Judy B 
Member since Apr 30, 2013


Stats

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Big spike in burglaries recorded in SF’s popular northeast neighborhoods

mobilecat - San Francisco has used CompStat since 2009.

Take a look:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3…

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Judy B on 07/15/2014 at 11:33 AM

Re: “Why did SF have among highest increases in larceny in the state in early 2013?

Two matters to consider when looking for reasons to explain the increase of larcenies and other crimes:

1.) The number of people living here has increased, so the number of crimes increases together with the population.

2.) Behavioral psych studies have long proven that when more and more individuals are packed into a finite space (such as the city and county of San Francisco) an area that does not corresponding increase along with the increased population, bad/violent behavior increases.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Judy B on 07/03/2014 at 1:54 PM

Re: “Greg Corrales: Hard-charging legendary cop who saw SF transformed retires

Captain Corrales was also captain of Mission Station twice. We loved the man!

16 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Judy B on 06/15/2014 at 3:50 PM

Re: “Waterfront height limit measure earns convincing victory

On Nextdoor Tony Kelly just noted the following:

"Paul Lord, a former city planner (and a very good one), just posted this on Facebook; it identifies the issues behind Prop B clearly and briefly.

"'Prop. B is much more than ballot box planning.

"'In short, it is a vote of no confidence on the status quo for planning and development processes in San Francisco. If the decision-making processes were actually and regularly producing desired outcomes, then both 8 Washington and exceptions for waterfront height limits would not have produced these sorts of voter responses.

"'The system and underlying principles that drive development in the city by the Bay are seriously flawed. The need to democratize and engage the public in planning and development decisions has never been greater. If done properly (and it can be done), the collective intelligence of the SF voters is far greater and more representative than any collection of minds from SPUR or the Chamber.'"

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Judy B on 06/04/2014 at 3:14 PM

Re: “Approval finalized for Apple’s Union Square store

But what happened vis a vis the fountain?

Posted by Judy B on 03/14/2014 at 1:20 PM

Re: “AT&T utility boxes receive heat from some SF residents

No one is writing or speaking against AT&T's U-verse service.
The only issue is that our public rights-of-way are being used for AT&T's private gain.

Our sidewalks have reached a tipping point or "cumulative impact " of installations on them. These boxes are
5' x 4' x 2.5' and must be placed 18" from the curb. Plus there are bollards placed several feet away and near to the curb. The footprint is enormous!

The thing is that despite the statements from Marc Blakeman, Regional Vice President – External Affairs, it's easy to put all this (obsolete) equipment underground. Please see this from Washington DC:
http://www.thegeorgetowndish.com/thedish/c…

Please note that these underground cabinets house the same fiber-optic equipment that the AT&T above-ground cabinet does.
In AT&T's case, the same old copper wire runs to your house. It's not fiber-optic.

The BoS Committee that heard this matter is composed of three supervisors, two of whom basically voted in favor of AT&T installing these cabinets in our public rights-of-way soon after their election, both occurring in November 2011:
Scott Wiener
Malia Cohen

As Supe Wiener remarked at the end of the hearing: AT&T has the right to install sidewalk above-ground facilities cabinets.

So there!
This whole show was for naught.

It doesn't matter what anyone says or does, AT&T has been given the imprimatur to do what it wishes where it wishes.
This hearing was merely an attempt to whitewash the supes' 2011 vote.

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Judy B on 01/15/2014 at 12:05 AM

Re: “San Francisco housing trends make it difficult for modest earners to find a place to live

There is no political will to build middle-class middle-income housing, particularly for-sale housing.

The "City Family" realizes that in order to stay in power and push through their policies, it requires a population of non- to infrequent voters with no real knowledge of San Francisco and its history.
As long as the voting population stays transient and ignorant the politicians are assured of their tenure, rise in the hierarchy and legacy.

9 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Judy B on 11/18/2013 at 4:29 PM

All Comments »


© 2014 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation