Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    RichLL

    It’s ironic that the complaint is that such meetings are considered to be biased in favor of the status quo.

    The odd couple of public meetings that I have attended have been the exact opposite i.e. it is the supporters of cycling and Muni who packed the meeting and made a lot of noise.

    Public meetings tend to attract activists, advocates and those who feel strongly about issues, i.e. the more extreme elements. The problem is that the moderate silent majority don’t attend such meetings and so the meetings become polarized, without ever learning what the majority of voters want.

  2.  

    RichLL

    Yes, the problem with democracy is that it means that you don’t always get your way. What can we do about that?

  3.  

    RichLL

    No, I am quoting what claims to be a factual statement and inviting you to prove it is false. I’m going to believe the editor of Streetsblog over an anonymous poster on the internet, absent any compelling evidence to the contrary.

  4.  

    RichLL

    I read his point as 100% different from that, i.e. that such disputes are still happening, or potentially are.

    It was, as he said, “only 6 years ago”. And it seems that he was very vested in the debate, even though he changed his Disqus handle afterwards.

  5.  

    Jym Dyer

    @RIchLL – Um, you’re the one asserting a claim without evidence.

  6.  

    RichLL

    I didn’t ask for “every fact in the universe”. I asked for the fact that other streets were studied, and what you think “routinely” happens doesn’t count as data, evidence or proof.

  7.  

    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, you should try it someday. Murph isn’t sore, his whole point is that things have improved since that idiotic teabagging clownfest in 2010.

  8.  

    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – As the article is not of infinite length, it does not include every fact in the universe. Your argument is that because something’s not mentioned, you can go ahead and assert it, which is extremely weak.

    The SFMTA routinely measures circulation patterns in an entire area when it makes such a change. Thus your “only rational interpretation” hinges on the usual not happening, simply because an article didn’t cover it.

  9.  

    RichLL

    Six years on and you’re still sore about that defeat? You don’t even live there anymore because your landlord evicted you out of the cosy rent-controlled apartment you were hoarding while buying properties elsewhere.

    Isn’t it time to move on and let go, for the sake of your emotional health? A bunch of old privileged white people yelling at each other was hardly the finest hour for anyone there.

    And, as I recall, some parklets were built so it wasn’t even a total defeat for you.

  10.  

    p_chazz

    What Kyle is describing is #1 in Saul Alinsky’s “12 Rules for Radicals”: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

    I’m sure that Streetsblog is well acquainted with Alinsky’s rules.

  11.  

    RichLL

    I’m quoting the article, which states that safety has improved on Mission Street. The article does not indicate that SFMTA looked at the accident rate on other streets.

    Obviously nobody cannot produce “evidence” for something not happening. You cannot prove a negative. But can you provide evidence that it did happen? Seems you’re just assuming it.

    Absent other indications the only rational interpretation is that the cited statement says what it purports to say and not something completely different that is more convenient.

  12.  

    dat

    …this…

  13.  

    dat

    I bet a doctor with a flashlight can show you where he got that…

  14.  

    njudah

    yes there’s a grand conspiracy, and streetsblog is part of it! omg! how did you find out? be sure to keep that tinfoil handy I hear red transit lanes impact the water system too!

  15.  

    njudah

    If we had real leadership in the Mayor’s office this wouldn’t be an issue. Instead we have a weak mayor who is so meek and afraid, he is basically useless. Funny how that worked out. But hey he has a mustasche! Tee hee!

    Don’t you all wish you’d perhaps supported a real candidate for mayor either in 2011 or in 2015? Instead you let Ron Trump Conway dictate to you, and here we are with outgoing, failed politicians like David Campos whipping up BS against plans that took years to develop and tons of meetings with the public who now want to have a do-over just because they feel like it. You get the gov’t you deserve, SF.

  16.  

    njudah

    Classic example of know-nothing bs…

  17.  

    sebra leaves

    I don’t get it. Aren’t we building new housing for people who bike and walk and don’t drive? Are you worried about them walking or biking longer distances to get to their privates buses?

    What about Muni riders having to walk longer to catch the Muni and then possibly having to stand on the bus? At least private bus riders are guaranteed a seat on their buses. SFMTA wants to remove Muni seats, forcing more riders to stand.

  18.  

    sebra leaves

    How many
    times does ANYONE have to get held up by a protest, or figure
    out where to board on a realigned route, before at least some people stop riding the bus altogether?

  19.  

    Those Dudes

    “Transit Lane Removal Nudged Closer to Reality?” That’s quite a leap from the press release. What’s up with the tabloidization of Streetsblog?

  20.  

    Kimberleycross1

  21.  

    Kimberleycross1

  22.  

    Kimberleycross1

  23.  

    Kimberleycross1

  24.  

    murphstahoe

  25.  

    Bruce

    What was that meeting even about?

  26.  

    murphstahoe

    we need to bring back Mayor Daly and rip up Miegs Field in the middle of the night, dammit

  27.  

    murphstahoe

    well, his real point is…

  28.  

    murphstahoe

    Hey – things are getting better. Grumps? That’s better than the outright insanity of decades ago. Oh wait, this was only 6 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_9OI0uhRxw

  29.  

    SF_Abe

    The Hyde St development (replacing the post office) cross street is Golden Gate, isn’t it?

  30.  

    Jym Dyer

    @Jimbo – No research? Really? Where did you learn that?

  31.  

    Jym Dyer

    @RichLL – The SFMTA has studied area-wide circulation patterns before and after many projects. Do you have even one iota of evidence that they somehow suddenly wouldn’t do it for this one? Or is this just another useless “I’m just sayin'” comment?

