was passed by the San Francisco Police Commission last Wednesday, December 21, 2016. The lawsuit, filed by the POA last Tuesday, focused on two components of the new policy: the ban on using carotid restraint (a tactic that can slip into a fatal chokehold) and the more notorious restriction on shooting at moving vehicles.
Chief labor attorney Katie Porter defended the City’s right to update the policy with better practices that are in line with the recommendations of policing experts, such as the Department of Justice and President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Judge Ulmer agreed with the clearly written case law: setting a comprehensive Use of Force policy for SFPD is in the City’s scope of management decisions.”
Well, not really videotape. But anyway, here it is:
Let’s note a few things.
1. Uh, how many times does our Board of Supervisors issue a proclamation when somebody leaves the Chronicle? Who was behind this proclamation? Would most journalists be so proud to be honored for years of fawning coverage?
2. Did Supervisor John Avalos really go on a “rant?” And didn’t the topic have to do with Chuck, you know, purportedly, misquoting Avalos?
3. Did John Avalos really “slam” his microphone down? (I don’t know for sure, but I didn’t see it. Of course, neither did Chuck. Maybe I’d say Avalos pushed down or turned off the mic?)
5. Hey, I could go on and on. And he’s not even being honest when he says, well, that’s how I look at things. I’ll leave you with this, Gentle Reader – two bits on the wasteful expensive Central Subway. One, written before City Hall told Chuck how to feel and the other after. He was like Donald Trump on the Twitter, contradicting himself, seemingly without without realizing, and certainly without acknowledging…
“There’s really only one question to ask about the proposal to bore a light-rail subway deep under the heart of downtown San Francisco. You’re kidding, right?“
“Just the initial math makes your head hurt. Basically it works out to somewhere between $1.22 billion and $1.4 billion for an underground railway that runs for less than two miles and has only three stops. That’s not a transit system, it’s a model railroad.“
“Throw in a few of the inevitable cost overruns and this could work out to a billion dollars a mile.”
“No matter. This is the kind of big, splashy project that city officials love to put their name on.”
“Basically, the argument seems to boil down to this – we’ve got the money (as if federal tax dollars grow on trees), the Chinatown community is behind it, why not build it? Oh, let me count some of the reasons.”
“But, critics say, a stop on Market beneath which BART and other Muni lines already run might have made this whole thing an easier sell. That would have created an opportunity for a single station where riders could make connections between regional and local trains, almost like Grand Central Terminal in New York. Instead, riders will have to walk all the way up to Union Square.”
“Oh, and did I mention that in order to get under the BART tube, the subway station at Union Square will have to be at least 95 feet below the surface. That’s nine stories.”
“What is it about that image of deep, underground dirt-munching machines in earthquake country that makes me wince?”
“A subway will take traffic off some of the busiest streets in the city – try riding Muni on Stockton Street in the morning – and provide quick north-south access across the city, and it’s mostly paid for with federal funds. Who wouldn’t like something like that?”
Now I thought I could just drag this image into Google Translate for a second opinion but that don’t work. What do work, sort of, is simply pointing your phone at the Chinese characters, and then you get a translation like this:
And then the Google gives you a kind of summary.
Suffice to say, wouldn’t Scott Wiener want to disavow this kind of thing?
Oh, did I say “political fundraiser?” What I meant to say was event, or better yet, soiree. Never call a fundraiser a fundraiser – that’s the rule.
Anywho, what you do is start off by saying that the official bird of Frisco is no longer the California Quail, it’s the crane. The construction crane! (‘Cause you don’t know to call it a tower crane.) And then you laugh at your own “joke.” And then you blow a few dog whistles, you know, scary names like CHRIS DALY or AARON PESKIN afore you remind one and all how critical their “support” is to you and how, basically, all of us in this room are on the same team.
Now this sitch here I don’t understand, you know fully:
Perhaps Scott Wiener should clear things up for us, you know, explain what his issues are here. (IDK, maybe somebody stole his Nissan and then parked it here – who knows. Or maybe he was so busy texting that he doesn’t really know what he’s doing IRL anymore.)
“W: What I will say is my perspective is neither the SFMTA or SFPD takes double-parking seriously. And I don’t say that lightly. I’m a fan of both agencies. I work with them. I believe SFPD and SFMTA are committed to Vision Zero. There are some really good people within SFPD who do want to see it happen. But double parking is one area where both agencies have just failed… it’s private automobiles, it’s taxis, it’s garbage trucks… it’s an unending situation. They cause traffic jams, they block Muni, they block the bike lane, it undermines our entire transportation system and makes our streets more dangerous. It is one of my significant frustrations.”
Supervisor Mark Farrell called it “the worst idea I’ve heard in months.”
Deirdre Hussey, spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Lee, called it a “job-killing measure.” She added that the measure “upends the grand bargain” made between business and labor that ultimately led voters to eliminate the payroll tax in 2012.
All right, all I’ve done so far is simply read the news to you. But now let’s travel back to a time when former Mayor Gavin Newsom, another Right-Of-Center Willie Brown Appointee Who Somehow Ended Up Mayor, signed into law the very same 1.5% stock options tax. So put on your white shoes and dance the blues – it’s Pillsbury, bitches:
On February 19, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom approved recent changes to San Francisco’s Business Tax ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 2004. These changes become effective March 20, 2004, 30 days after signing by the Mayor.
…the amendments also contain significant changes such as … including stock options in the definition of payroll expense.“
So, was Gavin Newsom’s stock options tax a “job-killing measure” back in 2004 the way the same tax is being portrayed here in 2016?
That’s my question – I don’t know how ppl would answer.
But I’m thinking that if this 2016 proposal gets enacted and you’re a “tech* company,” whatever that is, going IPO in Frisco will cost you millions, just as Gavin Newsom wanted back in aught-four.