SF's 10 Cent Restaurant Take-Out Bag Ordinance - Another Stupid Law from Your City Government

The San Francisco city government is going to regret this...

Starting this Tuesday, October 1, 2013, a city ordinance will now require all food establishments to stop giving out plastic bags, and all delivery and take-out bags will cost a minimum of 10 cents each.

Due to the end of plastic bags, food establishments can only give out: paper bags with a minimum 40% post recycled user content (most commonly used), compostable plastic bag, or a washable checkout bag that can be used more than 125 times (e.g. cloth bag).

But there are a few exceptions that has no ten cent charge that I'll highlight: Bags for things like bulk foods, candy, and to serve popcorn are exempt.  A bag used to contain seafood, meat, and frozen items.  A plastic bag is acceptable to seal items to prevent damage, mostly liquid items like soups and curries.  Lastly, there is no fee if you receive a doggy bag for your leftover food.

It Hurts Businesses
What does this mean for our city's restaurant establishments?  For those that has mostly dine-in patrons, the law won't impact them as badly because as I stated before, a doggy bag for leftovers is free.

But for those whose business is a majority of take-out, delivery, owns a bakery, or a fast food establishment, this bag law will be a problem.  It casts a negative aspect that every time a patron comes to order a meal, they will be forced to surrender an extra ten cents, by law, just so they can bring it in their office or bring it home to feed their family.

I'm predicting that if the ten cent bag law casts huge negative attention, people will stop going to establishments that exclusively depends on giving customers a bag to take their food items, baked goods, and their burger.  And what does that mean to everybody?  Businesses will lose their loyal customers, businesses will lose profits, the city and state will have less tax revenue to receive, and with less tax money coming in, less money can be spent by the government for the services used by the public.

Fast Food Restaurants Will Take a Hit
Take a look at McDonalds and Burger King, a majority of their restaurant patrons take it to-go.  I feel a lot of patrons will be grumpy that they are forced with the choice of eating-in (if they have the time), bringing their own bag which will then get all greasy and sticky, or fork over the ten cents in the name of greedy city government stupidvisors.

The 10 Cent Bag Law when comparing a Restaurant versus Grocery Store
When you compare food establishments versus grocery stores, there's a big difference with the 10 cent bag law.  At least when you buy groceries, bringing your own bag is fine because the products you buy are unlikely going to leak or stink up your bag.  But if you buy hot food items from a restaurant, bringing your own bag is a horrible idea because the smell of the food might stay into the fabrics, it might leak and make a greasy or sticky mess, and in the long run, reusable bags means after a small amount of use, people will likely throw it away and not wash it.

Akit's Opinions
I don't like the idea of forcing a 10 cent bag law on food establishments.  Restaurants that heavily depend on deliveries and take-out will get hurt the most.  Some of you might say it's just ten cents, but for someone like me who doesn't always have money to burn, I might as well get my take-out dinners from Daly City since I work not far at SF State.

I am a Terrible Human Being - I Paid for Paper Grocery Bags

Remember that time I said I hated San Francisco's new paper bag law that banned plastic bags, and forces all customers to pay ten cents for each paper bag when checking-out?

Since October 1, 2012, I've been a good puppy, obeying my government masters by bringing my own reusable grocery bags to the store.

Bad Akit!  Bad!

Now it's June 2nd, 2013 (eight months later) and I've been a bad dog; I pooped on the Mayor Ed Lee's carpet and got hit with a newspaper.

I finally had to cave in and purchase not just one... but three paper grocery bags at ten cents a piece.  I usually have tons of bags in my trunk, but I emptied my trunk so I can pick-up my co-workers from the airport, and they have a lot of luggage.

Mother Nature is pissed and it looks like I'm going to hell.

Hello, Board of Supervisors? I think your 10 cent bag fee is stupid.

Now that I have three paper bags that I can't return to get back my 30 cents, what am I going to do with them?  I could punch a few holes and put a frowny face on it... perfect!  I'll wear it at the next Board of Supervisors meeting.

Paper bag head photo by Mark Sebastian, using a Creative Commons License.

Ex-SF Supervisor Ed Jew to be Released from Prison One Year From Today - Then Goes Directly to Jail

San Francisco's favorite moron, old friend, despicable extortionist, ex-San Francisco Supervisor, convicted felon, and federal prisoner #94086-111, Ed Jew will be released from federal prison exactly one year from today.

The Federal Conviction
He was sentenced to 64 months in federal prison when he pleaded guilty in federal court for a charge of bribery, mail fraud and extortion when he attempted to shake the the Quickly drink chain stores experiencing permit problems and asked for Ed's help.

When the folks at Quickly learned Ed was attempting to extort the beverage chain of tens of thousands of dollars for "assistance," they contacted the FBI.  The feds set up a sting operation by providing the money and video recording Ed counting his cash at his flower shop in Chinatown.  View the KGO Channel Seven video of him caught in the act.

While the prosecutors asked for a two year sentence, the judge threw the book at Ed and gave him a five year and four month sentence with a $10,000 fine.  If you didn't know, the federal prison system doesn't have parole, unlike California, so Ed has to serve his full term.  There is the possibility he may only need to serve 85% of his federal sentence for good behavior, which means a 54.4 month sentence, therefore he could be released in just three months.

Ed Isn't Free after Federal Prison
But, while Ed is being released from federal lockup in a year or less, he's going straight to the SF county jail as he was also sentenced to one year of jail, three years of probation and a $2,000 fine from the state criminal courthouse.

He took a plea deal that dropped eight of nine felony charges to just one for perjury for lying about his residency.  What happened is Ed was elected to represent the Sunset District by claiming he lived in the neighborhood, but city investigators found out the house he was allegedly living in had barely any usage of gas, electricity, and garbage service.  He admitted in open court prior to being sentenced that he lived in Burlingame when elected.

Ed abused the media by constantly lying and twisting the story, even doing a press segment in front of his "home" in the Sunset district.  But a stupid stunt Ed did was when a warrant for his arrest was issued by D.A. Kamala Harris, he surrendered to Burlingame police, instead of San Francisco.  The other city supervisors and politicians had enough of his antics.  Ed resigned on January 10, 2008 as part of a deal with the city to not be civilly prosecuted and face the Ethics Commission.

But, Ed may be released in eight months depending on behavior and any time he has held in lockup prior to conviction.

From a man who owned a flower shop, extorts a tapioca drink chain and lied about his residency, to becoming a felon spending good times in prison eating mushy carrots, to being a freed convict with felonies on his rap sheet; he's going to have a fun time working as a sub-contractor janitor in City Hall, removing trash from his former office.

Creative Ways to Flout SF's 10 Cent Shopping Checkout Bag Law

As I feel the 10 cent retail checkout bag is totally evil and it gained some notoriety on SFist, I was thinking of ways that storekeepers and citizens can give the finger to the city by beating the law their own way.

If you recall the so-called "Happy Meal Toy Ban" that's being enforced by the city, the law stated that a toy cannot be given to free for kids meals if it doesn't meet strict nutritional requirements.  The fast food establishments decided to say "shove it [up your ass]" to the city government by still giving out the toys, with a small ten cent charge for the toy when a meal is purchased.  Basically, the law was practically useless.

When I wrote the blog entry about the toy ban, I said that charging the toy item as a separate fee is very legal.  If the city said no hash browns could be given for free in your meal, the store just reduces the meal by a dollar, and charges a side hash brown as a separate item for a dollar, therefore the cost difference is the same and the law is useless.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and will not be held legally responsible if you get you caught by city officials.  You are responsible for your own actions.  Consult with legal council before you take-on any of the "suggestions" I've provided.

Store owners - How to flout SF's 10 cent bag law or flick-off the city government:

1. If you have the work force, go into the store parking lots and give away free grocery bags as a "random prize" for being a loyal customer.
2. If you go to fairs, they always have those spin wheels for people to win little prizes like flashlights; that's all perfectly legal, so why not just spin the wheel at a grocery store and every space is a prize of a free shopping bag?
3. Instead of recycling those boxes you dump out after shipments, why not give customers a free box?  It's not a bag, it's a box!
4. Give out coupons to your customers or use a store loyalty card: Ten cents off your grocery bill for every visit at the register (just don't mention the word "bag" on the promo). 
5. Encourage people to recycle their cans: Install a recycling machine, for every two cans, you get a paper bag.
6. Have a non-employee or a homeless dude stand outside the store and sell bags for a nickel, or install an old newspaper machine and sell them for a nickel.
7. Make the 10 cent fee a "feel good" proposition: Every bag we sell goes to raising enough money to get the ban the 10 cent law on the ballot.  Or if you want to get cute: Get a bag, we'll donate 10 cents to AIDS research (bring your own bag, and you don't like AIDS research?)
8. Open a Speakeasy on shopping bags, gotta know the secret knock at the customer service counter and they'll sneak a bag from under the counter.
9. During the holidays, do "free gift wrapping" but it also comes with a bow that doubles as a handle.
10. For large items, just get those adhesive stick-on handles.  Makes carrying items easier and there's no 10 cent fee.
11. Give out a punch card (or use one of those punch-card phone apps): For every ten bags you purchase, you get $1 store credit.

Daly City, I still love your free bags.

Citizens: How to make the 10 cent bag law a big joke:

1. Go shop on state or federal property and don't pay the fee (I'm buying my postcards at Hyde Street Pier, National Park Service property).  Just like the fois gras ban was limited to state law, people could go to Native American reservations and federal property for their fix as it's legal.
2. Go shop outside of city/county lines.  Mayor Ed Lee will wonder why there's a drop in local sales tax money.
3. Pay the cashier exact change for the products, but charge the 10 cents on your credit card.
4. Bring a garbage bag to the check-out line.  Don't worry, it's a Hefty!
5. As per Twitter user WagonMoster: "I have closet full of plastic shopping bags, I'm now going to use those when I shop, just so I can get dirty looks.
6. Buy dirty videos and magazines, but refuse to pay for the bag.  Carry them around with you while you get stared upon for being a pervert, but explain to people that you refuse to pay the 10 cent bag fee, and maybe get some pity while they give you a newspaper to wrap that stuff up.

SF's 10 Cent Checkout Bag Ordinance - It's Stupid & Let's Repeal It

Why I shop in Daly City, SF continues to suck ass.

Starting on Monday, October 1, 2012, a revised city ordinance will change the way we shop and purchase items in San Francisco.

All plastic bags issued by all San Francisco retail establishments will be banned and will only be allowed to give out paper and reusable bags.  The law also requires a minimum ten cent charge per bag given to the customer.

The money collected by the vendors for the bags will be kept for their establishments to compensate for the higher cost of paper bags; none of the money collected will be given to the city.

Fines for non-compliance of the no plastic bag rule and failure to charge a minimum of ten cents per bag will range from $100 to $500 per violation.

