Posts Tagged ‘Supervisor’

LONDON CALLING! 4/20 Day 2014 Coming This Easter Sunday – Haight-Ashbury Supervisor London Breed Wants a Crackdown

Wednesday, April 16th, 2014

Here’s what Annual 420 Day looks like, not too far from the Haight Street McDonalds on Stanyan.

That’s not fog, that’s a cloud of exhaled Mary Jane:

An excellent capture from world-famous Broke-Ass Stuart.

All right, Happy 420 Day 2014!

And now, let’s hear from London Breed:

“April 16, 2014

Sunday, April 20th Activities in Golden Gate Park and the Haight-Ashbury

This Sunday, April 20th, will see not only Easter celebrations throughout the City, but the likely return of an informal and unpermitted “4/20” gathering in Golden Gate Park and the Haight, which has caused significant problems in the community over the years and was particularly problematic last year.

Crowds strained police, Muni, and park resources, overwhelmed residential streets, and in several instances, damaged public and private property. Traffic came to a standstill as cars swarmed thearea. Garbage overflowed from curbside cans that proved unequal to the occasion. And on Sunday, 4/21, staff and volunteers with the Recreation and Parks Department had to laboriously collect over 10,000 pounds of litter left in the parks, not to mention the trash collected by the Department of Public Works from the upper Haight to Hayes Valley.

I am determined not to allow these impacts again this year. Over the past months, I have worked closely with the Police and Parks Departments, Mayor Lee’s office, and the MTA on a comprehensive city approach to this event. There is no sponsor for 4/20, no organizer to hold to account. But I want the community to know that their Supervisor and their government are doing everything possible to ensure a safe, peaceful April 20th for both visitors and residents.

San Francisco, as always, welcomes celebrants with open arms, but this Sunday there will be boundaries to keep the community safe, and there will be no tolerance for anyone using 4/20 as an excuse to harm our parks or neighborhoods.

 There will be increased law enforcement presence both uniform and plainclothes—including Juvenile Probation Officers—in the Park, upper and lower Haight, and surrounding neighborhoods with a strict enforcement approach to all code violations.

 Parking is very limited in the area, and there will be Parking Control Officers (PCOs) ticketing and/or towing vehicles parked illegally in any way, e.g. on lawns or in neighbors’ driveways. PCOs will also be deployed at busy intersections to keep traffic and transit moving.

 Unpermitted booths and concessions in the Parks will not be allowed. Such enterprises will be immediately cited and removed.

 Traffic control officers, SFPD, and Muni will be on hand in the afternoon to help move visitors out of the neighborhoods quickly and safely. Muni will reroute buses off Haight Street between Stanyan and Masonic to avoid delays. 

If our neighborhoods and parks are expected to continue hosting a large gathering, without an organizer or any resources beyond those provided by the taxpayer, we must all be vigilant in ensuring the event is safe, clean, and responsible.

LONDON N. BREED

City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4689 (415) 554-7630

Fax (415) 554 – 7634 TDD/TTY (415) 554-5227 E-mail: London.Breed@sfgov.org

Newly Combative District Four Supervisor Katy Tang Takes Aim at Pro-Tenant Legislation in the Pages of the SF Examiner

Monday, March 3rd, 2014

I say “pages” as I assume that this was printed in yesterday’s SF ‘Xam.

The most interesting observation: We weren’t hanging in the Mission. We were in the Outer Sunset, that foggy Siberia mostly known for extended Asian families living in rows of attached homes built on barren sand dunes.

THERE’S A REASON WHY REAL ESTATE VALUES ARE LOWER IN THE OUTSET, RIGHT? DO YOU WANT TO GET INTO THAT?

Yet the trend behind the toast tweeted around the world started at Trouble Coffee on Judah Street.

NOPE

If trendy cafes are copying Trouble Coffee’s fancy toast, how did the Outer Sunset become a trendsetter? “My office can’t take credit for it,” said Tang, who recently turned 30 and is the youngest member of the Board of Supervisors. “What you see just sprang up and has a life of its own.”

