Posts Tagged ‘yes’

PROP F Fever Hits “West NoPA” – A Great Debate at USF Sponsored by Local NIMBY Org PRO-SF – Tuesday, Oct 27th 2015

Monday, October 26th, 2015

Here’s the info – just try finding it online via Google. It’s hard.

7J7C9771 copy

But here’s your preview, courtesy of the west si-iiide, on page 3.

And here’s what’s funny – if the only reason you can stay in SF and pay your mortgage is because you’ve been breaking our regs for, what, the past decade or so eight years, well, maybe you shouldn’t be living here. Some ppl out in the west side operate illegal grow houses or cat houses and that’s how they pay their mortgages, but that’s not right neither, right? I’ll tell you, all Airbnb rentals the past decade in SF up ’til February have been agin the rules, right? And most of them rentals right now still are, right? So what kind of ppl are we legalizing here, one wonders.

And it’s hard to tell how our local millionaire property owners who live, and I’m srsly, west of north of east of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle will come out on the illegal hotel issue. One suspects that the West NoPa crew would generally be supportive of Prop F, but that’s just a guess…

Oh look, here are all the semi-native parrots of West NoPA what are flying to USF right now to parrot the Airbnb line:


Let’s hope dese boids are getting big bucks / stock options from the Airbnb. Let’s hope they’re not mere “volunteers” working on this most expensive of political campaigns…

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.

Why is McDonalds Charging Sales Tax on Donations? Anyway, the New San Francisco Happy Meal is Exactly the Same as the Old

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Well here it is, the before and after of the San Francisco Happy Meal from McDonalds.

Today’s the day that the San Francisco’s Healthy Meal Incentives Ordinance kicks in. The upshot is that now you have to donate 10 cents to Ronald McDonald House in order to get the toy.


Click to expand

(Note the apple slices in the upper right. They’ve been around for a while.)

But uh oh, is Micky Dee’s charging sales tax on the donation? Yes it is. I cry foul.* (Uh, San Francisco McDonaldses, can you do that? Do you need to rejigger your registers?)

This sign was just put up. It’s all “10 cents adds a toy.”

Now I’ll tell you, I can recall buying a Hamburger Happy Meal in Palo Alto last year for exactly two-fitty ($2.50). It had more fries plus the free toy (but it didn’t have apple slices or a slice of cheese for the burger.) Anyway, prices be going up, it seems.

Oh well.

*So, the only reason to charge sales tax is if the 10-cent purported “donation” is actually for the “retail sale of tangible personal property,” right? So which is it, a donation or a sale? I mean if I donated money to Ronald McDonald House on Scott Street, they sure as Hell wouldn’t tack on sales tax, would they? Mmmm… I paid ten cents extra to get a toy, right? Thinking out loud here, could it be that, as far as San Francisco is concerned, the 10 cents shows that the toy isn’t included “for free” and therefore the sale need not comply with the HMIO, but as far as the state of California is concerned, McD’s is just selling the toy for 10 cents, so therefore, obviously, a penny needs to be collected and forwarded to Sacramento for each sale? (But of course, if you walk up and offer your 10-cent donation for just the toy, they’ll say, “No dice.” They used to charge $2 for toy only purchases). Have the legal advisers for area McDonalds restaurants thought this through? I don’t know. Anyway, the approach they’re taking appears to be a giant F.U. to the City and County of San Francisco. I’ll tell you, the path they’re on is full of rusty nails and garbage pails. Just saying. But hey, what about McDonalds Corporation in Oak Brook, Illinois? Did they sign off on this? I wonder. (Did they indemnify the local owners? By contract, or, you know, some other way. I’m just curious about who came up with this ten cent idea.) Anyway, this is me thinking aloud, just raising issues. I can’t wrap my head around “ten cents adds a toy” and how that relates to state tax law. Like when I got my Android phone plus two-year contract for $50, I had to pay another $50 or so in sales tax because the phone is worth far more than $50. For example…

Our City Family: Labor Council, Chamber of Commerce, and Warren Hellman Unite to Fight Jeff Adachi’s Prop D

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Well here’s the news of the day – it’s the launch of

And look who’s the headliner of this Fellowship, it’s “Civic Leader” Warren Hellman, who used to play for the other team, so to speak.

Anyway, all the deets, below.

That Warren sure loves his banjo:

Click to expand

“PAULSON, FALK TO CO-CHAIR YES ON PROPOSITION C PENSION REFORM CAMPAIGN – Top Labor Leader, Top Business Leader Tapped To Lead Consensus Coalition

SAN FRANCISCO, August 31, 2011 – San Franciscans United For Pension And Health Reform today selected Tim Paulson and Steve Falk to serve as co-chairs of the campaign supporting Proposition C and opposing Proposition D on the November ballot.

Paulson is executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, comprised of 150 local unions and representing 100,000 workers, and Falk is president and CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, a 1,500-member organization representing the business community.

“We are pleased that San Francisco’s top labor leader and top business leader are working together to lead this coalition’s campaign for pension and health reform,” said Thomas P. O’Connor, president of Fire Fighters Local 798. “Unions and the business community don’t agree on everything, but on Proposition C, San Francisco is united.”

Falk praised Proposition C, which was developed with input from the community, introduced by Mayor Ed Lee, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors.

“Proposition C saves taxpayers at least $1.3 billion over the next decade,” said Falk. “This measure is fiscally responsible and it will help keep us solvent.”

Paulson emphasized the measure’s fairness.

“Proposition C provides a safety net for hardworking city employees who earn lower wages,” said Paulson. “It keeps pension contributions stable for those making less than $50,000 a year. Those who make more pay more.”

O’Connor drew a contrast between Proposition C and Proposition D, a rival pension measure.

“Proposition C has widespread support because it was conceived in the light of day, with a public process that encouraged input and ideas from everyone,” said O’Connor. “On the other hand, the backers of Proposition D bought their way onto the ballot with signature gatherers who were paid five dollars a signature and repeatedly got caught on tape lying about what the measure would do.”

Today, San Franciscans United For Pension And Health Reform also announced the other members of its campaign committee. In addition to Paulson, Falk, and O’Connor, the committee includes other business and labor leaders, along with the measure’s sponsor at the Board of Supervisors:

Warren Hellman, Civic Leader
Gary Delagnes, President of the San Francisco Police Officers Association
Sean Elsbernd, Member of the Board of Supervisors
Steve Fields, Co-Chair of the Human Services Network
Larry Mazzola, Business Manager and Financial Secretary Treasurer of UA Local 38
Rebecca Rhine, Executive Director of the Municipal Executives Association
Bob Muscat, Executive Director of IFTPE Local 21
Sean Connolly, President of the Municipal Attorneys Association

Please visit for more information.”

Word on the Street: “Burn Fat, Not Oil”

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

As seen on Market Street:

Click to expand

Now, where have I seen these dolls before?

Yes We Cannabis! Naked Ken Doll and Naked Brad Doll Agree: Yes on Prop 19 – As Seen on Market Street

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

As stated, as seen on Market Street, inbound:

The small dots are noise (due to an unnecessarily high ISO equivalence on an older camera) and the large dots are raindrops (due to an unnecessarily high shutter speed), so don’t click to expand.

Stay dry, Sugar Daddy Ken!

Stay dry, Brad!

24th Annual SPCA Macy’s Holiday Windows Pet Display Starts November 19th – Volunteers Still Wanted

Friday, November 12th, 2010

Macy’s Holiday Windows will fire up once again in Union Square come November 19th, 2010.

Volunteer, won’t you?

“The SF SPCA is also seeking volunteers to interact with jolly holiday shoppers and the many visitors to the Windows. Volunteers representing the SF SPCA answer questions about the animals and collect donations in front of the Windows on Stockton and O’Farrell streets. Those interested in volunteering are encouraged to sign up online at”

And the old-school displays are based upon the Yes, Virginia animated movie? Apparently.

IMG_0018 copy

Click to expand:


All the deets:

The San Francisco SPCA and Macy’s Team Up for 24th Annual Macy’s Holiday Windows Pet Adoption Campaign

The San Francisco SPCA and Macy’s Unveil Adoptable Pets on Nov. 19 at 5 p.m. in Annual Union Square Event to Help Homeless Cats and Dogs Find Loving New Homes

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., Nov. 11, 2010  — The San Francisco SPCA is teaming up with Macy’s for the 24th annual Macy’s Holiday Windows featuring adoptable animals from the SF SPCA. The Windows will be unveiled on Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 and last through Sunday, Jan. 2, 2011. Shoppers and pet-lovers alike are encouraged to visit and adopt some of San Francisco’s cutest cats and dogs from the Windows located at Stockton and O’Farrell streets in Union Square. The SF SPCA has a goal of 320 adoptions by Jan. 2, 2011.

