Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Andy Chow

    But have to be drawn so that SF gets three representatives. Zakhary Mallett is the 3rd rep in SF. His district includes the City of Richmond, Emeryville, and West Oakland.

    San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are not in the BART district. Their transit agencies (SamTrans and VTA) essentially have an arrangement with BART to fund the construction (and VTA instead is building the BART line on its own) and purchase the service.

    To expand the district, there are issues such as equity that needs to be resolved. Some people in the current BART district would say that the new counties need to contribute more money because taxpayers in the current district has already paid for the core infrastructure for BART. SamTrans already paid a “buy-in” fee for the SFO line, and for VTA, they have an arrangement where it will have to pay a premium on top of the operating cost (which VTA seems to ignore) to upgrade the infrastructure on the older part of the system.

    If the BART district were to cover the other two counties, because of the high combined populations there, it would make the East Bay and SF under-represented. The new district would probably have a very different priorities which makes it poplitically very unlikely.

    The other issue is whether the tax be raised in the new counties just for BART or that there should be some reapportionment of the existing taxes. In the East Bay, because of the separation of roles between BART and bus agencies such as AC Transit, there are complicated arrangements of splitting the tax money. There are no such issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, because they each have a single agency funding everything, including Caltrain. Also, should be expanded district include Caltrain, which it does have a regional role? And as BART is getting itself running alternate technologies (which it should’ve been like what other metro areas have done), having it to operate Caltrain seems logical.



    Once again, allow me to reiterate. I take issue with those who politicize this issue. I experience and witness what happens on the streets of SF each and every day for the past 5 years. I feel I’m well qualified to be contributing to this forum because I’ve been all over this city on a electric bicycle. The areas I cover on a bike are generally between Dog Patch all the way to the Sunset up to 23rd street as well as the Richmond District’s Veteran’s hospital. I’ve covered 15,000 miles on my bike since 2009 sometimes in rain, cold temps and windy conditions since I’m on-call.

    1. Chinese elderly and the disabled are entering crosswalks without regard for the street lights that only have 2 seconds remaining for large streets.

    2. People in the multitudes are jaywalking as if it’s normal and they do so very arrogantly without regard for traffic or bicyclists and often don’t bother to look if cars are coming or not.

    3. Skateborders have come into the fray, the ones with electric boards as well who are just recklessly riding around on busy streets with headphones and earbuds. Their arrogance is astounding to witness as if they can just do whatever they want on the streets. I’ve seen them swerve in and out of traffic on those electric skateboards without a care in the world.

    What I’m seeing is a trend of crazy pedestrian activities disregarding the lights, entering into the crosswalk far too casually without regard for light changes. They are like zombies tuned into their iPhones who aren’t checking for traffic. I witness them continually jay walking across major streets without a care causing a lot of chaos. They are self absorbed and arrogant to have ear buds in their ears, or headphones without regard for the reality of the dangers around them. This was unheard of years ago.

    The jay walkers often don’t bother to look to see if cars are coming, they are selfishly wanting to avoid having to wait for lights and there isn’t any law enforcement to stop them. This happens on every street in San Francisco every day. I witness long lines of people walking in front of 555 California building in the middle of the street when the crosswalk is only a few yards away. That’s right, they walk in the middle of the street rather than using the cross walk, and it’s a very wide street (between Kearny and Montgomery). There is traffic, there are bicyclists and they have the AUDACITY to enter the street without a care. They are too lazy to go up a few years to the crosswalk and endanger everyone else.

    Every single day there are stragglers who are self absorbed with their iPhones who don’t check to see the lights have changed and they’re in the middle of the cross walk when the lights turn green for cars to go. If pedestrians don’t want to be killed they need to look out for themselves and stop playing the victim.



    I’m not at all surprised because 90% of the time it’s the pedestrian’s fault being preoccupied and oblivious to the dangers of jay walking and entering the crosswalk far too casually. I can assure you the peds are out of line in this city abusing the law that protects them from vehicles no matter what they do. The consequence is often serious injury or death for abusing the grace provided to them in that law.

    These people can get real and take responsibility for their own lives and stop believing cars will stop for them for their unlawful entry into the street and crosswalks or they can continue with the victim mentality of their poor little lives getting hit by cars. When they’re dead for relying on a magical law that they can do whatever they want with impunity, I hope they’ve at least received Jesus into their lives.



    What a twisted interpretation of what I wrote. It really reflects on how you think and choose to project your own evil sentiments onto others. Do you care to quote what you’re referring to? You must be one of those radical liberals who relies on the victim mentality instead of taking responsibility for your own life. Those elderly Chinese people need to take responsibility for their lives by being attentive to the crosswalk lights that were installed with a system to prevent them from entering the street too late.

    I witness some who don’t give a darn what the street sign says who walk out into the street endangering not only themselves, but those others who may interpret their actions by assuming the light’s green aka the herd mentality. When someone enters the crosswalk they think it’s okay and don’t look up at the light.



    You’re too politicizing this issue. I see what happens on the streets each and every day as I have the past 5 years on a bicycle. I have no engine, I have a 20mph electric bike. I’m referring to my being stopped and waiting at major intersections witnessing elderly Chinese people who step out into the intersection with 2 seconds remaining at large streets such as California@Hyde and Sutter@Grant. The elderly and handicapped who can’t move very quickly are entering large dangerous intersections when the cross walk sign discloses they don’t have enough time.

    Worse then this, I witness pedestrians continually jay walk on busy large streets on their iPhones or with earbuds. They are apparently oblivious to the dangers. I witness people enter large streets all of the time outside of crosswalks and today witnessed a man who didn’t even bother to look at if traffic was coming who relied on his hearing.

    I feel I’m in touch with reality because I witness what’s really happening on the streets each and every day. I ride all over the city and there is a rampant disregard by pedestrians who disobey the traffic lights and think nothing of jay walking on dangerous streets. There is no police enforcement of jay walking pedestrians who are endangering bicyclists by continually entering the streets outside crosswalks without warning.

    When people get infected with the liberal politics they become largely void of reality. This liberal mindset enables this dangerous environment on the streets to thrive as if everyone can do their own thing without consequences. And when someone like me makes that point there’s always someone like yourself to make sure the pedestrians are made out to be little angels who are always the victim of a vehicle in spite of their own negligent actions. You assumed I had a vehicle. I don’t have to have a drivers license to operate an eBike, it’s not a vehicle.


    Jeffrey Baker

    The districts are simply equal-population areas of the counties in BART.



    That’s probably because in Santa Clara and most of San Mateo County there’s no BART service yet



    What’s with these districts? Great, good to know the Farallon Islands are covered. What about San Mateo & Santa Clara counties?!?



    It was shut down by the voters in the 60s.



    Every time Fang has a challenger. Then he supports extensions to Berryessa and Livermore instead



    Wait a minute…if we have representative for our area why isn’t there almost no section of BART going through it….




    Jeffrey Baker

    Is this the only real race? Seems like the other races are between the incumbents and random chumps.



    BART under Geary makes a lot of sense. Imagine it connecting to the Transbay Center and the SOMA, getting people there in 10 or 15 minutes instead of 45 min. But how long has this idea of BART to the beach been discussed with no action?



    Thanks for the writeup. I live in District 8, so this is helpful info.

    If regressive status-quo enablers such as Lee and Breed are for someone (and the SFBC is against) I think the decision for me at least is pretty clear on that one.



    LOL, long-time SFer here talking about ‘Hays Gulch’…hmm. Did it ever occur to you that there wasn’t much traffic there before *because* the Central Freeway created a dead neighborhood underneath? Same goes for the Embarcadero. But thanks for stopping by.