WHETHER THE SUPERVISOR OF THIS AREA IS KATY TANG OR ED JEW, THAT HAS ZERO EFFECT ON WHAT THE OUTER SUNSET IS LIKE, RIGHT. KATY TANG, YOU DON’T “CREATE” ANYTHING, CAPISCHE? SIMILARLY, YOU ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR THE MANY ISSUES THIS AREA HAS – SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

I love that it’s so organic. People have a more independent attitude out here. They don’t like bureaucracy and government intervention. They are free spirits. It might be something about being by the beach.”

KATY TANG IS AGAINST “BUREAUCRACY” AND “GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION,” REALLY?

Westside residents have historically been against growth, but Tang said she’s “hearing a tone of change.” She will discuss her ideas for “responsible development” at the Sunset Recreation Center at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday.

(LOTS OF LUCK WITH THIS ONE, KATY. IT COULD BE A BUMPY RIDE.)

“For so long we made it difficult to grow neighborhoods. Now we just keep going in circles with sensational eviction stories and legislation against property owners,” Tang said. “I feel bad about evictions, but we need balance because more burdens on property owners will only create a backlash. They’ll just throw their hands up and refuse to rent anymore. That’s why we have to create more supply.”

WOW, SOMEBODY FEELS SECURE IN HER JOB!

Tang said she is troubled by City Hall’s volume of reactionary legislation, like last year’s creation of a decadelong ban on converting rentals into condominiums. It was touted as a way to keep tenants in rent-controlled units but had the reverse effect.

SCORECARD PLEASE: “PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION” = “REACTIONARY LEGISLATION?” REALLY?

There used to be an economic incentive to not evict tenants because a building with a clean eviction history was eligible for the lucrative condo lottery. With that hope now gone, petitions for Ellis Act evictions increased substantially (32 affecting 130 units were filed in the six months leading up to the condo ban compared to 50 for 211 units during the six months after). Predictably, with nothing to lose by an Ellis eviction, property owners are now cashing out to buyers willing to sell units as tenancies-in-common.

I DON’T KNOW WHOSE WORDS THESE ARE – I DON’T THINK THEY’RE OPERATIONAL, IRL. LANDLORDS NOW HAVE “NOTHING TO LOSE BY AN ELLIS ACT EVICTION?” REALLY? I DON’T THINK SO.

“I worry that we’re ignoring the unintended consequences of all the legislation in the pipeline,” Tang said. “Instead of solving our housing problem, we may end up hurting more tenants in the long run.”

CERTAINLY, RENT CONTROL CREATES WINNERS AND LOSERS. KATY TANG, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF RENT CONTROL? YES? SORT OF? MMMM…

“I never expected to be in elective office,” said Tang, who was appointed to complete her predecessor Carmen Chu’s term and can serve two terms of her own.

KATY TANG WAS APPOINTED TO DO WHATEVER SHE’S TOLD TO DO BY THE PEOPLE WHO GOT TOGETHER TO APPOINT HER, OBVIOUSLY.

“I don’t need to introduce quick-fix legislation five times a week.”

THIS IS A LITTLE, HOW DO YOU SAY, COMBATIVE, HUH?

“Diabetes on Wheels!” – Supervisor Eric Mar’s Name for the Coca-Cola Float at 2014 Chinese New Year Parade

Thursday, February 27th, 2014

From Joe Fitzgerald aka fitzthereporter comes this:

Click to expand

And from District One Supervisor Eric Mar  aka ericmar415 comes this:

“Diabetes on wheels!”

Ooh, harsh.

But consistent.

Aha! Watch Supervisor Scott Wiener Attempt to Prove He’s Not the Best Friend of SF’s Real Estate Industry

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014

Supervisor Scott Wiener goes long-form in The Castro Biscuit

Roy: As an initial matter, if you’re going to run a one-sided hit piece suggesting that I’m taking “dirty money,” you should give me a real opportunity to respond before you run the piece.

UH, WHO MADE UP THIS RULE? UH, IF YOU CAN’T STAND THE HEAT, SCOTT WIENER, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN, SCOTT WIENER

As for Tim Redmond’s hit piece on me, I’ll say the following. First, I question why Tim didn’t run the numbers for other Supervisors running for reelection or for the Assembly.

SO THE RULE IS “ANY CRITICISM OF SCOTT WIENER COMMITTED TO WRITING IS A ‘HIT PIECE?’” I THINK NOT. AND IF ATTORNEY SCOTT WIENER EVER GETS ARRESTED FOR LOOTING, HE’LL BE SURE ASK HIS ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT ALL THE OTHER LOOTERS WHO _WEREN’T_ ARRESTED, RIGHT?

Second, my record on rent control is long and pro-renter.

AHAHAHAHAH! SCOTT WIENER IS THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY’S BEST FRIEND. THAT MEANS THAT HE’S DEFINITELY NOT “PRO-RENTER.” IF HE WANTS TO SAY THAT HE DOESN’T WANT TO BAN RENT CONTROL THIS YEAR I’LL BELIEVE HIM. BUT SCOTT WIENER HAS NEVER BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE THE “PRO-RENTER” CANDIDATE IN ANY CONTESTED ELECTION. SO YOUR LAUNDRY LIST IS WORTHLESS, SCOTT WIENER.

As for my campaign donations throughDecember 31, as disclosed on the recent campaign report, 85% of my donations…”

BLAH BLAH BLAH, ALL THAT DOESN’T MATTER. YOU, SCOTT WIENER, ARE THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY’S BEST FRIEND. WOULD ANYONE DENY THIS?

Unfortunately, there’s a troubling trend in some self-described progressive political circles to define who are “real San Franciscans” and who are not.

SCOTT WIENER, THOUGH HE’D LIKE TO DENY THIS, IS A RIGHT-OF-CENTER SAN FRANCISCO POLITICIAN. HE IS CRITICIZING “FOLKS” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE FOR NOT LIVING UP TO HIS EXPECTATIONS. SO HE’S “TROUBLED” BY THIS. OK FINE. BUT YOU, SCOTT WIENER, ARE THE BEST FRIEND OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, RIGHT? ISN’T THAT “TROUBLING” AS WELL?

As with every elected official, I raise money from a wide array of sources. And, yes, that includes architects, real estate agents, folks in construction, trade unions, and folks who build housing. A number of the realtors who contributed are folks I’ve known for a long time…

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU GOTTA CAPITALIZE THE “R” IN REALTORS, LIKE DUH, DUDE. SECOND OF ALL, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, FOLKS, THAT’S SCOTT WIENER’S FAVORITEST CRUTCH WORD.

As noted, donors to my campaign, overwhelmingly, are San Francisco residents, and almost half of them live in the district. They include folks who work in real estate and folks who don’t.

OBVIOUSLY, SUPERVISOR SCOTT WIENER IS VERY VERY AFRAID OF BEING VIEWED AS BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. OBVIOUSLY, SUPERVISOR SCOTT WIENER THINKS THAT HE CAN CHANGE PEOPLE’S MINDS ON THIS SITUATION BY USING THE TERM “FOLKS” SEVEN TIMES IN THREE PARAGRAPHS. IS THIS HIS BEST EFFORT?

SCOTT WIENER, IF YOU DON’T LIKE YOUR JOB, IF YOU HAVE SO SO MANY COMPLAINTS, WHY DON’T YOU QUIT?

1049 Market Street Tenants Win a Reprieve in Their Mass Eviction – Presser at City Hall Today at 4:30 PM

Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

Word comes from tommi avicolli mecca:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

1049 Market STREET Tenants Win a Reprieve in Their Mass Eviction

San Francisco – Tenants of 1049 Market, who are facing eviction at the hands of a landlord wanting to turn their live/work apartments into office spaces, will be holding a press conference today at 4:30pm on the steps of City Hall (Polk Street side) to announce that they have won another reprieve in their battle to stay in their homes. Their landlord has withdrawn his appeal of the suspension of THE permit that would have allowed him to demolish their apartments and evict them.

