Posts Tagged ‘survey’

Surprise: A $3.2 Million(!) Renovation Will SHUT DOWN the Panhandle Playground for about Two(!) Years

Thursday, August 31st, 2017

Whoo boy:

Capturedfsdgghghdd

This process started in late 2014. San Francisco Board of Supervisors President called a $2 million earmarking an “early Christmas present” for her District Five. That means that this is going to end up taking a full half-decade.

But that’s not the problem.

The problem is that RPD should just take care of the stuff it has instead of building all-new stuff.

So, some generally well-meaning non-profit people came around with clipboards telling people that the current Panhandle Playground, paid for by a $100,000 grant from (old) General Motors, gets a grade of “C” or “D” and the first thing people did is ask why. About half of them would give an “A” grade, and then say that Rec and Park should do a better job of maintenance.

And actually PEOPLE LIKE ALL THE SAND.

But one of the points of this project is getting rid of the sand. It’s a citywide goal. So it’s kind of sad that the people who want the city to simply keep this playground the way it is butjust take better care of it always ask about the sand issue. The answer I hear from the generally well-meaning nonprofit types is that sand has parasites, from cats. Well, that might be true in general but it’s not true at this location, which has more rats than cats, as you can see:

7J7C8993-copy

Another point is getting rid of the Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) in the wood. Well, again, this is a citywide goal that some have. Check out the Wiki link. Avoid studies by/from the CCA / timber industry. IRL, if there’s arsenic in your kid, it’s not from CCA. Sry.

So what else – oh, what’s also sad is that people don’t understand that the existing playground would have to shut down for more than a year as the new playground has to go in at the same place.

And questions about all these issues are addressed to those who are getting paid to put in a new playground. The question about whether a playground should be put in was never asked.

So, CLOSING THIS PLAYGROUND FOR TWO YEARS FOR BASICALLY NO REASON WILL BE UNPOPULAR (TO SAY THE LEAST) WITH EXISTING USERS. Go over there and ask them – say, yeah, they’re going shut this place down for two years to get rid of all the sand. The most popular reply you’ll get is, “Oh no, that’s terrible, I like the sand.”

And, THERE’S NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEW PLAYGROUND WILL BE BETTER THAN THE EXISTING ONE. This issue could go either way. The new playground will implement Theories Of Playing, but, guess what, so did the old one. Has Play changed so much the past two decades?

Also, ISN’T $3.2 MILLION A LOT OF MONEY TO PUT INTO A SMALL PLAYGROUND AREA? This isn’t the big beef, but it’s a a factor.

The BEST CHOICE would be to fix up the existing playground with just a small fraction of 3.2 freaking million dollars. And take another fraction and use it to pay the RPD workers who come by to rake the sand. And then do something else with the remaining millions.

The SECOND BEST CHOICE would be to site the playground in a different place. That would address the primary problem of the two year shutdown.

The THIRD BEST CHOICE would be to delay this project for another three years, or for another couple decades.

I realize that people at the Parks Alliance want to do things for the children, but what they’re ending up doing is shutting down their playground for a couple of years for basically no reason.

Win $400 with the SFMTA’s “ON-BOARD TRANSIT SURVEY?” And Oh, Let’s Talk “Sample Bias”

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

Here’s what it looks like:

20161005_155308-copy

You only get entered into the lottery if you give your name, address, and phone number, I think.

You can win like $400, I think. Or maybe just something worth $400, IDK.

IMO, MUNI is a Lesser Transit Agency what has lots of room for improvement. But you won’t find my opinions on SFMTA’s website here, for example. I don’t like the whole SFMTA operation, so why would give it my digits? So what the SFMTA should say is something like, “Of the people who like MUNI, here’s what they think about MUNI.”

(The big problem with the SFMTA is that it’s run for the employees of the SFMTA.)

(And hey, what’s this “customer” stuff? If a PCO issues a ticket and puts it on your car, are you its “customer?” Well, you’d make a payment at Customer Service, so go figure. Or what if you live in LA and your car has never been in Frisco and you get a ticket in the mail – would you then be a “customer” in this kind of mix-up?)

Anyway, you can’t win if you don’t play…

Zagat Survey Creates Firestorm by Calling Frisco “San Fran” on Twitter – A Hasty Correction Fails to Satisfy

Wednesday, July 1st, 2015

Here you go, from yesterday:

Capturefsffff

And here come the umbrage-takers:

fsfsss

It’s still going on, the umbrage-taking, even a day later, even after a modified Tweet from Zagat what used Our Full Name, all 13 characters.

