Okay, I have some thoughts on this as while I live near SFGH, I have a friend who live near Harrison & 19th; the first residential lofts built in the area in 1994. For a long time, nothing was in this area, just the big empty skateboard lot, empty buildings and houses. Then came the rock climbing place, the animation studios, PG&Es building, the new beer brewery and more residential structures. More recently, Southern Exposure gallery, more restaurants, etc. Most of the new residential lofts, etc. have their own parking, so not much of issue for them. Yet, many houses don't have garages and that's where the impact could be felt with the installation of meters. What I really have to note, is how many times, I see out of town cars, drive in the area, park, pull out their bike, then ride off to work or where ever and leave the car parked all day. Just about every climber heading to the rock climbing place drives to the area, and now with Southern Exposure, restaurants and others, people are overwhelmingly driving to the area. Others I know, who live in the area, fight for parking when the come back from work. The newest trend? The tour buses and limo buses to bring people to the eateries, Southern Exposure, etc, who take up 4 parking spaces for the bus or shuttle. I think it's a simple solution. The first step is to cater to who was there first; the residents. As I said, many complexes have on-site parking. So, send out a survey for residents to complete. Stop relying on community meetings where less than 1% of the neighborhood residents attend. Next, survey the businesses; how many employees do they have, who drive to work or delivery vehicles. You will find, as the City already knows, many people drive to work, who could use public transit; either pay the meter or pay the bus. By doing this, you could have a system for meters in front of places that are rotational customers such as restaurants & galleries, while having all day parking permit for production business, factories and residential permit for residents. You don't have to have an entire street full of meters. I'm interested in the PH Boosters Tony Kelly's thoughts regarding all day permit for parking at meter. I think many of us are on the same page about allow all-day parking, but why put in a meter where it's not needed. As one who works for the City, meter maintenance is costly and to fill a street with them, then have to maintain them, and get the coins from them requires staff. I use the PayByPhone option for meters. Yeah, it's 45 cents per transaction, but it is very good as you get a receipt by phone and have a track record of your payment. I see no need for meters in front of houses or apartment/condo complexes as those are residential structures and the immediate curb should be residential permit.
Having dealt with the ACLU it always amazing me the one issue they should take up and haven't: The SFPD practice of confiscating IDs and Drivers Licenses of those arrested. The individuals leave the country jail without any ID and call our offices for assistance. It's been going on for years.
If you want to know more about this group, you have to use the Attorney General Website. It's interesting when you review the 2010 Summary of finances: 2010 Revenues were $436,350, Assets was $36,175 and Contributions were $127,472. They are listed as a 501(c)3 - Nonprofit. I sit of the Board of Directors of two non-profits and I can say, just reviewing their 2010 Summary and 2011 - 2012 Tax 990 forms raises red flags. As a 501(c)3 they cannot profit at all, as a 501(c)5, they could but only to use profit to pay for actual operating expenses. As a 501(c)3 they can't use contributions to pay any operating costs; it's the risk you take as a 501(c)3. So, how they are filing bankruptcy is suspect as there should be no paid members. Here you can do a search on them by entering the name of the organization. http://oag.ca.gov/charities/ch...
@John01: John. How dare you!! You anti-carnival monster, you let the feathers out of the bag. Thank you for raising your point; many of us, who live in the area, have pointed this out to the City for years, to deaf ears none the less.
While I support medicinal marijuana, there is some misleading info from proponents. We continually hear about "there are no health concerns" then some link to a story that shows benefits. I worked in medical research for many years.
Here's the first issue. 90% of medicinal marijuana is now hybridized; explains why smokers are complaining in chat rooms that their plant leaf only has 3 spikes, not 5, then 7, and so on. The reason to hybridize was to enhance the concentration of the THC. Fine, that works. The few actual in depth studies that exist on the affects of pot smoking, have historically been focused towards normal marijuana from smokers who don't smoke it every day, or every hour. New studies are clearly identifying that the hybridization has other affects; it's increased the minor toxic chemicals in marijuana by up to 300%.
There ARE several toxic compounds found in marijuana as those present in Tobacco. There are current studies underway focusing on those who smoke marijuana daily, hourly and the initial results mirror those who smoke cigarettes. I guess somebody realized it was time to do studies on this group to get a good indicator. I will say, I have two friends who have smoked Medicinal Marijuana 5 years and 7 years. They smoke daily, and both, have been diagnosed with Lung Cancer. Neither of them ever smoked cigarettes and neither was smoking marijuana for cancer, but rather other ailments. Makes you wonder, we used one medicine to create another issue; just like we consistently see in side affects of pharmaceutical drugs.
The 2nd issue; Marijuana smoke was placed on California's Prop 65 Carcinogen List in July of 2009, right there with cigarettes. In short, marijuana smoking is banned in all places cigarette smoking is banned. Further, this is having a huge impact in multi-unit dwellings. There are 17 CA cities which have banned smoking in multi-unit dwellings; including in the owner/renters unit. These laws cover ALL smoking, and have withstood legal challenges in several state & US district courts. This was a can of worms I actually spoke about at a seminar when the state legalize marijuana. Condo Associations and Apartment landlords are banning it because they are legally responsible to mediate odor/smoke passing through walls since they own the internal common area. Non-smokers have been filing suits, and so far from the research my complex has done, every non-smoker in the US who has sued on this aspect has prevailed.
The short of it is, courts have ruled those with medicinal marijuana are NOT a protected class; the non-smoker is. Thus, to ban it is not a violation of the ADA or medical disability laws. Once again, people didn't want to hear this when legalization was being discussed.
As I said, I support medicinal marijuana, but folks should be prepared, you won't be free to light up just anywhere.
I love this. We have a house across the street which received final Notice of Abatement (Tear it down) by the SF Dept of Building Inspection in 2006. It still stands, no stairs, broken windows, etc. I contacted the assigned inspector several times, no response. I wrote my district sup about it, no response. We wrote the Mayor's office, no response. All this, after these entities stressed the "Report This" program to residents to report dilapidated structures.
There are facts that seem to always escape the press, let alone the Board of Sups/Mayor and general residents of SF. Under state law, capital improvements can be passed onto the tenants. Landlords do it all the time for such repairs as new roof, siding, windows, plumbing/electrical upgrades. The city requires notification to the tenants if they have to relocate for any period of time. Regardless of what the Tenants groups think, the City's Rent Control Ordinance does NOT trump state law when it comes to Capital Improvements.
I use to live in an old 20-unit complex where the owner replaced the roof and converted to low-flow toilets (long before they were required). He then asked the tenants if there was anything we wanted. We all wanted a pool heater to use the pool more regularly, the mailboxes panel brought from outside to the lobby and an intercom system. He did it all. We paid for the project over 10 years, in creased rent to each unit was $39/mo. Personally, none of us had an issue with it, and it was great he asked our input.
There is a middle ground to this. Landlords can get construction loans, that become term loans after the project is done. Which means, most lenders will opt to provide 7 year or 10 year financing, so the owner doesn't have to pay all at once. By doing this, is spreads the hit to tenants over a longer period. Additionally, the owner should be counted as a participate. So, if 10 units, the bill is split 11 ways. What is not explained to many renters, and ALL renters should know this, once the loan amortizes (the 7 or 10 years has elapsed), your rent must then be reduced by that amount which it was increased for the capital improvement. So, for current renters, if you ever had a Capital Improvement pass-through, be sure to stay on top of the end date.
Note: I'm a owner of a 1bedroom condo now (well, actually the bank owns it), but I know a lot of renters and have dealt in Landlord/Tenant law. So, here's the note. Most tenants should be very watchful of your rent increases; especially those falling under rent control. Your rent increase (the %) can only be calculated using the base amount you began your rent at. Example, you rent a place, years ago, starting at $1,100. If rent control. Over the years, your rent is now $1,456. If you're under rent control, annually, the rent increase is about 1.4%. So, your rent increases over the years, should be based on 1.4% of $1,100 or $15.40. Many landlords will take the initial rent, then add rent increase, and apply the 1.4% to the new rent amount, not the base. So, if you're paying $1,456 now and it's 1.4%, the increase would be $20.38 when it should only be the same $15.40 Most tenants overlook this, and boy do landlords, especially management companies, get peeved when you figure it out.
Truth is, when the quake stuff, doesn't matter what the City passes, a landlord can do the work and pass it to the tenant under state law. Yet, if a landlord wants to maintain good tenants and keep the place rented, do a standard loan as I outlined above, work with the tenants and make your tenants and property more safe.
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation