Posts Tagged ‘Supervisor’

Comments re: “Super Bowl week wrapping up just in time” from San Francisco Chronicle Columnist CWNevius

Saturday, February 6th, 2016

Super Bowl week wrapping up just in time

“Meanwhile, even the crustiest critic has to admit that Super Hype Week went nicely here in the city…”

Let’s see here, change crustiest to typical and critic to San Franciscan and then change the last part to “…DID NOT WANT TO PAY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS FOR THIS PARTY AND, ERGO, DID NOT WANT THIS CORPORATE PARTY COMING HERE.” So Chuck is WRONG WRONG here. This whole thing has been a fiasco. Hey, let’s check the Chronicle!

“…although it wasn’t a great performance by prognosticators.”

CWNevius is an unedited columnist so he’s free to lie as much as, say, Willie Brown in Willie’s World? Seems that way. IRL, Chuck’s handlers in the SB50 / PR / SFGov world were fretting rain would spoil Our Big Day, so Chuck picked up on that. But who cares if it rains on a football game? IDK! Anyway, he wrote that our stupid weather forecasters “had no idea” about the forecast for The Big Game like ten days out, but IRL a quick check online at that time revealed a forecast of just a 5% chance of rain. So no big whoop, right?

“TV weather people started the week before the week with dire predictions of frog-strangling rainstorms, changed the call to “iffy, but pretty wet,” and finally settled on “70 degrees and sunny at game time, just like we said.”

So, IOW this three part narrative is a lie. (What Chuck should do is add, “As I remember it…” or “IMO…” in front of EVERY ONE OF HIS SENTENCES. I mean, that would help a lot, ’cause then there’d be a chance of what he’s saying is actually true

epic, end-of-the-world traffic jams

Straw dog. How many businesses are out a lot of money now IRL? Chucks laughs at your “Chicken Little”-ism

Even the inevitable protesters did the city proud (fingers crossed that nothing bad happens at the last minute).

Chucks frets over increased transportation hassles due to protests afore SB50 tomorrow AM, because that’s what his handlers have discussed with him. Yes, expect protests, perhaps on/near a freeway. Would that be “ugly?” IDK.

The only “reporters” called on…

Is CWNevius a reporter? I’m srsly. He’s mocking his fellow journalists? That’s rich.

And finally, in City Hall, Supervisors Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin are wondering if it’s too late to get the NFL to renegotiate the financial deal.

Well, most of the city of SF wonders the same thing, right? Is Chuck against the NFL paying for its party here? Is he against asking the NFL to kick in $10-$20 million into the General Fund? Whatever you think of this fiasco, one that has put CWNevius Hero Ed Lee’s approval numbers at their lowest ever, wouldn’t it be better if the NFL kicked in for it? And we can’t even ask the NFL about it, you know, officially?

Hey, how about this – how about the NFL should pay us back at the beginning of negotiations for us doing this again for SB56 or SB57? And then, if they NFL doesn’t want to pay for its next party here, it should have it somewhere else, somewhere where it’s actually wanted…

“Supervisor Malia Cohen’s Statement Regarding the Officer Involved Shooting in Bayview” – Mario Woods

Thursday, December 3rd, 2015

Just released, regarding yesterday’s SFPD shooting

“*** STATEMENT***

SUPERVISOR MALIA COHEN’S STATEMENT REGARDING THE OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING IN BAYVIEW

San Francisco, CA – San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen today issued the following statement regarding last night’s officer involved shooting.

“I am deeply saddened by the tragic officer involved shooting that occurred last night in the Bayview and my heart aches for the family that has lost a loved one.

Many have seen the widely publicized video of this shooting and we will all undoubtedly have different perspectives but the fact is that a young man has been killed and is no longer with us.

There are two separate investigations occurring and I urge the parties conducting those efforts to perform them transparently, thoroughly and quickly with full cooperation from all involved.

I encourage people to honor the life of Mr. Mario Woods through peaceful and nonviolent gatherings in remembrance of his life. In the next few days SFPD will hold a public town hall meeting to discuss the details of the shooting and I encourage anyone with questions to attend. The time and location of the meeting will be released shortly.”