KNTV’s (NBC, Bay Area) Emmy Award winning meteorologist Craig Herrera joins the festivities again this year and will host the unveiling ceremony at 5 p.m. on Nov. 19 with students from San Francisco’s De Marillac Academy.

“The Macy’s Holiday Windows featuring adoptable animals from the SF SPCA has become synonymous with the holidays among San Franciscans and has been an enormous boon to our efforts to bring comfort to the many adorable animals we care for through donations and adoptions,” said Dr. Jennifer Scarlett, SF SPCA interim co-president. “Through this wonderful partnership with Macy’s, I hope we inspire visitors to open their hearts and their homes to these precious cats and dogs.”

Ever more deets, after the jump


Typical Happy Meal Banned in San Francisco – Eric Mar’s Legislation Passes With Veto-Proof Supermajority

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

The typical Happy Meal (or Kids’ Meal or what have you) with an included toy has just been banned in the City and County of San Francisco. Check it:

“This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity.  The legislation encourages restaurants to provide healthier meal options.  To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.”

Today’s vote at the Board of Supervisors was 8-3, which means that any veto from Mayor Gavin Newsom would get overridden with a quickness, one would presume. Robble robble, indeed.

Legislation author and District One Supervisor Eric Mar is aiming to “challenge the restaurant industry.” Well, mission accomplished.

Get all the deets from this uploaded doc: Healthymlsdig3

So, either McDonalds will alter its menu accordingly or you won’t be able to get the likes of these Barbie dolls, these “Youth-Focused Incentive Items” in the 415 come December 1, 2011:

The upshot is that McDonald’s es infeliz. Muy infeliz. See?

Just after the vote, McDonald’s spokeswoman Danya Proud said, ‘We are extremely disappointed with today’s decision. It’s not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for.'”

So there you go.

All the deets:

“Supervisor Eric Mar’s Healthy Meal Legislation passes with a supermajority

The Healthy Meal Legislation sets nutritional standards for restaurant food that is accompanied by toys or other youth focused incentive items. Supervisor Eric Mar’s legislation is co-sponsored by Supervisors Campos, Chiu and Avalos and was supported by a broad coalition of grassroots community organizations, parents and health professionals.  Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Daly, Dufty, Mar, Maxwell, and Mirkarimi voted in support of the legislation.

This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity.  The legislation encourages restaurants to provide healthier meal options.  To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.

“This is a tremendous victory for our children’s health. Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color,” said Supervisor Eric Mar. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment.”

The effective date of the legislation is December 1, 2011.

OK then.

What the suits had to say about this plus Your Amended Legislative Digest, after the jump.


Another Nail in the Coffin for California’s Proposition 8

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Comes word today from Quintin Mecke of Assemblymember Tom Ammiano‘s office about a non-budget related vote in Sacramento. Of course Prop 8 passed by a fair margin in 2008 but judging by the pack of hyenas on the attack in 2009, it might not be around for too long a time.

Just saying. Here’s the latest:

Ammiano Measure Supports Equal Rights
Today the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed House Resolution 5 (Ammiano, D-San Francisco) by a vote of 7 to 3, which resolves that the Assembly opposes the implementation of Prop 8.  H.R. 5 states that Prop 8 is an improper revision of the California Constitution.

On the job (on a State Holiday) in San Francisco, not too long ago.

I am proud of my colleagues and their unequivocal support of equal treatment for all Californians. This resolution speaks directly to the fundamental rights of same-sex couples to have equal protection under the Constitution, rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. I am confident that the Assembly will support the repeal of Proposition 8 and confirm the basic rights of all Californians,” said Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), author of HR 5.
Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, added “The Legislature again affirmed the rights of the minority to have equal protection under the Constitution.  If Prop 8 is upheld, it would have a devastating effect on the hard won rights for women, minorities, and the disabled.  We look to the court to extend equal protections of the law to all as the Legislature had done with the passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act.”
The resolution points out that a revision is a substantial change to the underlying principles of the California Constitution, or to the structure of California’s basic governmental plan.  As a result, pursuant to the California Constitution, the Legislature must initiate a change of this magnitude; it cannot be accomplished through the initiative process.
A similar measure, Senate Resolution 7, has been introduced by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).  That measure resolves that the California State Senate also oppose Prop 8 on constitutional grounds.  It will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee soon.
The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the legality of the state’s gay marriage ban on March 5.  On January 15, sixty-five current and former state legislators, including Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, filed a friend of the court brief seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 because it circumvents basic protections required by our Constitution and eliminates a fundamental right for a minority of Californians. 

To be continued…