    Rage caps, unsubstantiated bogus claims, total misunderstanding of traffic-planning jargon, multiple postings…yep, you’ve got it all. Congrats: You’re the latest annoying troll!



    No, what’s ‘kind of making a mess of everything’ is that we are currently at 10,000 cars per square mile. TEN. THOUSAND. Someone with more knowledge than you is looking at that and realizing we need to stop allowing so much easy access to car-only infrastructure and let people get around safely by other means.



    Agreed. We benefit from his focus on our local transportation battles.



    This doesn’t even warrant a response. You should read up on Streetsblog (or any other transit blog) to understand how cars not driven at *all* actually release much less emissions than those moving or stuck in traffic.



    Jym, there is a difference. The one-term Jordan was a pro-business mayor who was replaced with another pro-business mayor. It didn’t represent a change in direction; just a change in execution.

    Agnos losing after one term was much more significant, electorally and historically, because SF has never since had a progressive/liberal mayor. Agnos failure heralded 22 years of pro-business continuity in room 200.

    In other words, The Jordan failure was a footnote but the Agnos failure has set back the progressive movement for a generation, because many voters still remember what a disaster it was the last time we had a progressive mayor.



    The constitution reference was regarding due process and the rights of a defendant. More specifically the 4th through 8th amendments.


    Sean Rea

    The SFBC piece on Prop L is full of [citation needed]. Not saying they’re wrong, but it was cringeworthy.


    grammar policer

    methinks this slide uses the word “Juxtapose” incorrectly.



    Your logical fallacy is tu quoque. You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser. You answered a criticism with a criticism



    Yes, but as Scott Weiner and the other supervisors noted, any “compromise” on this simply means the developers paying less than they originally promised, while getting all the benefits (the upzoning for these very lucrative towers) that they were originally promised. There’s been no compelling reason presented that we as the public should agree to reduce the contributions that the developers, in the (apparently legally binding) initial agreement, promised the city.



    That NY Times article is a smug joke. There are real downsides to replacing a planted area in Golden Gate Park with plastic-based materials, but the author seems to only be interested in stroking Rec & Park management’s ego:

    “ ’Parks and Recreation’ is exactly like my job,” said Mr. Ginsburg, referring to the TV comedy. “Except in that I am Amy Poehler and not Ron Swanson.”

    Really? Would Leslie Knope keep community rec centers closed to all but private fundraisers?



    Agreed. And on those two blocks, one of the highest concentration of pedestrians. Cars don’t benefit by being down there for several reasons (that even I can see and have expressed in other comments). I’m suspecting Ms. Flood knows that.


    Jym Dyer

    @Duane – There is no traffic-calming going on in those photos. The phrase has a defined meaning; you should learn what that is before attempting to use it in a sentence.


    Jym Dyer

    @Diane – Similarly, nobody’s buildling highways until motorists stop speeding so much, right?


    Jym Dyer

    @Lego – That would be the “balance” in the 1) Fox News motto, 2) Prop L’s website URL? San Francisco has one of the highest concentrations of cars per square mile on the planet, there’s your imbalance right there.


    Jym Dyer

    @p_chazz – Uh-huh. And the inept Jordan being swept out after one term also has some sort of deep meaning that supports somebody’s political predispositions.


    Jym Dyer

    @RoyTT – Jordan’s campaign was dishonest, of course, because 1) though Agnos supported tearing down the freeway, only the Supervisors had that power, and 2) he was the one offered Chinatown merchants the subway to compensate for the hurt business (which never materialized). One disastrous Mayoral term later, Willie Brown called this rejected offer a “promise” to Chinatown, and here we are.


    Jym Dyer

    @RoyTT – It was built for streetcars, originally. Time to upgrade the 30 to optimize the corridor.


    Jym Dyer

    @GetHubNub – Or maybe you’re going too fast. Kill your engine and see whether your perspective improves.



    No constitutional right to drive. It is a privilege.


    Jym Dyer

    @SF Guest – Video showed a yellow light, actually.



    I’m always suspicious of any story that is presented as being 100% good on one side and 100% evil on the other.

    It’s obvious here that both sides want this done but also that both sides need to feel good about it.

    If one side isn’t happy then isn’t the usual remedy to sit down and work it out?



    You should have read on. A cop or prosecutor can rely on a recording:

    “how far can prosecutorial inferences be relied upon in criminal court if there are no credible percipient witnesses or clear recordings”

    But if you’re assuming that I am a fan of red-light cameras, you are mistaken. I hear that even the Europeans are now rolling back on their evil step-brother – the speed cameras.

    That damn constitution again.


    Jym Dyer

    ⦿ Did she bring us any spare parts for B.A.B.S.? We’re running kinda low.


    Jym Dyer

    ☼ Prof. Jason’s article on Props A, B, and L is a must-read.


    Jym Dyer

    ✧ Next up: “Be nice. Don’t be a jerk twice.”


    Jym Dyer

    Kickstarter. You must’ve missed the tweet.


    Jym Dyer

    It’s not just the Richmond, though. The de facto leader of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council is on an imperious crusade against the same thing.



    I believe even that requires a cop to actually witness the infraction rather than just infer it.

    Which cop witnesses red light infractions caught by cameras?



    As far as I can tell, the developers have *no* even vaguely reasonable argument other than that they would prefer to pay less rather than more. I suppose they’re planning to charge rents in the new towers based on the going rates from 2007/8? This is simply an attempt to shake down the city for some $ with the threat of delaying the project.

    As both a progressive and an urbanist, I often find myself defending, in discussions with other progressives, arrangements that allow allow developers to make large profits while also providing housing, offices, and contributions to public projects like the Transbay Transit Center. At best, these can be win-win situations. In this case the developers threatening to sue are playing exactly into the role of “greedy developers” that at other times is a caricature.

    Great to see the BOS stand up to this, and not surprising that Ed Lee is apparently nowhere to be seen.



    good feedback. Another idea would be to remove parking around the intersection to increase visibility.


    Mario Tanev

    This has been a very confusing story, and no media outlet, including Streetsblog has covered it with clarity.

    For example:
    1. Wasn’t this a deal done several years ago? If so, what’s the point of approving the original deal if it was approved some time ago?
    2. It’s still not clear what the best argument from the developers is. Maybe they are making out with more money than they thought, but they only want to pay a crisis-level tax. But surely THEY would not use that as the argument (“We were going to pay 1 dollar when we earn 10, but we instead earned 100 so we still want to pay 1 dollar”). They could not consider themselves victims if they make out with an equal percentage additional gain.
    3. Why is a lawsuit even an option? Lawsuits only make sense when there is an unclear statute up to interpretation. Is that the case?

    This whole thing smells of politics. Of course, I want transit to get as much money as possible. But I fear that something is fishy about this whole thing and it will somehow surprisingly result in lack of funds a few years from now to finish the job.


    Reynolds Cameron

    There is no such thing as a blind crosswalk. You don’t drive through it until you have 100% verified that all pedestrians are on the sidewalk. End of discussion. If you failed this, you have violated the law. If you injure someone while violating this extremely simple rule, you are at a minimum guilty of felony assault.



    OK, fine, give him a ticket then, although I believe even that requires a cop to actually witness the infraction rather than just infer it.

    But that’s a long way from the original idea that the video evidence is sufficient for a successful criminal prosecution. I watched that video several times and it really only shows a truck turning right. I saw no impact although that might be in the redacted part. But given the angle of the camera it’s hard to see how jurors would not be required to make an inferential leap, and that typically goes beyond reasonable doubt.

    The broader question here, and how it relates to the Stockton incident, is how far can prosecutorial inferences be relied upon in criminal court if there are no credible percipient witnesses or clear recordings to indicate criminal intent?