October 22, 2007
More Yes-On-A Merriment
Harvey Milk Club President Brian Basinger addressed the crowd at today's rally in the Castro. Supervisor Aaron Peskin, Senator Carole Migden, and Supervisor Bevan Dufty also spoke out to support Prop A and oppose Prop H.
Sadly, and to the best of our knowledge, Mecke wasn't there, thus no sun-kissed shots of Quintin.
For more info, visit Transit Not Traffic.
Image credit: anonymous
| Advertisement: SFist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
I still worry that they're not telling us to vote No on H enough .... All the effort to pass A could be for folks who would vote Yeah for it anyway, whereas I'm guessing there are a lot more folks who are undecided on H and may decide that voting Yes on H coincides with voting No on A for whatever reason (maybe they've had bad experiences with MUNi employees, I don't know).
I still worry that Gavin Newsom, who claims to oppose Prop H (and support A), won't lift a single finger to help. I predict he will show up in the last week of voting and posture, as though he's been on our side all along (with Don Fisher's permission after enough of absentees have been submitted and polling permits).
Environmentalists won the SF Freeway Battles decades ago because of leadership from City Hall. Gavin's endless pro-environmental rhetoric seems to come to a halt whenever we really need him. Seriously, with $2 million in the bank and no opposition this coward can't make it to a single fundraiser or rally?
All of the greenwashed photo ops in the world won't undo the damage that will occur if Newsom stays on the sidelines and allows Don Fisher to kill SF's Transit First Policies with Prop H.
Gavin Newsom, your silence is deafening.
Gavin Newsom is a do nothing impotent (other than fucking is friends wives) mayor
Why can't we have a real mayor like Bloomberg?
Ted,
If you keep complaining about Newsom wasting time on your pet projects I'll vote for H just to spite you. And get ten of my too-dumb-to- read-the-initiatives-but-vote-anyway friends to do the same. Of all the things I wish our Mayor would do this is the least of them.
Chris,
Your friends sound like real winners. Definitely give me a heads up if you ever have a party... I'd like to meet them.
Curious to hear whats on the list of "things you want you the Mayor to do". How high on that list is "play quarters with you and your buddies on Chestnut Street"?
From my understanding, the Mayor originally supported A.
When the clause locking parking ratios to the 7/2007 levels was added at the last minute he pulled his support. That clause is a poison pill that has stirred much oposition. For example the Examiner and Chronicle are against A, as are many neighborhood groups.
You can come to the party Ted, but leave your messenger bag and little cute black glasses at home. Oh, and brush your hair first.
But if I leave my messenger bag at home, how will I carry my iphone, my cigarettes, and my arm warmers.
As I see it both are pretty flawed.
The city clearly needs more parking. I need a car sometimes and it's pretty damn hard to find a place to put it even when I'm at home. Forget about actually driving someplace else in the city. It's simply idiotic to drive in the city not because of traffic (which, admittedly, is terrible) but because once I get where I'm going I know I won't ever be able to find someplace to put it.
Prop H doesn't really solve this problem and it has tons and tons of loopholes. Likewise it seems to only be interested in being able to put in larger garages for luxury condos over in SoMa and South Beach so they can charge even more ludicrous prices for dwellings that don't address the problems with housing in this city, but only make them worse.
Ok, so I can't drive in this city and I can't park my car at home. The other problem is that Muni is a complete failure. I mean, if I can't drive I should at least be able to take the bus, right?
Prop A, however, seems more focused on saying how terrible cars are. It's a bit of a mish-mash of ideas and has a number of worrying flaws in it. It reduces budget oversight for the MTA while giving them a larger budget (yes, more money for Muni sounds great, but it doesn't seem like their track record is all that great for using it effectively), it unnecessarily jacks up driver wages while not improving their accountability, it gives them far too great of power to incur debt by not requiring voter approval, it apparently (though I haven't studied it deeply) has potential problems for how taxi medallions are regulated. I worry personally about the fact that it will give them the ability to raise fines and fees while also putting all of the money raised from those fees directly into their own pocket and the possibility that this might be used inappropriately.
I think it has some good points though. Consolidating management of all aspects of transit both public and private makes sense and seems likely to improve how things are managed. It seems that there might be greater accountability for managers and supervisors. Assuming they manage to use it wisely more money for Muni might allow them to fix some of the glaring problems they're having due to lack of parts, maintenance, and insufficient rolling stock.
I'm on the fence about it with a slight urge to vote in favor because reform is needed, but I'm worried that it will have more potential to harm than help.
We really need to stop putting issues in context of cars vs. transit and admit that both are relevant and both have the right to exist effectively. I suspect that the vast majority of citizens use both and we ought to encourage them to instead be used in appropriate situations.
Right now the only reliable and functional means of transit in the city is walking and that really doesn't cut it. Sadly both bills seem to do more to divide the issue than to help it.