Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Well, gee, if I’d known you were Mister picky pedantic and the Queen of the anal retentive then I would have spelled out the obvious.

    And I already said that there were exceptions to the majority rule for constitutional issues. None are raised along the L line to my knowledge.


    Dave Moore

    Then you should have been more precise with your language. Even given this definition I would argue with your statement.

    For example:

    In this case lawmakers passed a law that granted important rights to a minority. Then Prop 8 overruled it based on the will of the majority. It took the Supreme Court to overrule it back. I see that as another indictment of the proposition process.



    OK, great, so if you have won every battle then I wont expect you to whine the next time some pedestrian or cyclist gets squashed.

    And yet somehow I know you will be there bleating and whining. How can such a winner lose so much?



    You win a medal. Congrats. My consolation prize will have to be boarding islands. And a redesigned masonic. And Cesar Chavez. And 2nd Street. And Market. And so on and so on.




    Murder has been illegal in every country for thousands of years. I’m talking about new laws passed in CA in our lifetimes, obviously.


    Dave Moore

    You stated “probably the greatest law we have in CA is Prop 13”. Murph is pointing out that we have many laws that most would say are better / more important than that one which were passed through the normal (non proposition) process.



    No, I usually win simply because the other party is reduced to personal attacks and insults. To be fair to you, you’re not so bad at that, but for some here it’s truly all they have.


    Dave Moore

    I’ve argued with both of you, and watched many arguments between the two of you. If you win Rich, it’s by your amazing stamina to pump a dry well.



    His point is that there is something ugly and stupid about this mindless knee-jerk hatred of cars that undermines the attempts to achieve greater levels of safety and balance in the city.



    The day I lose a debate to you, Murph, I will hang up my hat here. I’m scoring about 200 to zip right now. I admire your persistence.



    Prop 13 is greater than “murder is illegal”?



    And that is what I find so dangerous about you and, for that matter, any activist. You/they really think you/they are smarter than the rest of us.



    Huh? What on earth are you talking about?


    SF Guest

    To use the term “transit supremacist” is a euphemism for anti-car sentiment which includes “pigheadedness on the part of motorists” whenever there’s a proposal to close a public street which problematically restricts cars from having access to private garages.



    I vote “pretending to be” but I’m a pessimist


    Dave Moore

    Agreed. I do not trust enough of the people to understand or correctly assess the long term implications of their decisions.



    No, Murph, again you miss the point. I said that politicians who cross the voters on serious matters can be kicked out.

    We won’t know if Tang suffers that fate until the NEXT election.



    Great – so we can play a dumb syntax game about tang being appointed and then winning an election to retain the seat so by your definition, that is not a “re-election”.




    Regardless, it is clear that I want the people more involved in decisions than you do, which indicates that I trust the people more than you do.


    Dave Moore

    We’ve already had this argument. I don’t agree that “probably the greatest law we have in CA is Prop 13”. So we’re not going to get anywhere with you using it to justify the proposition process, while I see it as an indictment of it.



    Like I said, via the voter initiative process we often vote on specific laws, In fact probably the greatest law we have in CA is Prop 13 and that came about only because of the people – the “representatives” hated it because it limited their power.

    We the people have an entire constitution and bill of rights which limits our representatives from passing all kinds of laws.

    I trust the people. You appear not to.


    Dave Moore

    I can’t tell if you’re thick, or just pretending to be. The democratic process is to vote. We don’t vote on specific laws in general. One reason is because laws are complicated and the population can’t be expected to understand their nuances. We vote on individuals and let them make laws.



    LOL. when did the democratic process become “mob rule”?

    At every elections the majority get what they want. In fact, under FPTP, sometimes it’s not even a majority but just “enough”

    Why are you so unwilling to trust your fellow Americans?


    Dave Moore

    I was never complaining about having meetings, or saying that representatives shouldn’t be responsive to them. My issue is with your simplistic approach of mob rule.



    And that is also why we have public meetings so that when those “representatives” get it wrong, they get slapped down and sent away to come up with something better



    You discounted some speakers because they are old. What reaction did you expect?


    Dave Moore

    I don’t believe that question has a simple answer. First of all we don’t have a process to determine the percentage. We might be able to infer it from some sort of polling mechanism but it would be informative, not binding. Secondly it would depend on the issue. Safety would weigh highly. So would service improvements, which impact people outside this area. It’s complicated. That’s why we have representatives to figure it out.



    “So your big idea here is to ignore seniors? Because they don’t count because they will be dead soon?”

    Wow, I certainly did not interpret this at all from cgolis’s comment. Dude, you need help.



    So answer this. If SFMTA want to execute a plan, what percentage of local residents have to oppose it before SFMTA decides not to do it?



