I am a firefighter who drives a fire engine/truck. In every instance where a bike lane has been put in it has aided our response time. Just look at the new Folsom Street configuration. There used to be an additional auto lane crowded with automobiles. Now there is an open lane easily vacated by bicycles which we can travel in. No lane is easily vacated by cars, it is tedious, time consuming process. This is the case all over the City. Instead of calling someone a "drama queen", maybe the first commentator should respond to some of these scenes and see the carnage first hand. It is pretty "dramatic" and warrants all the concern advocated in the above article. Bulb outs, road diets and traffic calming work. They reduce auto related emergencies and promote public safety. I would much rather see these tragedies averted than respond to them, but if responding, the aforementioned street improvements have only assisted our response time. The above commentator obviously has very little knowledge of what actually goes on out on our streets and Nicole Schneider obviously does.
@sfparkripoff As futile as it is to argue with an unhinged gadfly with tons of time on his hands, I just would like to know which "Taxpayers" (capital 'T'? Really?) you think don't know what the motives of WalkSF, SFBC, etc. are. Ummmm, the motive is to keep us from getting killed on the streets. kthxbye.
Emergency vehicles will have an easier time getting through if our streets keep improving for walkers and cyclists. Your oh-so-scientific perceptions that there is 'gridlock' in neighborhoods that never had it before has NOTHING to do with traffic calming and EVERYTHING to do with increasing population in the city and new-to-the-city vehicle owners who don't know not to drive on Market and Valencia Streets, to name a couple.
Oh and BTW when a large truck hits a vulnerable street user it IS almost invariably a 'massacre'
What can The City do about the massacres happening on our streets? Somebody took their drama queen pills this morning.
The Fire Department is NOT hindering street safety. Every time the city narrows a traffic lane or put the road "on a diet" to slow down traffic it creates delays for First responders as well as public transit. All of the "traffic calming" that is being promoted by Walk SF, The Bicycle Coalition, and Livable City has done nothing but create gridlock across neighborhoods that never had a problem before.
All of these "advocacy organizations" who derive their incomes from donations, government grants, and the SFMTA Budget need to register with the city as *lobbying organizations* so that Taxpayers know what their true motives are.
I live near the 16/Noe?Market intersection. Although they added bulb outs to the one corner in front of the new Icon condo building, drivers have not slowed down at all. I actually feel like I am in more danger because I am actually closer to the speeding cars and bikes. I don't understand why the pedestrian crosswalks are not properly striped in this intersection and why there is not a proper investment in lane markings and upgraded traffic lights.
Examinot editorial board is boring. Heck the whole of Western SOMA is now zoned for PDR and that space really does not serve that function. Compost is gaming again....what a utter joke. We have plenty of space for activity that hasn't really functioned in The City in more than 45 years. Fools. LOL
@ I wasnt here, wow, you're just full of negativity, aren't you?
"The tech sector growth alone is contentious. The wages, on average, are higher than in many other industries, allowing the new workers to pay more for living space."
What is contentious is not that they are paid so much, but that they are paid so much for doing NOTHING OF VALUE. The average tech company is only producing - at best - another distraction for the masses. I don't think that people would mind so much if what they were producing wasn't utterly and totally USELESS and WORTHLESS and not advancing manking in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
"But manufacturing is much more, especially light industrial here in The City, which is making things such as clothing, furniture, bath and body products, bicycle accessories, food, jewelry and pet products, among others. The range of companies setting up shop in The City is staggering."
So... I'm guessing... are the prices....
My what short memories people have! This is the same sort of cheerleading we heard right before Dot-Bomb 1.0. The tech sector is great at producing useless shit that people don't need. But that's where the money is at the moment. And you thought we had values?
There's really only one option now. LEAVE. Get out. Go someplace REAL. San Francisco is a dark, phony shell of its former self. Ever hear of the great Hong Kong artist scene? No. That's where we're heading. San Francisco is going to be the next Hong Kong.
And if you want population density - and really who doesn't? - then why not bulldoze the obvious place - Mid-Market. If I had a dollar for every story I've read about the "resurgence of the Mid-Market area" I might even be able to afford to live here!!! But San Francisco has shown that it cares far more about the high density of convicted sex offenders on 6th St then it does about normal working people who aren't sexual deviants or millionaires.
