Today’s Headlines

  • Sup. Wiener Introduces Transportation Sustainability Fee With Mayor Lee’s Backing (SFGate)
  • SFBC Member Makes Case Against Organization’s Bid to Change Board Election Bylaws (Cyclelicious)
  • City Presents Plans for Folsom Street With Protected Bike Lanes Near Transbay Center (Hoodline)
  • SF Examiner Readers Back SFPD Park Station Captain’s Crackdown on Bike “Scofflaws” (1, 2)
  • Mayor Lee: City Vehicles to Switch to Biodiesel By End of the Year (SFBay)
  • Stanley Roberts Finds Uber Drivers at SFO Illegally Using Passenger Drop-Off Level, Skirting Fees
  • BART: Stay Home During Transbay Tube Closures; Bus Plans Detailed (KTVU, ABC, Examiner, SFGate)
  • Caltrans Officials Say They’re Serious About Tripling Bicycling in California (SFGate Bay Bikers)
  • Oakland Gives Toyota Dealership Retroactive 20% Tax Break; Majority Owner Buys Mansion (EBX)
  • Oakland Driver, Passenger Ran After Crashing Into Funeral Home, Leaving Occupant Dead (CBS, ABC)
  • Foster City Postpones Employee Shuttle Launch Due to Disagreements Over Service (Daily Journal)
  • Palo Alto Sees Spate of Bike Thefts (Palo Alto Online)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Fran Taylor

    I’m glad to see this critique of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s proposed bylaw change, an issue that would normally make my eyes glaze over. As a 20-year-plus member, I was not notified about this vote, noticed it only by luck in the Tube Times, and puzzled over the changes, which were not delineated with the customary strikeout-and-bold highlighting that is standard usage is such situations. I’m also voting no and encourage other members to do so as well.

  • bourbon

    I’m also voting no. It’s a deceitful power grab on the part of the board and ED – a takeover of an organization built by members masquerading as a move to protect privacy.

    As a side note, I actually was not notified at all. I received no email about the vote and only started became aware of it because of social media.

  • shamelessly

    I got an email about this change. I voted yes then, based solely on the arguments provided by SFBC. After having read other people’s perspectives, I stand by my vote. In my experience, the SFBC has not felt like a grassroots, member-driven organization. I think there’s a difference between wanting to have the option to influence the organization and actually doing it.

  • mx

    “Stanley Roberts Finds Uber Drivers at SFO Illegally Using Passenger Drop-Off Level, Skirting Fees”

    You mean taking passengers where they actually want to go instead of forcing them to drag their luggage up and down because of the airport’s inane rules? Or do you mean fees the airport has absolutely no business demanding in the first place?

    Taxis get charged $5/trip to pickup from SFO. That’s an utterly absurd price.

  • @jdbig

    I give the SFBC ED and Board the benefit of the doubt in responding to some member complaints about the emails (BUT, I blame members for being unhappy and calling ‘spam’ the email about an organization they paid or volunteered to join). I got the email and thought it was valid and interesting.

    I definitely voted NO and was sad that info from the SFBC was so one-sided in the email, with no discussion in the tube times. Here’s hoping members still get a vote!

  • bourbon

    It’s fine if you don’t want to participate in the organization, but why remove the option for others to do so? The organization was built by members and now that it’s a successful political player, it shouldn’t be co-opted by the higher-ups.

    If SFBC is lacking in grassroots participation, it makes more sense to work on better facilitating member participation and input instead of consolidating the problem with a drastic structural change.