I know that saying “San Fran” is risible to some hot-headed residents of Frisco, but I don’t know _why_.

(Like “foodie” is offensive to some as it’s diminutive, right? It’s crazy to worked up about such matters, but at least I get that one.)

Someday, somebody will explain it to me…

Nickname(s): The City by the Bay; Fog City; San Fran;[1] Frisco (antiquated);[2][3][4][5] The City that Knows How (antiquated);[6] Baghdad by the Bay (antiquated);[7] The Paris of the West[8]

The People Behind the Big Project at Pier 70 are DESPERATE for Your Approval – Here are the Sweeteners They’re Offering!

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014

Or you know, what they’re planning on offering. That’s my conclusion after editing the below, which is what “FM3” Polling is asking San Francisco voters about these days. Or rather, what you can see below is about 85% of what FM3 is asking people, more or less.

So they’re like, what will it take to get you to support our scheme for Pier 70? You want more below market rate units, you want lower height limits, you want more space for parks, you want an artist colony, JUST TELL US WHAT YOU WANT BEFORE YOU GO ALL 8 WASHINGTON ON US,  OH OH AAAAAAAAURGH!!!! You know, more or less.

Oh, and apparently, there’s a new evil meanie ID’ed as the Great Enemy of the Willie Newsom/ Gavin Lee/ Ed Brown administration. It used to be “six-foot white boy” Supervisor Chris Daly, and then it was Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, but now it’s Mayor Art Agnos. (The Establishment thinks he’s too old to be working the city fighting over height limitations. The Establishment wonders why he’s not out playing golf these days.)

Here it is:

“From FM3:
1. Would you say that say that SF is heading in the right direction or not?
2. Pier 70 is taking existing 40 foot maximum up to 90 feet, support or not?
3. Would adding these following things to the description help?
7 acres of new space for arts,
new units at potrero,
jobs,
more BMR units
5. The limit now is 40 feet. What would you say to 120, or 90, or 65 feet?
6. How many BMR units do you think P70 should have? 100, 200, 400, 750?
7. What if the Builders made more BMR units than required? What about double, triple?
8. Inclined to trust the following or not?
Art Agnos
Potrero Hill Boosters
Tony Kelly
No Wall on the Waterfront
Democratic Party
Pier 70 Artists
Malia Cohen
Dogpatch Neighborhood Assoc.
9. How long have you lived in SF?
10. How much do you make?
11. Race?
12. Sexual orientation?”

Ooh, Harsh: City Attorney Dennis Herrera Throws Down – Goes After Ed Lee’s Failed Record on Infrastructure

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

Turns out that our “world-class City” is ranked below Boston, New York, Oakland, San Jose, and Seattle, believe it or not. See below.

Now, just how purple do you want to see your fighting City Attorney.

Better A, as seen here?

Or B, after a little Replace Color and Shadows/Highlights?

You Make The Call.

Now, a little background and then the News of the Day. Let’s list the endnotes first for a change – they are that good:

[1] Government Barometer: August 2011, City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, October 18, 2011, http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2581
[2] City and County of San Francisco City Survey 2011, Final Report, prepared by the ETC Institute, October 6, 2011, http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2573
[3] Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov. 8, 2011, Proposition B: Road Repaving and Street Safety Bonds, page 46, http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/NOV2011_VIP_EN.pdf
[4] Management Audit of the Department of Public Works, by the San Francisco Budget Analyst, January 9, 2007, http://www.sfdpw.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/sfdpw/director/DPWAuditReport.pdf

The latest from the Dennis Herrera for Mayor campaign:

“New Controller’s report confirms streets survey, audit on Ed Lee’s failed record on infrastructure

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

Appointed Mayor’s decade-long mismanagement as DPW chief, City Administrator now require quarter-billion dollar streets bond to ‘finally accomplish what Ed Lee didn’t’

SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 18, 2011) — City streets and public works continue to deteriorate under interim Mayor Ed Lee, according to a new report published today by the Controller’s Office, extending Lee’s decade-long record of mismanagement and neglect as the appointed bureaucrat in charge of San Francisco’s infrastructure. Today’s bimonthly Government Barometer[1] mirrors a highly critical survey released just two weeks ago that found San Francisco’s satisfaction rate with the current quality of its infrastructure to be the lowest among five benchmark cities to which it was compared. Lee’s history of lax oversight of streets, sidewalks and public works projects was also the subject of a devastating independent management audit of the Department of Public Works that the Board of Supervisors first commissioned in May 2005, while Lee was DPW director. That audit was released in 2007.