    I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot refute me



    Or selfish drivers who like nothing more than to build a freeway down 19th Ave.


    Dave Moore

    You seem to be incapable of understanding that a democracy does not imply majority rule, even in cases that are not constitutional issues. In our democracy we vote for people who make laws. Our votes (except in rare cases of initiatives) are not about specific issues or laws. They are for people. It’s really that simple.





    Yes, that was the point I made to Murph that he struggled with. To your other points:

    1) The attendees may not have been representative of the locals but from what the article said, it was the pro-change activists who were bussed in from other neighborhoods.

    2) Yes, the majority get their way in a democracy, except where there is some constitutional issue, which does not appear to apply here. The voters are entitled to choose what kind of society and neighborhood they want, and that may include choosing convenience over safety



    Yes, exactly, she has not been re-elected on the basis of what Murphstahoe was claiming would lead her to being kicked out on account of.

    And she is not termed out and can therefore stand again on her record of either giving her constituents what they want, or not.



    “I notice that you always say “citation needed” when you are too lazy to google something. Google it and you will see I am correct, but I’m not going to do your homework for you.”

    The first result for Googling “katy tang” includes this:

    Appointed 02/27/13 – 01/08/14
    Elected November 2013 for term January 2014 to January 2015
    Elected November 2014 for term January 2015 to January 2019


    Dave Moore

    Dictators aren’t elected (well, sometimes they are, but typically in sham elections). So if you’re elected and your constituents think you’re not being responsive enough they don’t reelect you. That’s the check on the process. So of course you listen to your constituents and weigh their opinions.

    But you are making two leaps here. First you’re saying that we should always do what the majority says. Then you’re using attendance at an informational meeting as a proxy for a vote.



    The “selfish” allegation can be made about anyone. What about those “selfish” cyclists who wanted de facto immunity from stop signs and lights? Those “selfish” bus riders in the Mission who wanted their own dedicated bus lane?

    The list is endless. Everyone is selfish. That is why we have elections – to make decisions that give the most people what they want, even though that annoys other selfish people who happen to be in a minority. which sometimes happens to be cyclists and transit riders.



    I understand perfectly. An elected official may make a decision even though, say, 55% oppose it. He/she might just get away with that.

    But where do you draw the line? What if 70% oppose it? 90%? At some point you have to stop being a dictator and actually listen to the people who elected you to do what THEY WANTED!

    I vote for people who are going to do what I want. Who do you vote for?



    I notice that you always say “citation needed” when you are too lazy to google something. Google it and you will see I am correct, but I’m not going to do your homework for you.

    And anyway, she cannot be kicked out of office for this issue until AFTER this issue, and you don’t need a “citation” for that


    Dave Moore

    There’s a big difference between listening to the public’s opinions and making a decision and taking a vote and doing what the majority says. Your statement was “this absolutely is a vote because we are a democracy” which makes me think you don’t understand what a representative democracy is, or at least that you’re incapable of expressing it.



    Katy Tang has not been subject to a re-election yet [citation needed]



    And what is the point of SFMTA seeking opinions unless they intend to take notice of them and change policy?



    So you like democracy except when you personally disagree with it, and then you don’t?


    Dave Moore

    I took his statement to mean “the meeting was not a vote”. Which it wasn’t. There was nothing to vote on. It was an opportunity to listen and express opinions. So the numbers of people there holding certain points of view was not especially relevant and certainly not something that a decision should be based on.



    I already did.



    Katy Tang has not been subject to a re-election yet so we do not know if she will be kicked out if she gets all high and mighty.

    But I suspect she has more sense than that,



    Well, the transit activists evidently had no problem showing up, even though they don’t live there and are not affected by it.



    So your big idea here is to ignore seniors? Because they don’t count because they will be dead soon? Good luck with that.

    And yes, this absolutely is a vote because we are a democracy. I know how much you hate that but it doesn’t make it any less true



    Re: L-Taraval

    I’m a car owner and I ride the L every weekday to/from work downtown. Those who are protesting any and all attempts to improve speed, reliability, and safety on this route are completely selfish. If you can’t walk one extra block in either direction to board your train then you need to find alternative means of travel that cater to your specific needs. I, for one, am sick and tired of wasting my time crawling on Taraval and stopping every two blocks. I’m also tired of idiot drivers who refuse to stop to let people board/off board.

    Wake up, folks. If you want to keep an antiquated streetcar line that chugs along at 3 MPH then you’ve got it. If you want to have something that resembles a true light rail system then step up and support some effective solutions that will bring the L-Taraval into the 21st century (or at least the last part of the 20th). We’re supposedly a Transit First City, after all.