On the other hand, restaurants in the city can still issue plastic bags with no fees attached until the ordinance affecting them will kick-in on October 1, 2013.

People can avoid paying the minimum 10 cent per bag charge if they bring their own bag, or do it Costco style by not taking a bag and just stuffing it in their coat pockets.  Those using WIC or Food Stamps are exempt from the 10 cent per bag fee.

Akit's Opinions
I personally think the 10 cent minimum charge per paper or reusable bag law sucks big time.  Why force retailers to charge a ten cent fee when establishments should be making their own choice?  As the city doesn't collect any money from the 10 cent minimum policy, establishments can just decide to absorb the cost or slightly raise the cost per item to compensate for the mandatory use of paper bags.  In the past, IKEA decided to charge for every plastic bag at the checkout, but was not forced with a gun by local city governments to charge a mandatory fee, they did it independently and it worked.  People decided to leave the individual items in their carts (like what many do at Costco) or buy one of their 99 cent huge bags.

The other problem I hate about the 10 cent minimum charge is being told to carry my own bags.  That's fine for me when I drive my car to go shopping as I carry a variety of bags in my trunk for big and small things.  But how about those times I may take the bus and I see in the store window something I like?  Do I carry bags in my coat pocket?  No.  There's no room in my pockets as I have other items like a tissue packet, hand sanitizer, and my glasses case.

It makes practical sense to eliminate plastic bag usage, but sometimes plastic is better than paper; for example, when the ban goes into affect for restaurants, paper bags are not the best item to hold hot food.  When the city banned styrofoam food containers, the new paper containers did not work great on items like steamed rice, spaghetti, and anything that uses some kind of sauce like gravy or curry on rice; the container would get so soggy, you could poke a finger into the container.

I've lived here in San Francisco my entire life and will continue to do so, but I'm getting real tired of the city government and it's Board of Stupidvisors turning us into a nanny state telling us what aspects of our lives should be good and bad.  We had clowns pass a law saying that kids toys can't be free in their fast food meals, and now we're forced to pay a fee for every single shopping bag?

I'll be happy to do one of two things: Vote for any city supervisor candidate who will repeal the 10 cent minimum charge law, or get it repealed by getting it on the ballot.  Angry citizens should unite together and lets kick this city's government's ass.

And while I'm angry, I don't mind continuing to shop in Daly City and Colma, San Mateo County is happy to accept my sales tax money and doesn't have a stupid 10 cent bag charge.

For information about the new ordinance: http://sfenvironment.org/article/prevent-waste/checkout-bag-ordinance

Baby Stroller Policy on Muni - No Bulky & Unfoldable Strollers

First of all, happy Friday to everyone on this gorgeous day here in San Francisco. I hope your Easter weekend will go well.

A person on Twitter asked for my views on the possible change in the baby stroller policy for Muni:

@AgentAkit I'd love to see your response to this sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/04/04/2-s…

— Dori (@creativecstasy) April 6, 2012

Currently, drivers have the discretion to allow or not allow strollers on their vehicles, and when a passenger is denied boarding, that has created some frustration.

Current policy requires the child to be removed from the stroller and for the stroller to be folded-up. But with the new bigger, strollers that don't fold, and ones that do but takes up too much space, it seems drivers are booting more families from Muni vehicles on a more frequent basis.

Two city Supervisors believes this problem is discouraging families to ride public transit, therefore the decline in the number of children in our city.

What do I think about this?
I don’t agree with a universal city policy that a driver has to enforce, I believe independent judgment by the driver is the best policy because it’s the operators that have the ultimate responsibility to make sure all passengers are safe.

There’s multiple concerns with allowing strollers to ride Muni:

• Safety of the baby or toddler in the stroller. Strollers may move during motion of the vehicle, therefore if a driver has to slam their brake, the baby could fly out of the stroller.
• Some of you may be thinking, why not give them the wheelchair space? That’s a bad idea because that space is reserved for a wheelchair passenger, and those wheelchair areas take up three or four seats for passengers; should a stroller get the wheelchair spot? No because it takes up extra seats.
• Wheelchairs do have a designated spot by federal law, and all buses have straps to secure the wheelchair, but while Muni does not regularly do it, other agencies do as policy to secure both wheels with special hooks attached to the floor, have the wheelchair brakes locked in, and a seat belt around their waist. Strollers don’t have the ability because the seat belt might go around their neck, and the hooks on the ground may not be able to safely secure the stroller.
• Wheelchair lifts and ramps for streetcars are definitely not for strollers, they are for people who are disabled or have limited mobility.

My biggest concern:
The “SUV” carriages we see with the larger rubber wheels and bigger frames takes up too much space on Muni and removes precious aisle space for those who needs to stand or pass by to board/exit the vehicle. Ones that can’t fold takes up too much space and should be banned, but even the ones that can fold and still take a huge amount of bulk should be banned too.

As a courtesy to passengers, it’s discouraged to bring huge bulky items on Muni (for the exception of medical devices like wheelchairs, and walkers). You know what I’m talking about, garbage bags full of cans, and suitcases. If you want to transport bulky items, call a taxi or drive.

The exception:
I don’t have a concern for strollers that fold and takes a minimal amount of space because they fold up so compactly, similar to carrying a poster tube.

Photo credits:
First photo by Flickr user: Paul Barter, using a Creative Commons License.
Second photo by Flickr user: 'andynash,' using a Creative Commons License.

San Francisco's City Government at its "Best" - McDonald's Toy Ban

So our Board of Supervisors (or what I call the Stupidvisors) approved a law where fast food restaurants that serves higher than a set standard on fat, sugar, and other content, cannot give away free toys with their meals. Basically, the is targeting the McDonald's "Happy Meal," but can also affect other fast food chains in the city as well.

But from what this article from the Chronicle says, the owner of a majority of the McDonald's in the city found a creative way to go around it, just have the toy sold as a separate item.

I've known that this law is a joke from the start. Instead of selling a $5 Happy Meal with a free toy, just sell the meal itself for $4.99 and charge the customer an additional one cent to "purchase" the toy." In the end, it's still $5 for the meal and the toy.

Here's another way to look at the argument: Let's say buying a pack of cigarettes comes with a pack of matches free; a city law similar to the Happy Meal toy ban makes it illegal to give away the matches for free, so therefore a business can easily just "sell" the matches for a penny. If the law was different where selling matches was banned, then one can argue in court that a cake shop can't sell them too so customers can light birthday candles on their cake.

So Board of Supervisors... what's the point of the "ban" on giveaway toys in kids meals, when the way around it is so simple? Is this just a way to encourage us San Francisco citizens to go across the border into Daly City (San Mateo County) and pay a smaller sales tax?

New Muni Service Cuts in May - Akit Reminds Muni how they Failed Before

I'm a pretty well informed citizen of San Francisco. I read the news from various sources and keep up-to-date on my tweets; it's sad to see that our public transit agency wants to take a step backward in the wrong direction to hurt not just their customers, but send their overall reputation further down the grave that we call the "Central Subway."

I've heard word that there was a last minute long shot appeal to see if an environmental review was necessary to give the "10%" cut in services on Muni, yet I had a gut feeling that it wasn't going to go well; I was right, the board kicked it to the curb with a 7-4 vote.

What makes me even more frustrated is just how soon the "10%" cuts will actually happen. SF Weekly claims it will start May 1st, and the SF Gate's City Insider says May 8th; but regardless of what date it may be, May will be the worst in Muni's history.

How can Muni decide to take drastic cuts with so little notice? Does less than 17 days notice actually give Muni the balls to pull off a massive PR campaign to inform the public of their beloved transit service going to make drastic cuts?

Let me refresh Muni's memory on some blog entries that gained major attention for FAILURE TO PROVIDE AMPLE NOTICE:

1. When Muni announced their so-called 10% cuts at their board meeting, they specifically targeted the 18-46th Avenue in a showboat attempt to say that service will be reduced from 20 minutes to a whopping 30 minutes mid-day, evenings, and weekends. I wrote a very serious in-depth analysis on why it was not fair to discriminate the 18-46th Avenue with 33% cuts while others are getting less than 10%.
2. The most recent cuts happened on December 5, 2009, and I reported on November 24th that Muni has not made an effort to provide new published bus/train schedules in a timely manner and online planning programs were also not ready. This story alone spread like wildfire and it really caught Muni's attention very quickly.
3. On November 26th, two days after I reported the failure of map planning programs, Google Maps was ready.
4. On December 1st, just a few days away from the major changes, 511's online trip planner program was updated with Muni's changes, but there was no time schedules posted.
5. I also gave a brutal punishing to Muni for failure to provide ample notice of an adult pass hike that was scheduled for January 1st. On November 5, 2009, I argued it was not fair to give such late notice of a pass hike because it would affect people who need to update their payroll deduction for their commuter benefits program. Just few days later (November 8th), I caught Muni in the act of updating their website about the pass hike.

This is a serious warning to Muni management, do not make service cuts without giving the public ample notice. One month's notice is barely acceptable, but with only 17 days left until the new month, that's not enough time to publish a new schedule, and not enough time for the techies at Google and 511 to input the new data into their trip planning program.

You've already screwed-up December 5th's cuts, so why should be trust you to get the time schedules and trip planning software updates in a timely manner? This is especially true for me, the 18-46th Avenue passenger whose going to have to get the worst punishment while others who ride major lines may not even notice much of a difference.

Update:
Here's an additional posting showing evidence of Muni's PR failure: The PGA golf tournament at Harding Park where Muni only gave the public one day's notice of major bus re-routes for the 18-46th Avenue and (the former) 88-BART Shuttle. And even then, I did all the research and posted it faster than 511's alerts page.

SF Supervisor Chris Daly to use F-word at Every Board Meeting

San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly may be known as a wild man for stirring up some controversy from time to time at the Board of Supervisors meetings. Who would have ever believed that his first public meeting for this year (Board of Supervisors Rules Committee), he would commit to something totally outrageous?

Yes folks, Chris Daly promises you, the public, some first class entertainment. He promises to use the "F-word" in every single meeting.

Here's a direct quote from 1/7/10's meeting:
"I just updated my Facebook status update, vowing that in 2009 I will use the word f**k in uh, every Board of Supervisors meetings; my apologies. [Audience member applauds]"

(I think he meant 2010, I screw that up at my job on occasion)

--------------------

Hey Daly, keep stirring the controversy pot. The city's pants has fallen down and the underwear is next. Good for you to stir up some attention by providing a belt and suspenders (a.k.a. the f-word).

Maybe more people will now watch SF Government TV on a regular basis and make pool bets on what time he's going to swear.

Daly for Mayor? I want to be Mayor and say out loud on a microphone in front of city hall: "Muni is f**ked up!"

To watch an UNCENSORED clip of Daly's vow to swearing, click here.

Photo from Flickr user "geekstinkbreath" using a Creative Commons License.

Your Muni fare hike is paying: $3,000 bonuses to Operators. Try complaining to the Board, nope!

Everyone knows by now... Muni is a total piece of garbage and is way underfunded. They cut services, raise the cash fare, and raise our pass prices to up to $70 a month? This is a "transit first city" Newsom?

But wait... there's more! KPIX reports that all Muni operators just received a $3,000 bonus from the agency. The report shows that in three years, the agency has paid $18 million in bonuses (or if you were to break it down, it would be $6 million per year).

Really? $3,000 bonus for an agency with 25% absent rate for work on Christmas eve? I work for SF State and my salary doesn't include any bonus; just a nice thank you from my supervisors for a job well done.

OK, so the public is angry about our agency going wild; what can we do about it?

Well... nothing much. It's perfect timing for Muni to hand out $3,000 bonus checks because both the Board of Supervisors AND SFMTA board are on RECESS. The next BOS meeting is on January 5th and the SFMTA board schedule is not even posted for 2010 (hell, they didn't have a meeting since December 7th).

Citizens of San Francisco and the Bay Area who rides Muni, it is time to REVOLT. Demand the resignation of Mayor Newsom, SFMTA Chief Nat Ford, and union leader Irwin Lum.

Has Muni Hit Rock Bottom?

Here's a good question for everyone, has San Francisco's Muni hit rock bottom?

If you are wondering... "why are you asking this Akit?" I'm concerned about the state of our public transportation system. It's been in such a decline for nearly a decade, ever since the infamous "meltdown" on the Muni metro system and immediately spreads to the rest of the agency's bus lines.

The meltdown was a sign of big anger for the city, and the head guy at that time came under fire. Mayor Willie Brown promised to fix Muni, but that didn't last. Even our previous mayor (before Brown), Frank Jordan came under fire for eliminating transfers and raising the cost of a fast pass.

But it looks like under the Gavin Newsom era, things don't seem to be going in the right path for our transit agency.

Take a look at the list of items that I believe have made Muni simply hit rock bottom:

1. Passenger injuries are creating crazy settlements. I just witnessed one recently at West Portal inbound when a lady injured her ankle upon boarding the train because the driver forgot to raise the stairs.
2. More frequently broken-down buses. If you ride a bus line with a 20 minute or 30 minute headway and it doesn't show-up due to a breakdown, you'd be pissed that you would have to wait much longer.
3. Muni metro is a total insult to our city. It's almost every single day that there's some kind of problem with the light rail system.
4. Letting NIMBYs get their way, like the folks on Union who didn't want articulated buses in their neighborhood, even though it's a fact that the bus line is at crush loads on the regular 40-foot buses.
5. More violence on the vehicles. A kid stabbed and no video footage? A fight that got over 500,000 views in 48 hours?
6. What happened to preventative maintenance?
   
7. More graffiti, and some of the places they graffiti is impossible to remove.
   
8. Bad passengers who really need a swift boot up their ass. You don't have the right to hog three seats with your legs or clip your nails in public.
9. Transit bus drivers that should have been fired a long time ago.
10. A really messed-up union. They tried to file an injunction against KGO-TV from letting them get public records on driver complaints.
    

What does it take in this city to get Muni on the brighter end? The New York Subway system gained an infamous reputation for its graffiti, broken down trains, and nearly on the verge of collapse in the 1980's. This was because the government didn't invest in the trains and money was being funneled towards freeways and bridges for cars. But look at New York now, they have a clean and well operated transit system with tons of police. It's like Muni is the 1980's version of the New York subway.

It's time for San Francisco to reinvest in it's public transportation system NOW. Saying there's "no money" is never an excuse; an easy way to get money is by simply firing the top brass of Muni and hiring new folks at much less pay.

No more grocery store bags? This has gone too far

I need to admit to an error; as Brittney Gilbert pointed out, it was not a ban on paper bags, it's a ordinance to have all stores give a small credit to shoppers who bring their own. While I admit to this mistake, I am not editing the portion below; I feel that it is important to show that there is the possibility the city may try to ban paper bags in the future, but encouraging stores to give a credit is the first step in a possible ban.

--------------------

There's nothing worse than hearing in the Chronicle that San Francisco's Board of Supervisors wants to go further in their banning of free bags being handed out at grocery stores, major drugstores, and other places that makes over a certain limit in profits per year.

Sure, banning plastic bags is a good idea because they cause a lot of harm when thrown away; but it has been demonstrated that when grocery stores collect used plastic bags, they can be used to make helpful items like benches. There's a bench made out of recycled plastic shopping bags at the Lucky supermarket at Lakeshore Plaza at the left entrance.

There's the new "green" plastic bags that claim to be recyclable and can be thrown in compost; but the bags sure feel like just regular plastic bags, but are sometimes not compatible with specific policies about recycling, depending on which city or county you live in.

While San Francisco has the longest list of items that can be recycled or composted, like any plastic item with a numbered symbol and even plastic forks; plastic bags are truly the gray zone of what can be recycled/composted or not, and neither has the city really made it clear to us what is OK and what is not. I would assume that the bags made from corn are OK to compost, but even I'm confused.