 

Justice 4 Mario Woods! Protest and Vigil – Thursday, December 3rd at 5:30pm, Gilman and Third Street.

A Few Points About the Proposed “Idaho Stop” “Bike Yield Law” Before Our Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, December 1st, 2015

SF’S BIKE YIELD LAW BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ COMMITTEE BY CHRIS CASSIDY ON NOVEMBER 30, 2015

…it’s going to take all of us uniting and speaking in one diverse and clear voice.

WHAT? LET’S ALL JOIN IN LOCK STEP TO BECOME “DIVERSE?” WTF. (GET ME REWRITE.)

common-sense safety legislation

WELL THIS IS SOMEBODY’S CONCLUSION. OF COURSE IF THIS EFFORT DOESN’T END UP INCREASING SAFETY THEN IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN “SAFETY LEGISLATION,” AND I, FOR ONE, DON’T SEE THIS AS AN OBVIOUS, SIMPLE, “COMMON-SENSE” ISSUE. AVERAGE BIKE SPEED OVER STOP LINES ON THE VAUNTED “WIGGLE” ROUTE ARE ALREADY TOO HIGH, RIGHT? WOULD THIS LEGISLATION GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO MAKE IT HIGHER?

cautiously rolling through stop signs

I’LL TELL YOU, YOU CAN CAUTIOUSLY ROLL THROUGH STOP SIGNS LIKE EVERY DAY FOR DECADES AND YOU’LL GENERALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM FROM THE SFPD UNDER THE APPARENTLY NON-COMMON-SENSE RULES WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS KIND OF THING ALREADY IS A VERY LOW PRIORITY FOR THE SFPD EXCEPT IN PROBLEMATIC AREAS LIKE THE SO-CALLED WIGGLE ROUTE, WHICH ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD EITHER AVOID _OR_ WOULD USE MORE CAUTION THAN THE AVERAGE, TYPICAL WIGGLE RIDER. HERE’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN – THE SFPD IS GOING TO GET MORE COMPLAINTS FROM PEDS ON/NEAR THE WIGGLE. THIS INFO IS GOING TO GET TO THE MOTOR PATROL. THE MOTOR PATROL IS THEN GOING TO CAMP OUT ON THE WIGGLE. WHICH PART? WALLER AND STEINER, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS ALREADY. WHY SOME NON-PROFIT WOULD WANT TO FUNNEL MORE BICYCLE TRAFFIC THROUGH AN ALREADY OVERLOADED INTERSECTION IS A MYSTERY TO ME. IN ANY EVENT, YES, DURING THE RARE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PERIODS YOU WILL GET TICKETED FOR GOING OVER A STOP LINE EVEN AT A VERY LOW SPEED LIKE TWO MPH. SORRY. AS STATED, YOU CAN EASILY GET AROUND TOWN BY AVOIDING THIS SPECIFIC ROUTE, IF ONLY BY ONE BLOCK. AND IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COPS SITTING THERE, THEN YOU’RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION. AND IF YOU WANT A NON-WIGGLE ROUTE TO GET WHERE YOU’RE GOING, JUST ASK ME. MY ROUTE WILL HAVE FEWER TURNS TO BOOT. TURNS ARE BAD FOR SAFETY AND STRAIGHTER ROUTES ARE BETTER FOR SAFETY, RIGHT?

lowest traffic enforcement priority

I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU’D ENFORCE THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PEACE OFFICER – YOU KNOW THEY LEARNED US IN COLLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF MICROMANAGING INDIVIDUAL POPO. SO YES, OF COURSE, THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF TRYING TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION _DOES_ “SEND A MESSAGE” TO THE SFPD AS A WHOLE, BUT I WOULDN’T GET ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT’S NOT REALLY GOING TO MATTER IRL

The ordinance only applies to people biking through stop signs where others, including people walking, are not present at the intersection up their arrival.

OUR SFPD ALREADY DOES STING OPERATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE A FAKE PEDESTRIAN WAIT FOR A CAR AND THEN START CROSSING AN INTERSECTION TO SEE IF THE DRIVER WILL STOP. IF THIS LEG PASSES AND IF THE SFPD DECIDES TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY THEN THE SFPD WOULD NEED TO GET SOMEBODY TO START WALKING ACROSS, IDK, LET’S SAY WALLER AND STEINER, AND THEN IT WOULD BE FISH IN A BARREL TIME ONCE AGAIN.

The Bike Yield Law would be the first San Francisco law to codify that people walking always have the right of way

OH GEEZ, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE – PEDESTRIANS IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE’S NOTHING A BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS CAN DO ABOUT THAT. (SORRY, COLLEDGE, REMEMBER?)

This is about keeping our streets safe…

UH, NO IT’S NOT. IT’S ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO RIDE ON BIKES.

ensuring that SFPD officers are free to focus their attention on the traffic violations known to cause the majority of traffic deaths and severe injuries in our city.

ALL RIGHT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO “FOCUS ON THE FIVE” CVC VIOLATIONS THAT KILL PEOPLE IN SF, THREE OF THEM ONLY APPLY TO PEDESTRIANS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT “FAILURE TO YIELD” APPLIES TO A LOT OF DRIVERS WHEN THEY HAVE ACCIDENTS WITH PEDS, SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM ON THE TOP FIVE LIST FOR BAD PED BEHAVIOR LIKE JAYWALKING VIOLATIONS, SORRY. THE WAY FOR SIMPLE-MINDED PR TYPES TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE TOP FIVE “DRIVING” BEHAVIORS THAT KILL PEOPLE. SORRY.

[LET’S OMIT A FEW MORE GRAFS WORTH OF FOCUS ON THE FIVE MISSTATEMENTS TO SAVE TIME]

Even after the events along the Wiggle this summer, SFPD leadership continues…

I’LL TELL YOU, SOME MONTHS, LATELY, SFPD’S PARK STATION HANDS OUT A TOTAL OF ZERO (0) TICKETS TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE RIDERS FOR ENTIRE CALENDAR MONTH. THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING YOU WANTED WITH ZERO FEAR OF GETTING TICKETED. ONLY JUST SAYING. SO, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, OUR SFPD HAS ALREADY LOWERED “ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY” ON BIKE RIDERS.

I’LL TELL YOU, FOR VARIOUS REASONS SFBC-ENDORSED MAYOR ED LEE (LIKE LITERALLY – BACK WHEN IT COUNTED, THIS ORG’S BOARD ACTUALLY ENDORSED HIS ELECTION) DOESN’T WANT TO VETO THIS IDAHO STOP* LEGISLATION AND FORCING HIM TO DO SO JUST MIGHT PISS HIM OFF. (HE’S ALREADY A LAME DUCK, WITH HIS SECOND TERM NOT HAVING EVEN STARTED YET?) ONE WONDERS WHY OUR SFGOV-FINANCED SFBC IS PUSHING SO HARD ON THIS NON-SAFETY NON-ISSUE AFTER GETTING A FAIRLY EXPLICIT PROMISE OF A VETO.

ONE WONDERS…

*I GUESS THE NUANCES OF IDEOLOGICAL “FRAMING” ARE LOST ON ME – WE DON’T CALL THIS CALIFORNIA STOP LEGISLATION IDAHO STOP LEGISLATION ANYMORE? OK FINE. 

Just 14 Points About Kara Swisher’s Fawning Interview / Prop F Victory Lap with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky

Monday, November 30th, 2015

Here you go, a podcast from yesterday:

November 29, 2015 | Re/code Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher – Brian Chesky, Airbnb CEO; Holiday Gift Guide

“Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky talks with Kara Swisher about the attacks in Paris, raising “a couple billion” and the future of…”

Start at 14:00:

