Here’s the “tradition” and here’s the 2016 version:
Posts Tagged ‘vote’
Here’s the description:
And here’s the unit, complete with signs telling you to vote for Propositions J & K:
Is this what special parking permits from SFGov are for?
If Eric Mar’s “Tech Tax” is a “Job-Killing Measure,” Then Why Did Former Mayor Gavin Newsom Sign a Very Similar Tax into Law in 2004?Wednesday, June 29th, 2016
Here you go, the News of the Day:
3 SF supervisors move to put tech tax on November ballot By Emily Green
And here’s the reaction:
I am appalled at the political vindictiveness of this proposed measure,” said Alex Tourk, a spokesman for San Francisco Citizens Initiative for Technology and Innovation, a coalition of tech companies.
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.
And let’s note that:
[District One Supervisor Eric] Mar’s proposal would deem stock option compensation when a company goes public as taxable payroll.
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.
So that means that Gav was a job killer, right?
*What’s a tech company? IDK. What’s a pit bull?
Push Polling from the SFMTA: When Waiting for Your Bus, Forget About Tinder – Just Swipe Left or Right on the MUNIMOBILE AppFriday, May 27th, 2016
Good News from Minitrue, Comrades!
Here’s what “Rate My Ride” will look like. The Barcolounger icon is like a metaphor, man, or something:
Hey, how about your “work rules,” SFMTA? Can I vote on those? How about a big fat NO for all the work rules you’ve accumulated over the years? Oh no, we just get to vote on inconsequential matters? Like praising your buses for having seats as you metastasize into a 10,000 employee agency?
“Coming Soon: Rate My Ride
Later this summer, MuniMobile will also get a new feature: Rate My Ride.
Rate My Ride will allow you to provide specific feedback about any Muni trip in seconds. With a simple click to the left or right, you can rate your trip time, vehicle conditions and even the etiquette of fellow riders.
Rate My Ride is just one more way we’re making it easier for you to tell us how we can improve your SF transportation experience. Rate My Ride is simple, it’s interactive — plus, you can’t beat MuniMobile’s cute interface.”
Thanks for the “cute interface,” SFMTA!
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
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.
Hadn’t noticed this one before:
“A City of San Francisco Transfer Tax on Residential Property Re-Sold in Five Years, Proposition G ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California. It was defeated.
Proposition G imposed an additional tax on the sale or transfer of multi-unit property that has been owned for less than five years. Details about the tax are in the San Francisco Ballot Simplification digest.
|City of San Francisco, Proposition G|
Election results via: City and County of San Francisco Registrar of Voters
The San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee provided the following digest for Proposition G:
|“||THE WAY IT IS NOW:The City collects a transfer tax on sales of most real property in San Francisco. The tax rate depends on the sale price of the property. The lowest tax rate is 0.5%, for property sold for $250,000 or less. The highest tax rate is 2.5%, for property sold for $10,000,000 or more. The tax rate is not affected by how long a property is owned.THE PROPOSAL:
Proposition G would impose an additional tax on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of purchase or transfer. The following table shows the tax rates that would apply:
Length of Time Seller Has Owned Property – Tax Rate:
This additional tax would apply to sales occurring on or after January 1, 2015.
This additional tax would not apply in the following circumstances:
This measure would also authorize the Board of Supervisors to create additional exemptions from both the existing transfer tax and this proposed additional tax for properties that are subject to affordability-based restrictions.
A “YES” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “yes,” you want the City to impose an additional tax of between 14% and 24% on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of purchase or transfer, subject to certain exceptions.
A “NO” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “no,” you do not want the City to impose this additional tax.
Oh My, Airbnb’s Huge Donations to Local Dems Pay Off! – Scott Wiener as Puppet – Annual SFFD X-Mas Toy Drive Now Stripper-Free?Monday, August 10th, 2015
Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline.
Ever since I can remember, SFFD Local 798 has sponsored an annual Christmas Toy Drive, you know, for kids! And our local strip clubs have been involved – imagine smiling faces and giant checks for 25 large.
(I can recall riding my bike to the stoop of the Gold Club (aka Conference Room G? Good one, Yelp!) on Howard Street back in The Aughts during my lunch hour – somebody (some blogger/media type, I forget who) wanted a photo of the scene. I get there, and it was so sad. Three strippers had been driven there just for a press conference, but at least one of them didn’t get it. “Is my picture going to be in the paper? I don’t want my family to see that!” (Girl, do you have agency? No? OK fine.) Obvs, there wasn’t a meeting of the minds on this deal and it gave me a sad, so I left. And then they decided to move the venue of the presser, ’cause people were worried about have the embarrassing GOLD CLUB marquee in the photos.)
Anywho, this whole program with the strippers…
…has not been without controversy.
Oh, check it, from our local Paper Of Record:
Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.
Now let’s think here – who could replace the strippers this year? It would have to be an image-sensitive entity with a worser image than the sex trade, but with loads of cold hard cash to spend all over town.
Uh, what about Airbnb? (You know they have a big election coming up come November.)
Hey what about Airbnb itself – take a look at what they have to say about all this, after the jump.
Hey Airbnb, is this the kind of thing you were looking for when you gave the SFDems five figures not too long ago?
Hey Airbnb, you let the strippers do this work for years and years just until you have a big election coming up and you want to show yourselves as a great corporate citizen?
(And also asking: What of poor Lexus, Mercedes, and Porsche? They’re OUT, after all these years of giving to the kids?)
I’ll tell you, I have no beef against the idea of Airbnb per se, but man, your sausage factory isn’t pretty, A.
In fact, it’s offal.
All right, click on over to get Airbnb’s side of the story from their fresh news release. (And don’t forget to read the fine print – see if you have to sign away your first-born when you click on an ad for Airbnb…)
The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Wants Its Members to Vote Away Members’ Voting Rights? – A RebellionWednesday, July 22nd, 2015
The Vote is On at our San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Let’s take a look:
“In response to concerns from our members, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s Board of Directors proposed an update to our bylaws that bolsters members’ privacy.”
Bolster member privacy? How are you going to do that?
“…the only effective way to properly respond to members’ privacy concerns is to provide members a chance to vote on eliminating the member-elected Board structure in our bylaws, and instead elect future Board members by a vote of sitting Board members. This would relieve the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition of the legal obligation to turn over our membership list referenced above.
Oh, so you want the Members to vote to take away the Memberses’ right to vote? Are you fucking serious?
(I’ll tell you, I don’t care all that much ’cause I, like most longtime cyclists in the 415, am NOT a member. And, you know, even with the Members’ existing rights, there was nothing to stop the board from endorsing Ed Lee for Mayor back in 2011, as it did, even though a fair polling of SFBC membership would NOT have yielded such a crass endor$ement, but oh well.)
Comes now Save the SF Bike Coalition to ask:
Here’s the peanut gallery:
“I personally suspect the mass mailing was used as a pretext. SFBC’s new Executive Director, Noah Budnick, comes from Transportation Alternatives in New York City, which has a governance structure similar to what SFBC seeks in this by-law change.”
So Members, I don’t care if you vote away your voting rights, but the legal arguments forwarded by the SFBC on this topic are absurd.
MTB Legend Gary Fisher Calls for Ouster of Ed Lee – The Mayor’s Misstep on Polk Street – Small Biz vs. Big UrbanismFriday, February 27th, 2015
[UPDATE: It begins. The lily-white urbanists vent against Asian-American optometrists on Yelp. JUST ONE STAR FOR YOU, DR HIURA! GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR!]
Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline here.
“OUT! This guy can not get away with this, are we this stupid?”
And here’s what GF was riffing on:
Now mind you, this is from an “urbanism” advocacy outfit straight outta Park Slope, so I’m sort of wondering why the Mayor’s handlers even let him make off-the-cuff remarks on this topic. Here’s the offending graf, which one assumes is properly transcribed:
“I’ve heard from many different groups,” Lee told Streetsblog. “I know we want to make the streets safer, make it bike-friendly, small businesses don’t want to lose parking for their constituents… I can’t have a particular position on it except to endorse the most balanced approach that they have because there’s issues that should not be in conflict. We shouldn’t promote bicycle safety over pedestrian safety over cars and parking. I think they’re all going to be important.”
First of all, why would you even have your executive speaking directly with activists in the first place? It’s like sending President Nixon out to the Lincoln Memorial at 4:00 AM to talk with the hippies about the Vietnam War. Second of all, Ed Lee can’t even handle a little Question Time at the Board of Supervisors without having the questions submitted in advance and without having an underling type up a reply for him to read into the record, so why would you have him give the bad news to the activists themselves? The StreetsBlog isn’t an SFGov-funded non-profit like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition or the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, right?
And Ed Lee thinks he’s playing it safe with all this talk of a “balanced” approach, but look at what he says – he’s literally saying, “We shouldn’t promote bicycle safety…” Now that sounds like a complete sentence if you quote only that part. But the Mayor’s talking about cyclist safety vs. ped safety, so I’m not sure what he’s talking about. I was thinking the design of the SFMTA-designed “bulbout” at the deadly southwest corner of 6th and Folsom could be an example of this, but I don’t think this was on Ed Lee’s mind. Frankly, I don’t know what the Heck he was talking about.
So all that leaves Mr. Mayor wide-open for castigation. I’m not sure how much pull any one particular optometrist has on the SFMTA (check out this doc – it’s amazing*), but this coincidence allows a reference to SF’s VisionZero 2024 to come into the headline. Ed Lee ends up seeming like an out-of-touch Mr. Magoo:
I don’t know, if you’re pushing a “balanced” approach, but you don’t have an exec who can talk right, because he’s out of practice, because he was appointed to his position so he never really needed to get into practice, it seems foolish to afford advocacy journalists a chance at actual journalism.
But that’s what happened here, on the topic of Polk Street.
*Wow, these people with bidnesses in Polk Gulch are mostly American millionaires, but look how they self-describe:
Click to expand
And what about the poor guy who can only describe himself as “European?” Poor little feller.
And I’ll tell you, I’m shocked at the amount of time SFMTA chief Ed Reiskin has spent on the back-and-forth about a single solitary block of SF when his primary mission should be sweating the details of getting MUNI up to par…