Today’s new Government Barometer identified negative trends in the City’s maintenance of streets and public works in terms of the percentage of street cleaning requests responded to within 48 hours, which have worsened both since the previous reporting period and as compared to the same period last year. A negative trend was also observed from the previous reporting period for the percentage of graffiti requests on public property responded to within 48 hours.

“For the last decade, Ed Lee did an abysmal job as the person in charge of San Francisco’s infrastructure,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “The Budget Analyst’s audit proved it in 2007; the streets survey proved it again two weeks ago, and the new Government Barometer proves it once again. Ed Lee’s record of failure is why most city streets are dirtier than ever, and in desperate need of major repairs. Now, San Franciscans need to pass a quarter-billion dollars for a streets bond, to finally accomplish what Ed Lee didn’t.”

Lee was DPW director from 2000 to 2005, and until January of this year served as City Administrator, a role whose major duties under the City Charter include coordinating capital improvement and construction projects, and appointing and removing DPW directors. As such, Lee is more responsible for the current state of San Francisco’s infrastructure than any other city official. Lee’s decade-long record contrasts starkly with his new campaign promise to be an “infrastructure mayor” who will fix San Francisco’s “roads, schools and parks.”

On October 6, 2011, the San Francisco Controller’s Office published its final report of the biennial City Survey for 2011[2], which found that:

* San Francisco had the lowest satisfaction rate with the quality of its infrastructure among five benchmark cities to which it was compared: Boston, New York, Oakland, San Jose, and Seattle.

* Overall satisfaction with San Francisco city streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure rated a woeful 31 percent, according to the survey — far below other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s rating for infrastructure was also lower than both statewide and national averages.

* San Franciscans were least satisfied with the condition of pavement citywide, with nearly 44 percent of residents grading city performance “poor/failing,” and another 38 percent describing it as merely “average.” Only 18 percent rated infrastructure “good” or better.

The new Government Barometer and streets survey from two weeks ago come as San Franciscans begin voting on a proposed $248 million bond for road repaving and street safety.[3] The nearly one-quarter-billion-dollars in new bonded indebtedness is required, according to proponents, because half of San Francisco’s 850 miles of streets — together with public structures that include bridges, tunnels, and stairways — need major repairs and upgrades.

Both the Government Barometer and streets survey also mirror a devastating independent audit of DPW that the Board of Supervisors commissioned in May 2005, while Lee was DPW chief. Even before Budget Analyst Harvey Rose’s final 269-page DPW Management Audit[4] was published in January 9, 2007, then-DPW Chief Fred Abadi responded that he “came to DPW after your audit had begun,” and that the report’s 120 recommendations “will prove useful to me as I continue to reengineer parts of the Department.” Abadi agreed and accepted all but three of the Budget Analyst’s 120 recommendations.

Among major findings of the performance audit’s of DPW under Ed Lee:

* DPW’s overall mismanagement, inefficiency and uncollected revenue combined to waste more than $5 million in taxpayer funds.

* DPW-led projects were routinely mismanaged, over-budget, and late — and city street repair projects were late by a shocking 172 days, on average.

* DPW failed to routinely track average project labor costs or productivity to ensure that Street Resurfacing and Pothole Repair Projects were completed efficiently

* DPW could not demonstrate that tax dollars being spent for street repair and maintenance (despite an amount that increased during Lee’s tenure) were spent appropriately.

* DPW allowed more than $1 million in litter fines to go uncollected.

* None of DPW’s eight bureaus fully measured performance to ensure that the bureau achieved the best possible outcomes.

* And DPW inspectors did not conduct routine inspections of streets to identify safety hazards.”

San Francisco BICYCLE SURVEY: “Daddy, Tell Me Again, What Does “Self-Selection Bias” Mean?”

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Well Honey, self-selection bias:

“…arises is any situation in which individuals select themselves into a group, causing abiased sample with nonprobability sampling, It is commonly used to describe situations where the characteristics of the people which cause them to select themselves in the group create abnormal or undesirable conditions in the group.

Self-selection bias is a major problem in research in sociologypsychologyeconomics and many other social sciences.

While the effects of self-selection bias are closely related to those of selection bias, the problem arises for rather different reasons; thus there may be a purposeful intent on the part of respondents leading to self-selection bias whereas other types of selection bias may arise more inadvertently, possibly as the result of mistakes by those designing any given study.”

As seen on Market Street. (Sure, the survey-takers have vests, but what about helmets ‘n stuff?)

Click to expand

“Daddy? Why do people talk crap about Wikipedia all the time even though Wiki is way smarter than the people who talk crap about Wiki all the time?”

“I don’t know Cupcake, ask your mother…”