  1. No Airbnb, you can’t really say you had a recent “victory” in SF. A pyrrhic victory, maybe. (But your $8+ million helped to defeat Prop F, I’ll concede that.)
  2. “It’s hard to be a tech company in SF.” What on Earth does this mean? Why don’t you leave then, if things are so, so hard (but not really, not IRL) here?
  3. Oh, so using SF’s direct democracy ballot system when, as in this case, we have regulatory capture of the $F Democratic Party (and other$) is not only immature but “ridiculously immature?” Again, one wonders why Airbnb chose to come here to this horrible, horrible place.
  4. In regard to the “Airbnb Law,” didn’t Airbnb meet with then-Supervisor David Chiu something on the order of sixty (60) (!) times to craft regs as favorable to Airbnb as practically possible? I think so. Am I wrong on this? David Chiu was/is a partner of Airbnb, non? David Chiu is now in the Assembly thanks, in part, to Airbnb, non? So that’s what some people mean by the term Airbnb Law. (And incidentally, it was/is an unworkable mess, with a very low compliance rate, so far.)
  5. No, Airbnb, Prop F would not have “ban[ned] in-law units.”
  6. No, Airbnb, Prop F would not “have created a private right of action,” for the simple reason that Prop F didn’t pass and yet San Franciscans have a private right of action right now.
  7. Let’s stop now to ponder – does Kara Swisher know any of this stuff? She’s not up-to-speed, apparently, or she is and she wants to conduct a fawning interview. I’ll tell you, so far so good, KS. Mission accomplished.
  8. Does one need to be “against Airbnb” to approve of regulating Airbnb?
  9. “Even the San Francisco Chronicle…” I don’t know what this means. Was this editorial from the Publisher a surprise? Not at all. Also note that the Chron calls for changes to the regs cooked up by Airbnb and David Chiu…
  10. “[T]here’s this notion that we aren’t paying our share of taxes.” Well, here’s where that comes from. How much in hotel taxes should Airbnb have remitted as opposed to the mystery amount that it actually did – well, that’s not really knowable from outside of Airbnb.
  11. “We’re not jerks.” So why not explain what happened with the bus ads? Your choice, Airbnb. Are the people down in Socal who made the ads jerks? What did you do, just throw money around and say, oh don’t bother us, just make a contract with ClearChannel after you run it by a solitary Airbnber – that’ll be fine. We like surprises! And of course, this ad campaign was totally totally independent of anything having to do with Prop F. Of course.
  12. “Volunteers” knocking on 285,000 doors? Weren’t some of those “volunteers” actually paid, like with cash money? Yep. You want to get into this? We can get into this.
  13. Reference to “party houses.” I don’t think this issue was addressed. Or Airbnb Hotel, neither – these We Heart Airbnb podcast people didn’t have time to get into these things. I guess they were too busy with the “Holiday Gift Guide,” IDK.
  14. And what’s this – “I think the vast, vast majority of people are renting the homes they live in.” So what’s that as a number, is it 51%? IDK. Doesn’t Airbnb know this stat for San Francisco, like down to five significant digits? I think so. And how about this – most Airbnb units in SF are being rented out by people who rent out multiple Airbnb units. Is that true? Isn’t that a problem?

I think we’re at 24:00 now, so that’s ten minutes of audio for you to listen to.

(I don’t think I could have handled much more anyway.)

I leave you with this – here’s how one City Hall insider viewed things last summer:

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

Airbnb don’t want no Prop F, so one assumes it’s all prepared for City Hall to take a fresh look at this regulatory mess (that Airbnb helped create) come 2016. Fine.

Oh, and just One More Thing:

andre-the-giant-has-a-posse-copy

Sometimes when you win, you also lose…

Wow, Look at How Proud San Francisco Firefighters are About Supporting Our Annual Stripper Club Christmas Toy Drive – And Look, Airbnb!

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

Get up to speed here and then try to see who’s sponsoring this year’s shindig here. These days, our local SFFD union doesn’t seem all that proud of this Christmas tradition at all:

Capturesfsfsss

And check it, from our local Paper Of Record last year:

Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.

Signs of the Times: “Bernie 2016, Aaron Peskin for Supervisor, Yes on F Fix the Airbnb Mess”

Monday, November 2nd, 2015

As seen in the 94117:

7J7C8264 copy

These signs pretty much go with each other…

Aaron Peskin, a Man of the People, Spotted Campaigning at the California and Hyde TJ’s, with Cable Cars Dinging By

Tuesday, October 20th, 2015

Via the Somewhat Fair Use Doctrine, let’s catch up with the Once and Future Supervisor of District 3:

Captureyddfg copy

Speaking of which, I got a little blowback from a couple people over this JULIE CHRISTENSEN DESIGNED THE CANDY-APPLE RED KITCHENAID MIXER business put forth by the Ron Conway Crew, but I’m not moved. I’ll say that I’m sure she had something to do with something, but she certainly didn’t “design” an appliance what’s fundamentally unchanged since the 1930’s AND she didn’t come up with the idea of making ’em various colors, which started up in the 1950’s afore she was even born. Now, if she picked one louder shade of red than what came before, well, maybe she did, but that don’t mean she “designed” no iconic kitchen appliance.