Broad-based recovery MY ASS. Try "Dot-Com Boom 2.0." The economy may be recovering for big corporations profit margins and the stock market, and anyone on the government dole, but beyond that it's pretty desperate. San Francisco could be the Manhattan of the West. But it won't be. This City is too parochial, not to mention too corrupt, for that to happen. San Francisco is basically like if, say, Sausalito said "Hey, we're not 'city' enough. Let's stop cleaning the streets, ignore car break-ins, and spend a couple million to import some rats. Then we'll be a city again!" San Francisco is basically treating their "minority" neighborhoods like they're exhibits at a zoo. It's all this big, nasty socially engineered Leftist/corporate paradise. And it makes me sick. When I moved here in the 80's I lived in a real neighborhood with real neighbors and local hangouts and workers who were your neighbors. Today it's just FICTION.
You have the referenced the wrong CVC number twice! It's 21059, not 21509.
Ok, here's a conversation starter: Instead of catering to worthless, useless vagrants who suck up taxes, why the city , especially the Board of Stupidvisors , needs to attend to the needs of the REAL citizens. You know, the taxpayers? The people who WORK for a living and DON'T commit crimes and are capable of holding it until we find a restroom.
What we need are more jobs and enforcement of labor laws.
In San Francisco, most min wage jobs are done by illegal aliens drawn here by sanctuary city policies. Just go to any ethnic restaurant and you'll see latinos working in the back.
Some facts the BDCP promoters don't want the public to know: 1) The "mitigation" for the environmental damage the tunnels will do is the condemnation of over 100,000 of Delta farmland. 14,000 in the South Delta, alone. Family farms for 150 years, above sea level and Class 1 soils. Funding for this "conservation" will be $ 7 Billion in State Water Bonds - imagine, taxpayers putting taxpayers out of business. 2) The tunnels will be used 1/2 the time; pumping will continue from the South Delta, but BDCP does not allow for funding of levee improvements or updated fish screens at those pumps. No plan for storage, either. 3) The whole project does not pencil out. Water will cost over $1,000 per acre foot, and farmers south of the Delta cannot afford it. (Guess who will gete to pay the difference!) Dr. Jeff Michael, University of the Pacific economist has the numbers on his "Valley Economy" blog. 4) BDCP does not fully analyse the impacts impaired water flows will have on the San Francisco Bay Estuary. 5) The BDCP has not fully vetted the alternatives. If you want to see the productive, and now threatened South Delta, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I'll be happy to show you around and talk alternatives. Oh, and we can dissect one more "red herring", the bogus fear of a seismic threat to the Delta. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Rogene Reynolds, South Delta.
I had not heard of this huge new building going in what was once the charming Strybing Arboretum. And I am a neighbor!
I hope London Breed will stop this!
You've got to be kidding! It's the ''Season of Giving'' all year long in this city; just ask any vagrant.
An increase to the local minimum wage would continue the more money=higher prices dynamic, but changes to this might increase the financial oppression already experienced by the working poor and others for many generations. Income inequality has been gaining membership for more than two decades in the U.S., favoring distinct separation between the highest and lowest remunerants. A plan might be to change in how banks supply new credit contracts, that is, from equity instead of from a debt handout from the FRB. This would require banks to retain more reserves, not capital, but bank equity for issue of new loans. Instead of banking sector welfare from FRB, banks would then have less incentive to continue the U.S. ponzi scheme against taxpayers and the U.S. Treasury. Given the advanced nature of the problem, many years would be required for equilibrium to be recognized.
Success, in Neoliberal, San Francisco Incorporated terms, is “maxing out” one credit card and paying with the next line of credit from a new credit card, ad infinitum. Since prudence and accountability are repudiated, when not denied as “too broad” and without meaning, and therefore irrelevant, requests for more money can be submitted to a mostly uninformed electorate, who approve carte blanche, bonds that pay for previous bond issues. If one were to calculate San Francisco net worth or total assets minus liabilities, then I think it would show it to be in technical default, if not insolvent.
I second the motion on the need for stewardship of monetary distributions to public education districts. However, the universal argument that “if education is subsidized, then all students achieve standard objectives,” is invalid, and should be, in the particular case argument, or “if education is subsidized, then some students achieve standard objectives.” Governor Brown usually impresses with his determinations for The State of California.
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation