Skip to content

Recent Comments



    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?


    SF Guest

    No since one never expects to be hit and killed by a bicyclist running a red light.


    SF Guest

    If the suspect drove 20+ mph up the hill and the light was green it would be a “blind” turn since he couldn’t see any pedestrians at the intersection before he arrived. Even so this type of tragedy shouldn’t have happened, but it did due to apparent reckless driving. The fact that he was arrested for failing to yield to a pedestrian is incriminating unless there are other undisclosed circumstances.

    The fact there were other pedestrian fatalities at this intersection show a need to change this intersection to conform to the rest of Stockton’s nearby intersections which feature pedestrian-only crosswalks.



    I never said the word “equal”. Obviously a vehicle of any size would not be “equal” to a pedestrian or cyclist. However, the responsibility to do things like look both ways, signal when turning, stopping at yellow/red lights, paying attention when maneuvering through the city…that is responsibility we ALL share. If you don’t know how to share then you shouldn’t be on the road. That goes for Motorist, Bikers and Pedestrians. This is not a one sided issue. No one party is at more or less fault than the others. Playing the blame game will only hinder the progress of safety for everyone. The risk or injury and or death is greatly higher when on bike or foot, yes, but that is something I think every person understands. Was the driver at fault? Maybe he was. Should every driver be attacked as a result of his poor decisions and inability to drive a car…absolutely not.



    SFPD is getting better. Admittedly it is up from a very low bar, where they used to refuse to cite any driver, but give credit where credit is due.


    Reynolds Cameron

    Jailing someone for murder (gross incompetence and negligence resulting in death) is wholly justified. 99% of the time that a motor vehicle results in death, there is gross negligence on the part of the driver. Whether or not a pedestrian is jaywalking is irrelevant to the question of whether a driver has control of their vehicle.


    Reynolds Cameron

    This is why everyone who gets into a collision with a pedestrian where the pedestrian is severely injured should receive a lifetime ban from driving.


    Reynolds Cameron

    don’t like :(



    Do you know of any transportation infrastructure project in California that suffers from a lack of ridership?