And also, wasn’t she FOR Aaron Peskin before she was against him? I think so. She herself seems like a prototypical Telegraph Hill Dweller, you know, herself.

And hey, here’s an idea, pick ANY RANDOM PERSON living in District Three and that person would do a better job for SF than JC – I’m 90% sure that would be an upgrade, I’m saying the odds would be in our favor.

All right, D3 residents, we’re counting on to vote for checks and balances in SFGov, for 2016, anyway…

7 copy

And best of all, as you can see, Aaron already has a posse.

andre-the-giant-has-a-posse copy

So hop on the bandwagon, D3.

Hagiography Watch: Did Interim Supervisor Julie Christensen Really “‘Design’ the KitchenAid Candy-Apple-Red Mixer?

Friday, October 9th, 2015

Here’s the oft-repeated contention about District 3’s gaffe-prone, appointed interim rookie Supervisor Julie Christensen – she:

…helped design the KitchenAid candy-apple-red mixer.

And that was her accomplishment what’s offered as a substitute for her not having elected experience. (NTTAWWT, I don’t oppose her for that reason. I oppose her for being a lackey (past, present, and future) of area billionaire Ron Conway. Incidentally, this lack of electoral experience explains why she didn’t learn lessons she should have learned (about how all mics are hot mics etc etc etc) almost a half-century ago, you know, as an intern…)

All right, SPOILER ALERT: Here’s the Model K from all the way back from 1937, from before when you, Gentle Reader, and even she were even born.

800px-KitchenAid_Model_K copy

There it is – it’s the same basic thing today as like seven decades ago, and look, it’s got the same accessories port (a kind of power takeoff (PTO)) up front such that accessories made for this Model K back in the 1930’s will work on your brand-new mixer.*

All right, turn out the lights, the party’s over… OH WHAT’S THAT, GENTLE READER? You say her claim to greatness was merely that she “helped design” the particular candy-apple red model?

Well, let’s see, what you’re saying is that she was in some meeting and she said, “How about red?”

Does this kind of thing really make you a Designer?

Mmmm….

Hey, colors! When did KitchenAid get lots of colors? It was the 1950’s, I’m srsly.

So she “designed” our KA mixers by suggesting not the idea of various colors, but one particular shade like decades and decades after all the real work was done and that’s her experience what’s going to empower her to enact the longtime Republican Ron Conway (oh yes, Ron Conway, right away, Ron Conway, oh it’s an honor to finally meet you, Ron Conway, oh you’re so clever, Ron Conway) Agenda for all of Frisco?

IDK.

Hey, look. I’m going to design a KitchenAid, like right now. Here’s my mock-up. Isn’t it bold and brassy and oh so au courant and won’t the young hipsters love it?

CopperKitchenaidK-3C1955 copy

SURPRISE! I didn’t greenlight this metal finish at all. But it’s a real thing, born in the, ahem, fifties.

Perhaps JC can come up with another way to impress the soccer moms of D3?

Just asking…

Oh, no matter, Aaron the Giant has a Posse, see?

andre-the-giant-has-a-posse-copy

We’ll just have to wait and see if they‘ll turn out, on and before Election Day…

*It’s kind of an amazing company – KA sends all its returned items back to the factory to see what went wrong (there’s your quality) and then they offer it for sale at a discount. I bought mine new from the Costco – I think it was $100 off or something, you can’t beat that. The one on sale now** is tiny – doesn’t seem all that good a deal, oh well.

**Yes it’s bright red but not even Ron Conway hisself would claim that JC invented / designed the color Admiral Red

Whoo Boy: “LEGAL REVIEW FINDS PROP. F LAWSUITS MAY RESULT IN $435,000 AWARD FOR MINOR, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS”

Friday, October 2nd, 2015

Airbnb is pulling out all the stops here.

Let me just say that first of all, no “minor” violations of San Francisco’s short term rental laws will result in anything like a $435K award. Sorry. And also, by the time any “awards” are handed out, said violations are no longer merely “alleged,” but actually proven.

And now, on with the show:

“Noted Law Firm Browne George Ross LLP Provides Review of Legal Impacts of San Francisco’s Prop. F

Proposition F creates a profit-motivated private right of action even if the City and County of San Francisco finds no violation.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? YEP. WHAT PROP F ADDS ON TOP OF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF $250-$1000 A DAY, ASSUMING THAT THE RESIDENTS BRINGING SUIT ACTUALLY WIN. THE REASON THAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SFGOV DOES IS THAT SOMETIMES SFGOV LIKES TO SIT ON ITS HANDS AND DO NOTHING, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IT’S DONE VERY LITTLE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THE LIKES OF WHICH WE’VE BEEN SEEING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND, IN FACT, THE LITTLE THAT SFGOV HAS BEEN DOING LATELY WAS SPURRED ON BY THE PROSPECT OF PROP F. SO ACTUALLY, PROP F IS GOOD BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY PAYING OFF. AND, AS FAR AS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED” IS CONCERNED, SOMETHING SIMILAR IS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING LANDLORD REFUNDS OF RENTAL DEPOSITS. SO IF A LANDLORD IMPROPERLY RETAINS AN APARTMENT SECURITY DEPOSIT, THE TENANT CAN SUE FOR NOT ONLY THE WRONGFULLY RETAINED PART BUT ALSO AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE DEPOSIT AS A KIND OF SPECIAL DAMAGES. SO A LANDLORD’S MOUTHPIECE COULD ARGUE THAT THE TENANT SUING IS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED,” BUT THAT WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE TRUE, RIGHT? AND IN FACT, THIS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND LAW SCARES LANDLORDS INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO THAT NO LEGAL ACTION EVER NEEDS TO GET KICKED INTO ACTION. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

In other words if someone wishes to sue their neighbor even after the city and County of San Francisco has determined there is no violation, an unscrupulous individual can still file a lawsuit and simply claim damages amounting to as much as $435,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

WELL, THIS LOS ANGELES-BASED LAW FIRM IS SIMPLY ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER USING AIRBNB OR WHATEVER TO VIOLATE OUR LAWS WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AFFECTED. BUT LOTS OF AIRBNBERS DON’T EVEN LIVE IN SF, RIGHT? SO IT’S RATHER MORE RESIDENT SUING AIRBNBER AS OPPOSED TO “NEIGHBOR SUING NEIGHBOR,” RIGHT? AND HEY, HOW CAN AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL” GET AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? AND HEY, “NOTED” LA LAW FIRM WHAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF AFORE, HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER REPRESENTED AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL?” HMMM… THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ON. IN ANY EVENT, UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS  WITH WORTHLESS CASES WON’T WIN AT COURT SO THEY WON’T GET ANY DAMAGES AT ALL, RIGHT? AND LET ME JUST SAY, ANY AIRBNBER WHO ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING $435K PLUS HAS REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWED UP. THESE WILL BE UNIQUE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY.

Because litigation is so incredibly expensive, time consuming and stressful many people will pay to get out of suits even though they have done nothing wrong.

BOY, WHAT A PITCH FROM A LAW FIRM – YOU DON’T NEED US, JUST PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYBODY EVER ASKS FOR AND THEN WAIT FOR THE NEWS TO SPREAD AND THEN GET SUED AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND NOTE HERE, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR AIRBNBERS (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR SOME) – I’M SAYING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR SAN FRANCISCO. AND ACTUALLY, PROP F WOULD BE GOOD FOR LOS ANGELES LAW FIRMS, POSSIBLY, IF LA-BASED AIRBNBERS GET SUED IN SF AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL ATTORNEY, THEN MAYBE EVEN THIS LA FIRM COULD GET IN ON THE ACTION.

Proposition F will exponentially exacerbate the problem by encouraging an untold number of new lawsuits, thus delaying even more those who appropriately seek justice through San Francisco Superior Court

WELL LET’S SEE HERE. PROP F WILL BE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS SF SUP CT IS CONCERNED. IT’S NOT GOING TO EXPONENTIALLY DO ANYTHING.

FIN.

SURPRISE! Local Airbnb-Type Room Letter OPPOSES Prop F – Let’s Read “Emey” Meyerson’s Take on SF’s Airbnb Mess

Thursday, September 24th, 2015

[UPDATE: Another reaction here. Oh, and another reaction here, from Sara Shortt.]

I don’t know who Medium Corporation‘s Emey is – what, a Scott Wiener fan, an Airbnb room/unit letter, a person who also makes money from “marketing, politics?”

Anywho, I sort of asked for somebody to tell me why Prop F is bad right here, so I’ll read through this and respond, you know, in real time.

1. So Prop F is worse than I think? So you think I think it’s bad, but you’re here on Medium telling me that it’s even worse than I think it is? Well, that’s not right at all. I think Prop F is great.

2. So like I’m not responsible for what signature gatherers say, right? ‘Nough said. Should I point out how Airbnb says/does similar things? OK then.

3. Yes, STR’s are already regulated by SFGov, but poorly. That’s why we have the Prop F, to fix what they call regulatory capture.

4. Airbnb-type outfits are the primary problem, right? I’ll concede that there are others out there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t regulate Airbnb, right? Airbnbers oppose Prop F because, unlike the current regs, it wasn’t written with input from Airbnb itself. Like, should VW write our air pollution laws?

5. Well, Prop F isn’t the worst way to go about things. A worser way to regulate Airbnb is to have Airbnb write the rules what cover Airbnb’s business, right? What we’ve had so far from Supervisor Chiu has been a disaster, right? And then our dominant political faction assumed that something like Prop F wouldn’t make the ballot. And that takes us up to now. Hey, let’s take a look:

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

6. Uh, is it “really hard to find the text online,” like actually? Uh no. Google “PROP F SF” and then after you click on the first hit, click on THE MEASURE. Easy peasy, huh, LIAR?

7. “It’ll blow your mind.” O rly? We’ll see. Hey, you know, my mind’s already blown by the number of meetings that David Chiu’s office had with Airbnb reps to create the first unworkable regs – is it 60 fucking meetings? 60 meetings to create an unworkable mess? Mind blown. Already.

8. So, you promise us Prop F but now you’re coming in with how it’s existing hotels what don’t want private Airbnb hotels in the Parkside. Let’s see, who’s against Prop F – it’s Airbnb and the superhosts, right? As expected, right? (And I’m thinking your hotel worker union types would be big Prop F boosters as well.)

9. You know, some Airbnbers who let out rooms support Prop F, right? Are they crazy?

10. I’ll field this one. Cleaning a house before guests arrive is not assisting anyone to offer a short term rental.

11. Well, if your neighbor “prevails,” then your neighbor gets money. If you neighbor doesn’t prevail, then not. Simple. You’re missing the “prevailing” part, Mediumer.

12. And if a taxi driver refuses to pick you up because s/he doesn’t like your color, creed, whathaveyou, that’s a misdemeanor too, right? Laws need to have teeth, right?

13. Yep, a quarterly report. No biggee, it would seem.

14. So let’s see here, illegal in-law units shouldn’t be on Airbnb, right? Is this so surprising?

15. What Airbnb should do is keep track of its own rentals, for a start, huh? Shouldn’t be too hard.

16. People will still be able to Airbnb after Prop F passes, right? But Prop F should really put the hurt on Airbnb hotel buildings.

17. Prop F can totally be fixed, if necessary, by a judge or two or more, or by a vote of The People. Yes, we can visit this issue again later.

18. What’s this?! “I have been a part-time homesharer in SF since last year.” This should have been the first line of your bit, non? Ah, man, I don’t think I would have read your whole bit if you had been upfront about your conflict of interest. And why is my Google Chrome underlining “homesharer?” Oh that’s right, it’s because you made it up. Let’s try something else, something honest, like “room letter.” See? No underlining. Case closed.

19. Oh, this Medium bit is ending abruptly, after the Big Reveal. All right, yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.