The appeal on that suspension was scheduled to be heard today at the Board of Appeals at 5pm.

Officials of the Department of Building Inspections (DBI) suspended the permit after a walk through of the building. DBI officials DETERMINED that they had discretion in requiring the landlord to install light wells, a very expensive renovation, to fix a major code violation cited in a 2007 Notice of Violation: the lack of natural light in some of the apartments. Other violations are minor and can be easily addressed by the owner.

Tenants received eviction notices last September, but with the help of Housing Rights Committee, legal support from Tenderloin Housing Clinic and the involvement of Supervisor Jane Kim and DBI, they organized to stay in their homes and fight back.

“It’s a clear victory for us tenants,” said 1049 Market resident Marcele Wilson, “This is about evicting working-class tenants and artists so that they can convert our apartments into offices and cash in on the mid-Market tech boom. But these are our homes, we’re not leaving.”

Tenants will be on hand for interviews today at 4:30pm.”

Word from the Street, from African Americans in the Fillmore: “WE ARE HERE … AND STILL MATTER”

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Mural as seen on Fulton in the Western Addition:

Click to expand

Which is fair enough.

But I’ll tell you, there are certain people who seem to want only certain people to live in this particular part of San Francisco District 5.

I approve not.

And I’ll tell you, the primary thing preventing this kind of discrimination is our federal government.

Just as things were back in the 1800′s. To wit:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

That’s something for the London Breeds of the world to ponder…

District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell Crows About Raising $200K for Re-Election

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

Gentle Reader, did you have the foresight to be born in San Francisco? No? I thought not.

Well, that’s why your campaign to unseat incumbent Mark Farrell won’t work.

BTW, did you know that he’s a ”native San Franciscan who grew up in District 2?” And now that you know, he’ll never let you forget it.

The news of the day:

“Supervisor Mark Farrell Reports Raising Over $200,000 for Re-Election Campaign

San Francisco – District 2 Supervisor Mark Farrell announced he has raised over $200,000 in his campaign for re-election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  As of December 31, 2013 Supervisor Farrell reported raising $199,602 from more than 550 donors, representing a wide breadth of supporters from District 2, small business owners, labor leaders and a wide group of San Francisco residents.

 “As a native San Franciscan who grew up in District 2, it is an incredible honor to represent the neighborhoods and residents of District 2 on the Board of Supervisors,” stated Supervisor Farrell.  “I am excited about the success of our fundraising efforts, but I do not take anything for granted, and will continue to work hard and actively engage with the neighborhoods and residents of District 2 throughout the campaign and my tenure in office.” 

 “I am incredibly grateful to everyone who donated to my campaign, no matter how big or small their contributions, and I am humbled by the large number of constituents who have already signed up to support my re-election campaign,” continued Farrell. 

Approximately half of Supervisor Farrell’s contributors are District 2 residents.  Other notable contributors include local political leaders from Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom to Small Business Commission President Steven Adams, labor organizations including Firefighters Local 798 and Laborers Local 261, and civic leaders including Walter and Julia Haas and Diane Wilsey.

 “As we head toward the November election, I look forward to beginning our house party program and connecting in smaller settings with the residents of District 2, sharing ideas and concerns, and working together to make the neighborhoods of District 2 the most vibrant part of our City,” continued Farrell. “My campaign held over 100 house parties in 2010 and I look forward to 100 more in 2014.”

Supervisor Mark Farrell represents District 2 in San Francisco, which includes the Presidio, Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Anza Vista, Laurel Heights, Jordan Park, the Lake Street corridor, Sea Cliff and parts of Russian Hill.

First elected in November 2010, Supervisor Farrell currently serves as Chair of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee, a founding member of the 2016-2017 Super Bowl Bid Committee, and also serves on eight other local and state Boards and Committees.

Supervisor Farrell’s legislative priorities include advancing policies and projects that boost local economic development, ensure neighborhood vitality, and enhance public safety and quality of life issues that affect all San Franciscans. For more information please visit www.markfarrell.com.

Uh Oh, Now There’s ANOTHER Lawsuit Against the City: Small Property Owners vs. the “Nonconforming Unit Ordinance”

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Man, San Francisco sure seems to be getting sued a lot by property owners a lot these days.

Get used to it, 2014′s going to be a bumpy ride.

To wit:

“January 29, 2014 

SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN FRANCISCO FILE LAWSUIT TO BLOCK LAW

New Ordinance Would Discriminate Against Families Who Move Into Their Own Buildings 

SAN FRANCISCO, Tuesday, January 28, 2014 – Today, the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute filed a lawsuit challenging Supervisor John Avalos’ Nonconforming Unit Ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance violates state law and fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Nonconforming Unit Ordinance would legalize the practice of renovating and expanding “nonconforming units.” Nonconforming units are “grandfathered” residential units that exceed local zoning laws’ density limits. Controversially, the ordinance would also discriminate against nonconforming units that have been the subject of lawful “no-fault” evictions, which are allowed under state and local law. Such units would be denied building permits for up to 10 years following a lawful eviction – even for regular maintenance and minor repairs. Property owners would also be barred from rebuilding their units after a fire or earthquake.

“This legislation punishes families who move into their own buildings,” stated Noni Richen, president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (SPOSFI). “It could cause thousands of lawful housing units to sit vacant while the City denies permits for basic upkeep. Given the current housing shortage, this is unconscionable.”

“As we have shown again and again, we will not allow the City to violate property rights with these illegal schemes,” stated Andrew M. Zacks, SPOSFI’s attorney. “The state’s Ellis Act prohibits this kind of discrimination against lawful evictions. Moreover, cities are required to evaluate a new ordinance’s environmental impacts under CEQA. This legislation was rushed through without proper review.”

Nonconforming units are different from “in-law” units, which are generally unpermitted and illegal. For example, a permitted third unit on a parcel zoned for two units is considered a nonconforming unit. The City Planning Department’s Information and Analysis Group estimates that approximately 52,000 units in the city are nonconforming, comprising some 14% of the city’s housing stock.

A copy of the Nonconforming Unit Ordinance is available at http://zulpc.com/small-property-owners-file-suit-to-block-discriminatory-law/.

The Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute (“SPOSFI”) is a California nonprofit corporation. SPOSFI advocates for the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that works to promote and preserve home ownership in San Francisco. Its focus is to protect the rights of small property owners and foster opportunities for first-time home buyers. SPOSFI members range from young families to the elderly on fixed incomes, and its membership cuts across all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic strata. Its members include San Francisco residents who own nonconforming residential units in San Francisco.

Zacks & Freedman, P.C. is a law firm dedicated to advocating for the rights of property owners. With experience and knowledge in rent control issues, zoning, permitting, transactional disputes and other real estate matters, Zacks & Freedman, P.C. has successfully advocated its clients’ positions before local administrative tribunals and at all levels of the State and Federal courts.

Uh Oh, Now There’s a Lawsuit Against the City for Recent Ellis Act Legislation – SFAA & realtors Fighting Us

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Read it and weep, San Francisco. We’re getting sued:

“For Immediate Release, January 29, 2014:

San Francisco Housing Associations File Lawsuit to Block Anti-Family Legislation

San Francisco – On Tuesday January 28, 2014, the San Francisco Apartment Association, Coalition for Better Housing and the San Francisco Association of REALTORS® filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of legislation known as the Avalos Ellis Act and Merger Prohibition Legislation.

 The legislation was passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed into law by Mayor Ed Lee in violation of building owners’ rights under the state law known as the Ellis Act.

 The legislation prohibits owners of multi-unit buildings from combining units in a building for ten years following an Ellis Act eviction or for five years following an owner-move in eviction.

 On a practical level, the legislation prevents families who own a building from creating a home that meets their needs. For example, the legislation prevents a family from combining two small units into a larger one to provide a home for a growing family. Couples with young children often find themselves in need of additional space they did not anticipate when they purchased a rental building, yet the legislation punishes them.

 Only 2 percent of new housing built in San Francisco since 2001 are single-family homes that provide adequate space for families, often with multiple generations living together. Lack of adequate housing to meet the needs of families has contributed San Francisco losing 5,278 people younger than 18 between 2000 and 2010, according to the census.

 “The San Francisco Association of REALTORS® supports the rights of private property owners for the free use of their property as their needs suit them.  This legislation only exacerbates the problems families face in finding adequate housing and drives out the families that have created the diversity we want and celebrate in our city,” said Walt Baczkowski, CEO of the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

 Because so few single family homes are being constructed, families rely on improving buildings they own, including tenancies in common to add living space. This legislation prohibits them from creating the home they need in a building they own.

 “Families are fleeing San Francisco due to a multitude of reasons that include a lack of adequate space for growing families that often include multiple generations. This legislation exacerbates that problem by punishing and limiting options for families who simply seek to create a home that meets the needs of their family,” stated Janan New, Executive Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association. “This legislation punishes hard working families, while doing little to protect renters.”

 The lawsuit states that the legislation is pre-empted by state law known as the Ellis Act, which allows building owners to take a building off the rental market and convert those units to condominiums or single -family homes. Under the law, building owners are already required to give occupants up to one year advance notice and provide relocation fees of $5,210 per tenant, up to a maximum of $15,632, plus $3,473 additional for tenants who are senior or disabled.

 “My clients are seeking relief from this just-passed legislation which unfairly takes away the right of individuals and families who simply want to create a home for themselves and their family in a building they own,” stated Jim Parrinello, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Longtime East Bay Resident and SFGate Advocacy Journalist CW Nevius ID’s Cable Car as a “Hyde Street Trolly”

Monday, January 6th, 2014

(You can take the boy out of the East Bay (and plop him in a SoMA condo), but you can’t take the East Bay out of the boy.)

Gentle Reader, consider CW Nevius and his most recent bit advocating for the oppressed white millionaire homeowners of Russian Hill – this time he’s acting at the behest of Supervisor Mark Farrell (R., District 2)

See that*? 

Click to expand

Now I think the word you’re looking for, CW Nevius, is trolley with an “e,” as in potatoe.

Except it aint a trolley, it’s a cable car.  To wit:

“…electric tram (streetcar), sometimes confused with a cable car.”

And the vehicle code section cited here is wrong:

“The problem, says Deputy City Attorney Buck Delventhal, is California Vehicle Code 21106.1…”

CW Nevius, if you’re going to take the trouble to cite a law, why not take the time to do it the right way? Do you feel overworked, CW? You shouldn’t. Moving on…

And there’s this:

“Stefani says Farrell’s office was unaware of the 1987 law…”

Uh, former law? Or former bill? Did the “law” sunset automatically? And was it ever signed by The Duke in the first place? I don’t think so actually.

You see, CW Nevius, what you should look at are the reasons why the millionaires’ efforts always fail. Try this on for size:

The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen, subject to legislative control or such reasonable regulations as to the traffic thereon or the manner of using them as the legislature may deem wise or proper to adopt and impose.’ … ‘Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure…”

Nevius, why don’t you retire or go back to sports, srsly? Then you’d get replaced by somebody who would do your job better than you, right? Wouldn’t that be a win-win?

But before you do that, why don’t you fix this**`?

“Jose had been struck by a late-’90s, silver, four-door sedan as he stepped off the curb at Oak and Scott.”

“And the intersection of Fell and Scott, where Jose was hit, has consistently been described as one of the city’s most dangerous.”

Fin. 

*Looks like somebody is striking a pose on the crosswalk:

I’m a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the  
Yeah on the catwalk on the crosswalk, yeah
I do my little turn on the crosswalk

**I actually believed The Neve on the Fell and Scott thing, so I was going to go out there a week or two later on a Tuesday night at around the same time on the theory that this was somebody coming home during the evening drive. But then I saw that the actual location was on Oak so now I think the driver isn’t on a commuting schedule. You know, I’ve got a Canon 5D, crank the ISO up to 25,600, use a simple 200mm 2.8 prime to see if I could see some damage and get a plate. I mean it might have been worth the effort.