Posts Tagged ‘vote’

More Trouble for Our Hidebound SFMTA: Its Magic Cure-Alls, Traffic Circles, are Causing Problems on Euclid These Days

Monday, January 8th, 2018

These things are new. Some don’t like them, for various reasons. Anyway, these changes on Euclid have generated boo-coup calls to 311, and what’s new this week is that non-SFMTA members of Our City Family are looking into them, like today, at City Hall.  Perhaps crosswalk lines could be moved, that kind of thing.

That’s the update.

Ah, late 2017:

Capturjkjkoiuh1 copy

7J7C4823 copy

Euclidian geometry:

7J7C4824 copy

7J7C4825 copy

7J7C4827 copy

The Brand-New Traffic Circles of Euclid Avenue – Going in Right Now – Hey, How Come the SFMTA No Longer Allows Neighbors to Vote on These “Improvements?”

Friday, December 15th, 2017

Well, last part first. Our SFMTA used to allow residents living near the sites of proposed traffic circles to have a little mini-election. The problem with that was that the SFMTA got its ass handed to it when all the “trial” circles it had just installed on Page and Waller got voted down, by like a three to one ratio, in five separate votes.

Guess what, the SFMTA Project Manager, the Lord of these rings, whose job it was to push this unwanted project through, was “sad” due to this result.

Anyway, flash forward to 2017 and now some neighbors in Jordan Park are finally just encountering construction of these ring things, and man are they pissed. They’re calling 311 to register their vote (in a different, less effective way).

Here it is, as laid out in October 2017:

Capturjkjkoiuh1 copy

And here’s how things look today:

7J7C4823 copy

Euclidian geometry:

7J7C4824 copy

7J7C4825 copy

7J7C4827 copy

I guess the idea these days is that residents are supposed to petition the SFMTA for changes in their area, but this looks like a so-called “area-wide” traffic clamming (I just can’t myself to use the actual Orwellian word that’s popular these days, you know the one for sometimes unpopular projects) project to me, as opposed to being a “block by block” project.

I don’t get it man.

But I’ll let the SFMTA explain, as seen live on their site today. What do you make of this, Gentle Reader?


Previously, the SFMTA used to consider traffic calming from an “area-wide” perspective. The area-wide process was developed as a way to look at multiple locations in the same neighborhood together, to consider traffic calming from a community perspective. The boundaries of area-wide projects were drawn to incorporate all residential streets between arterials, major collectors, and/or commercial streets. However, the process was viewed by SFTMA staff and residents as being time-consuming and resulting in unpredictable construction timelines. Often times, the more complex and expensive measures recommended through an area-wide planning process were not constructed, and the long timeline often resulted in changing community priorities that weren’t reflected in the area-wide traffic calming plan. Finally, due to the fact that the area-wide approach to traffic calming tended to involve only the most dedicated members of a community, many believed that the area-wide process did not necessarily reflect the views and concerns of all neighbors.

A resident-driven, block-by-block approach to traffic calming that relies on a data-driven approach ensures that resources are allocated to those streets in which demonstrated speeding and traffic-related concerns exist, and where there is broad resident acceptance for traffic calming.”

So I really don’t get what the SFMTA is saying here, what with the passive voice and the lack of examples given. What kind of people are “the most dedicated members of a community?” Is that an insult? A compliment? IDK.

Hey, are they going to take out some of the stop signs on Euclid? IDK.*

Anyway, there you have it.

*That was the problem with the circles on Page, for example – the taking out the stops signs part. You could hear a car coming from a block away. As a pedestrian, it was paralyzing, ’cause you didn’t know what the driver would do. Like would the driver do a California stop and proceed cautiously, or simply treat the circle like a chicane and come through at 25 MPH?** So I’d just wait until I couldn’t hear any cars coming from a block away in both directions and only then cross over Page. I much prefered the regular four way stops. (And I think the whole idea was so that bike riders wouldn’t have to worry about getting tickets for blowing stop signs.)

**Oh, I just came across this, in the less ideological part of the Streetsblog, you know, in the Comments section: “As a pedestrian, the Page/Waller circles were ‘unsuccessful’ because I defacto had to yield to cars. As a car driver, the things were frickin great because I didn’t have to stop and could blast through at 25MPH. /s Are you actually out-and-about in this city, or are you just reading about it in Dutch traffic manuals?

Aaron Peskin True Believer, District 3, North Beach, USA

Monday, December 19th, 2016

Sighted well after his most recent election.


Willie Brown has won the past six mayoral elections, but AP just might be able to prevent Willie from winning a 7th time…

Another Year, Another Strip Club CHECK PRESENTATION for Our Local 798 SFFD Members

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016

Here’s the “tradition” and here’s the 2016 version:


The Giants, Stephen Curry, and Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 was a Tough Year for This Heroes Section of the San Francisco Public Library

Monday, November 21st, 2016

SFPL, Park Branch, Haight Ashbury, USA. (Thanks, Andrew Carnegie, sort of.


(Oh, maybe that’s not for our San Francisco Giants.)

Anyway, sometimes you win the most games in a year or win the most votes in an election, but you don’t end up winning the big prize at the end.


IS THIS KOSHER? Micro-Unit Apartment Parked on 9th Street Tells Citizens How to Vote

Monday, November 7th, 2016

Here’s the description:

Inside a tiny prefab home for the homeless – A possible solution for San Francisco citizens without a place to call home BY ADAM BRINKLOW

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 App

Friday, May 27th, 2016

Good News from Minitrue, Comrades!

MuniMobile Update and an Upcoming Feature: ‘Rate My Ride’

Here’s what “Rate My Ride” will look like. The Barcolounger icon is like a metaphor, man, or something:

MuniMobile Rate My Ride copy

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?

OK fine.

“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

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:


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.

Interim Mayor Ed Lee Stars as a Menacing Celestial Body in This “Yes On Prop G” Flyer

Wednesday, October 14th, 2015

Hadn’t noticed this one before:

7J7C8052 copy

Take it away, BALLOTPEDIA:

“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.

Election results

City of San Francisco, Proposition G
Result Votes Percentage
Defeated No 117,887 53.91%
Yes 100,776 46.09%

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:[1]

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:

Less than one year – 24 percent
One to two years – 22 percent
Two to three years – 20 percent
Three to four years – 18 percent
Four to five years – 14 percent

This additional tax would apply to sales occurring on or after January 1, 2015.

This additional tax would not apply in the following circumstances:

  • The property is a single-family house or condominium and does not include an in-law unit;
  • An owner of the property, including a tenancy-in-common unit, has used it as a primary residence for at least one year immediately before the sale;
  • The property contains more than 30 separate residential units;
  • The property is sold for an amount equal to or less than what the seller paid for the property;
  • The property is sold within one year of a property owner’s death;
  • The property is legally restricted to low- and middle-income households;
  • The property is newly built housing;
  • The property meets the following criteria: it contains no more than two dwelling units; the seller applied on or before July 1, 2014, for a building permit for a project with a total construction cost of $500,000 or more; and the last permit was issued no more than a year before the sale of the property; or
  • The sale of the property is exempt from the existing transfer tax.

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.