  32.  

    Eli

    Most people I know at Facebook bike every day once they’re on campus and enjoy bike share on largely protected infrastructure.

    I imagine if there were safe routes for “interested but concerned” to access the campus by bike, I imagine there would be dramatically higher cycling rates to work, as well.

  33.  

    Frappes

    What steps can we take to ban these meetings from ever taking place in the future? This is no way to run a city.

    Probably going to need to have a meeting.

  34.  

    MrEricSir

    Ten goddamn years of TEP meetings wasted because someone thought there weren’t enough meetings?

    What steps can we take to ban these meetings from ever taking place in the future? This is no way to run a city.

  35.  

    Jimbo

    stop regulating these shuttles which are taking cars off the street. these young tech employees would live in SF whether or not there was a shuttle

  36.  

    Jimbo

    the transit lanes are gone because they are terrible and no research was put in before making them. meeting do bring out kooks, but usually the cycling kooks as most car drives have 10hr a day jobs

  37.  

    alberto rossi

    The M-Ocean View already has its own lanes most of the way from north of St Francis Circle to Park Merced.

  38.  

    RichLL

    “It also makes Mission Street safer, according to SFMTA’s data:”

    Yeah, well it would, seeing as that there are now a lot less vehicles on Mission Street

    Those vehicles are now taking other routes like Valencia and South Van Ness. Shouldn’t SFMTA be looking at accident numbers on the alternate routes as well? Or are they a bunch of clueless self-serving amateurs?

  39.  

    Kyle

    I don’t feel that there’s any evidence that the SFMTA will remove the transit lanes. SFMTA has put out a lot of data about the increase in reliability and decrease in collisions. Meanwhile, Supervisor Campos has cut way back on his anti-transit rhetoric.

    I’m assuming this article is meant to “scare” transit supporters to show up to the community meeting. I disagree with the misleading headline to accomplish this goal. It’s a very similar tactic to the NIMBYs who try to increase turnout at community meetings by making ridiculous claims like calling the Mission bus lanes “an act of violence”.

  40.  

    gneiss

    It seems that some merchants believe themselves to be heavily dependent only on the people who are taking the 8,000 or so daily car trips into the Mission Perhaps they might consider altering their business model or advertising to take advantage of the 65,0000 who ride the bus and might be enticed off it to shop at their stores along that corridor? After all, it may take only a little tweaking to replace the customers who ride by car with those who take the bus…

  41.  

    Ochotona_Princemps

    The reaction to the Mission transit lanes makes this author’s attack on the M-Ocean View subway project last week seem pretty misguided. Giving buses priority for a mere sixteen blocks is a controversial, protracted battle–but it would be feasible to give the M a priority lane for miles through the southwest quadrant of the City?

    To be sure, it’d be great to give greater priority to non-auto uses of surface streets. But advocates need to be realistic about how much of a political fight that is.

  42.  

    jonobate

    How is an app going to help anything? You know it won’t, and you’re just throwing that out there because anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be a techie, and techies like apps, amirite?

    The problem is that housing in SF is ridiculously expensive due to lack of availability. The solution is to build more housing, of all types. Market-rate housing does not help low-income people as much as affordable (i.e. rent subsidized) housing does, but it does help, by absorbing the housing needs of higher income people who would otherwise be competing for the same housing as low-income people. There is no circumstance in which building new market-rate housing makes things worse for low-income renters; people are going to want to live in the Mission whether you build condos there or not, and indeed the current housing price escalation started long before the new condos started being built, and long before the Google buses started running down Valencia.

    Such is the opinion of the city controller. Take a look at the presentation below. Slide 21 is the money slide; we can help low-income households by building at least 2,000 units of affordable housing per year, or building at least 4,700 units of market-rate housing per year, or by some combination of the two. Given that providing rent-subsidized accommodation is expensive and city finances are finite, the only practical solution to the housing crisis involves new market-rate housing.

    http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpresentations/SF_Housing_Policy_PartI_CPC_FINAL.pdf

  43.  

    SF4SF

    It does appear that you’re an expert on subterfuge. I clarify and expand on my points because you don’t seem to understand them.or just enjoy gaming.

    Enjoyed our dialogue. I have to get ready and go to a meeting regarding legislation to do some real good.
    Maybe you should do the same or just keep trolling, or whatever suits your fancy.

    Bye Bye for now

  44.  

    SF4SF

    All cities should house all their workers. Maybe you can create an app for people to exchange houses with that objective.

    And SV employees can live in the 50% MR units I previously advocated. Beyond that ratio their income is too destabilizing to the community.

  45.  

    murphstahoe

    Why else would I engage here?

    Subterfuge for your actual agenda. This is why you need to constantly change your argument – “my real point is” “the real issue is” – because your argument is built from straw.

  46.  

    SF4SF

    You know I care. Why else would I engage here? Aside from that FYI, I spend most of my time actually working with, for and in the communities I am advocating for here. Crocodile tears can help water the desert of mis-information.

  47.  

    murphstahoe

    Wait – why does the peninsula have to house all of their workers, but SF does not?

  48.  

    SF4SF

    Agree as long as it is prioritized to those previously displaced and low income blue collar job holders in the city. Market rate housing just exacerbates the problem unless it includes over 50% BMR

  49.  

    murphstahoe

    “Can we agree that we should find all way to encourage people to live near their jobs.”

    Absolutely. SF imports 200,000 net workers every day. I think we can agree that we need to build the housing in SF so they can live near their jobs.

  50.  

    murphstahoe

    Like you care about the things you cry the crocodile tears for…