But how about now? Supervisor Ross wants to ban paper bags? How low can this city really go? How can you ban the essential item that helps us carry multiple items around on the bus or up the long flight of stairs? Do you expect every citizen of this city to carry a reusable bag in their pocket wherever they go, even in situations where you forgot to get the groceries, and now you have to carry it all in your hands or buy a $2 sack? At least paper bags are accepted everywhere to be recycled and they can always be re-used for helpful purposes, from making textbook covers to neatly packing newspaper for recycling (this was an old policy by the garbage company when we all received little blue bins).

In one point of view, if the city enforced a no-bag policy at the places that currently are using the no plastic bag rule, it may be considered the death of supermarkets, pharmacies, and drug stores. It may be a boon for the little markets like in Chinatown where the red colored bag is standard (maybe good luck?), but don't expect a happy corporation to stay in our city, or local citizens grumpy enough that now they have to pick-up their dog poop in a paper bag that may leak.

I have to ask myself, isn't there more important things the city should handle than debating over what type of bag we should be using for shopping? Muni is still not fixed, we've got a lame duck mayor, and surely the homeless problem is getting worse.

It's time to start shopping in Daly City; home to the words "paper or plastic" and styrofoam. Hell, my workplace is less than a mile from the border and just an extra half-mile to Westlake.

The sorting garbage law absurdity of San Francisco - Makes me want to move to Daly City

Remember the slogans I posted here a year ago? Here's why I would move to Daly City:

• "We still use plastic bags and styrofoam boxes."
• "Lower sales tax rate and we've got TARGET!"

We can add to the list for literally any city other than San Francisco: "at least I don't have to sort my trash without a garbage company rat reporting to the city government." (News stories at SFist and Chronicle).

Can I just say, I really hate the way our city operates. We now have this new law that if we don't sort our trash correctly, we will get fined. What the hell is this bullshit? Why does this city need to be some kind of "nanny state?"

Sure, I'm proud this city has the highest recycling rate in the country as it sets a good example for other cities and towns to do the same, but now making it a law to tell people to do it or be fined with $100 fines is total crap.

So like... what's the standard to get a damn citation?

• Finding one piece of paper in a garbage bin full of legitimate trash in the black bin?
• Finding a non-greasy pizza box in the compost bin?
• Finding a plastic fork in the garbage bin?
  

What happens if your neighbor wants to seek revenge or some random person on the street dumps the wrong items in the trash? Is this city going to have to buy every citizen a padlock to secure their three garbage bins?

Isn't torturing us citizens with the ban on styrofoam and plastic bags at the grocery store enough? Sheesh.

We are Officially Screwed - Thanks SF Muni and SFMTA

Start the countdown you pissed off citizens...

The $2 bus fare is now official!

The Board of Supervisors did not have enough votes to reject the SFMTA budget (we were that close to giving the finger to Muni) and the first changes will happen at the start of the 2009-2010 fiscal year (July 1, 2009).

We know the fare hike will happen, but it's a little mysterious what and when bus line cuts and modifications will happen. July 1st? That might be a quick shocker to the public.

Strangely, while KPIX doesn't have any info about the official cuts/modifications to the bus and metro lines, SFAppeal reports that Muni "Kingpin" Nat Ford has found a way to increase service to the 14, 38, 44, 47, and 49 lines.

Based on what Nat Ford said... my blog has been targeting the elimination of the 38-Geary Ocean Beach branch; so what does this "increased service" do?
--Will it be a termination of the 38-Geary Ocean Beach branch and an increase in the 38-Geary Fort Miley branch?
--Or will it be the preservation of the 38-Geary Ocean Beach branch with no changes to the 18-46th Avenue?

I'm hoping for the second option.

Now the fare and pass hike is official, it's time for some action planning:

• If you have Muni token tickets, don't buy anymore and start using whatever you have left.
• If you use a commuter benefits program, talk to your HR representative or whoever handles that program and increase it so your voucher has enough to cover it. If you get a pass automatically in the mail, increase the deduction.
• Lastly, if you are finally fed-up with dumping coins and dollar bills in the farebox, get your butt on Translink. They also accept commuter benefits programs!
  

After the Muni Budget Deal - Fare Inspectors are Still a Major Waste of Taxpayer Money

In some developments last night, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the revised budget for SF Muni. That means $2 cash fares, and the end or modification of many lines on the system.

This looks like the bad old days when Mayor Frank Jordan got hated upon for hiking fares and wiping out transfers. In just a matter of months, the fares were back to normal and transfers flowed freely once again.

--------------------

But what caught my eye this morning while eating my breakfast at home: The Muni Fare Inspectors we all dislike.

In this CBS5/KPIX video, Phil Matier reports that Muni currently has a 46 member fare inspector force and wanted to hire an additional 47 more. After Muni did some deal making with the Board of Supervisors, Muni is now permitted to only hire 14 people.

So let me get this right, you are keeping the 46 people already hired and only cut back on hiring more people? Where does the keyword BUDGET come into mind for Muni? Muni should be doing a HIRING FREEZE on fare inspectors, not hiring more (regardless if it is a reduced number).

Even with 46 full-time fare inspectors right now, what a joke! They don't ride the buses, and all they do is monitor the metro system. 90% of their force are watching over the 9 subway stations and some of the outdoor platform stations. The remaining are typically at AT&T Park after the baseball games.

If Muni is deciding to cut bus lines that will impact the poor and the disabled, why the hell would you keep hiring more fare inspectors and retain your current staff?

Here's a short list of wasteful things our tax dollars spend on fare inspectors:

• I've seen four fare inspectors gang-up on a family of Japanese tourists at Powell Station.
• I've seen six inspectors at one metro platform.
  
• Working in pairs when really one person is just needed to issue the ticket.
  
• Fare inspectors just chit chatting on a metro platform.
• Fare inspectors like employee #32 threatening a photographer.
• Playing with their cell phones.
• Getting AT&T ballgame fans checked before boarding the platform, and getting checked AGAIN when leaving Embarcadero station. Once is fine enough.
  

I've mentioned it many times, Muni does not need fare inspectors to work in pairs; or, If they really want to make a useful force in pairs, they need to lay-off at least half of their force and replenish the loss with people without ticket issuing authority and willing to work for a simple wage without benefits (college students are perfect). An inspection of a metro train does not require two ticket issuing people, just one person who writes the tickets and the other non-ticket issuing authority person who simply checks on people.

Let's do some simple math:

• In one of my earlier postings, I calculated that an average each fare inspector writes in tickets is $9,844.64 in one year. Their annual salary is at least $30,000+ and does not include benefits. Actually, I was incorrect about their salary, they actually make between $52,000 and $64,000.
• If Muni cut half of its force and hired low wage college students to be non-ticket writing inspectors, the average for ticket writing fare inspectors would likely double, making each dollar Muni spends on fare enforcement worthwhile.

We the citizens always joke about Muni on a daily basis, but we would not be joking around if Muni took themselves much more seriously than the crap we the passengers face every single day. If we hired a general manager or CEO with some real street smarts for less than what Nat Ford makes ($300,000+), we'd have a much better transit system with a much smaller deficit.

$2 for Muni is Done, and Not Laying-Off Fare Inspectors?

Mornings on Two and SFgate reports that Muni has found a way to magically save $10.5 million from their original proposed cuts to the public transit service. The Board of Supervisors had the cards in their favor to possibly reject the SFMTA Board's proposal, but with some dealmaking behind closed doors, there is some glimmer of hope for Muni.

What sounds definite now after all this haggling at City Hall is we the passengers will still be paying the $2 adult cash fare effective July 1, 2009. For you people still carrying Muni token tickets, it's time to start frying them as fast as you can.

The adult fast pass will be raised to $55 on July 1st, and to $60 on January 1st (as originally proposed). Muni will terminate BART usage on January 1st, unless if passengers purchase the "premium" pass starting January 1st for an extra surcharge of $10.


On the really negative end...
SFMTA has agreed to increase parking enforcement hours that would normally end at 6PM and will now terminate at 8PM everyday. This is not a good thing for the local restaurants trying to stay afloat in this bad economy. Plus, will the meter maid's union agree to work this late? And just food for thought (sounds yummy!)... how much of a difference would 2 hours extra on the meter really make? Do the math: The number of meter maids on the street from 6PM to 8PM, multiply by two hours of their hourly wage, and subtract the revenue and extra maintenance costs on the meters (i.e. the change removal folks, battery replacement, etc.).

Route changes and cuts will still happen. SAVE THE 38-GEARY OCEAN BEACH BRANCH and DON'T CHANGE the 18-46th AVENUE.

Reducing the number of fare inspectors they were planning to hire. What kind of CRAP is this? How about don't hire any, and start laying-off half of that force? For the salary they make, they sure can't write enough tickets to make it a benefit to our city.

SFgate user ender_of_sf makes a good point about the fare inspectors:
"From what I've seen the fare inspectors are a joke. They roam in packs of two and three, and are more likely to be seen chatting together on Metro platforms (especially on rainy days) than issuing citations. It's not a bad concepts, but as usual with MUNI, poorly implemented."

SFgate user selwynator also makes a good argument:
"Wait a minute here.....how can NOT hiring more fare inspectors after this save MUNI money?"

This is a deal? Bull**** Board of Supervisors. I expected better.

Does San Francisco Need a Special Election?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering to raise taxes in order to fix the budget shortfall the city suffering through (like $576 million). But in order to pass some real serious taxes, the Board of Supervisors chose to have a special election. Eight wanted the special election, while the other three did not.

So the resolution passed, but Newsom did not like the idea. As expected, he vetoed the Board of Supervisor's resolution, but this news report shows that the Board have enough votes to override the Mayor's veto and therefore the "special election" will happen on June 2, 2009.

Although the news report mentions that there is nothing yet on the ballot, rumor has it that the sales tax will go up 0.05%. This sounds a little bit disturbing, and just another incentive to head off to a different county when buying a big ticket item (car, mega size TV, etc.).

Here's my view about the pros and cons of holding a special election:

Pro:

• If voters pass more taxes, this can help the budget shortfall.

Sorry, it's the only pro I can think of.

Cons and doubts:

• How much will it cost to hold this election? How many millions?
• If the voters decide to reject all tax hike proposals, the Board of Supervisors better start having a low profile, because I smell a recall!
• How much more in taxes will we be paying to the city?
• Can passing new taxes cause more harm than good? Example: Business may close down and move to a county with lower tax rates.
• Once the economy goes back up, will the tax rates go back down to today's rates?

Just something to think about folks!

Terrible Take Out Boxes in San Francisco - Thanks Styrofoam Ban

As many of you Bay Area folks know, San Francisco passed a law that forbids restaurants to serve take-out food in styrofoam containers. This was a great idea by our city leaders since styrofoam causes harm to the environment. Our wacky tree protesting neighbors in Berkeley also have a similar law.

But now... when you order items, most of the time they serve it in this lid box made out of paper. Yeah... it's great for composting, but it's terrible to hold your food in it. Got something fresh from the kitchen, and it's so hot that the damn box starts getting all moist and soggy (like a couple of minutes after receiving the box)? Got something a little bit moist, say the juices of the chicken? In just a couple of hours, it'll LEAK THROUGH the bottom of the take-out box!

Last week, I ordered a Japanese style curry dish over a lot of rice, and although they handed me bag to haul it in, the box was so unstable due to the heat and moisture, that the box nearly snapped in half. I had to pull out a grocery paper bag to haul it in, because the bottom of the bag is flat.

No offense city officials, but the paper take-out box is a terrible idea and is a big pet peeve on my list.

Here are the boxes I like take-out food to be served in:

• The classic Chinese take-out box, never leaks, well protected, and easy to transport. There's also a wider one that's more like a tray that can be a perfect substitute for that paper thingy.
  
• The tray style with lid take-out box made of CORN. That stuff won't destroy your meal (but you might eat it!).
• Plastic tubs and lids. These are used for soups and even better than styrofoam because they don't crack that easily, and you can wash it and reuse.

Just a thought about the plastic tubs and lids: It's a great idea, but I think there are some people who question if it is allowable to recycle. The answer is, yes, please throw them in the bin. You can literally recycle anything with a "recycle number" that's usually on the bottom of products. It's not just soda cans, bottles, and newspapers folks.

But here's the thing folks, if you still love your styrofoam (and plastic bags), go buy your takeout food in Daly City (San Francisco loses tax money, but these days, who really gives a damn about Mayor Newsom and his supervisor nutjobs passing insane laws?). Just head across the border into Westlake.

If you want to be EVIL, go head down to your local Costco or Smart and Final and get yourself a set of styrofoam boxes and plastic bags (and YES, YOU CAN GET STYROFOAM BOXES AT COSTCO AND SMART AND FINAL LOCATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO). So the next time you visit your favorite restaurant, just bring your own styrofoam product and give the middle finger to city politics.


Lastly, Akit's Complaint Department is going on a little hiatus. I have just over a week to finish my graduate school project before I earn my M.A. degree. Please cheer me on, I really want to get this over with and share my research with the Japantown community.

But don't worry, I'm haven't gone on temporary insanity... that's when I do my blogging. Thanks to all of you for reading my blog and subscribing on your RSS or similar feed program. I noticed that 15 people subscribed on the Goodle feeds program!

San Francisco wants CONGESTION TOLLS? Is our city leaders STUPID?

In just the past week, the following "revenue generating" ideas were created by our city government idiots:

• Variable meter parking rates
• Doyle Drive congestion toll rates

And now... our city is proposing that we also include "congestion tolls" within the downtown region of San Francisco.

And have you seen the map of where they want to put the tolls? It's totally screwed up! They want to create a border on the west side on Divisadero and also cut the Castro district in HALF.

What does this mean for our city? It might mean millions, but also pissing off a ton of residents and commuters to our lovely city. Bridge tolls are already $4 and even higher at the Golden Gate Bridge.

Here are some easy examples of pissing people off:

• Say a commuter lives in Marin county and drives to SF Downtown to do some shopping. They pay $5 to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, pay another $2 for the Doyle Drive congestion toll, plus another $3 for entering the downtown zone. If you have to park at a downtown variable rate meter, you might as well get nailed with another $5 per hour.
• Do you live next to one of the congestion rate borders? What happens if you have to drive to your supermarket to get groceries? You would probably get nailed with a $$$$$ crossing fee every single damn time.
  
• On the Divisadero "border," I would not have any trouble getting to Kaiser Hospital for my doctor appointment, but how about when I want to visit JAPANTOWN? It's only a short hop away from Divisadero and IT'S NOT CONGESTED. Hell, I can find parking most of the time.

Lastly, if our city wants to make this congestion toll, how about fixing the infastructure of MUNI? If you are forcing people to get out of their cars and take public transit, are they ready for the influx of THOUSANDS of more paying (or cheating) customers to take the worst public transit system around? Delays, missing buses, and overcrowding... yeah... great idea. It works in LONDON because they have an excellent public transit system. Ours is crap.

I don't have any money, but if someone would like to volunteer some cash, the prize winner would be the one who gives the most headaches to city government officials. Go after the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and the SFMTA.

Ex-Supervisor Ed Jew - Pleads Guilty Again! Now for Lying about Residency

Dear Super Shameful, Scumbag, Ex-Supervisor Ed Jew,

I'm so happy that you plead guilty for a second time to charges about lying about your residency. Your career is over! But your career in a maximum security prison is just starting!

What a great moment in San Francisco history for everyone! You never really did live in the Sunset after all. You were just housed in your Burlingame home and driving to City Hall everyday. I don't know why the media just didn't follow you around, but it's so nice you admitted guilt.

You still haven't answered my previous question before: when Kamala Harris got the warrant for your arrest, why did you surrender to police in Burlingame? If you were smart, you would have surrendered with the SFPD or at least in Daly City. But instead, you go to Burlingame? Where your other "home" is located? And let's remember, Burlingame is much farther away than Pacifica, Colma, and Daly City.

So be prepared for prison. That's what the people want. You will be made an example to anyone who wants to pull that kind of crap. You won't get off easy like Julie Lee who got F***ING probation. You are a government official, and the people trust you to do your job legitimately.

Lastly, don't blame the Asian American population that got you in this situation. I'm also Asian American, and it's your own damn fault.

Sincerely,
Akit of "Akit's Complaint Department"