12 ms·

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit applicati

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do. San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in the operation of the free market. The city keeps doubling down on this interference every time someone, somewhere, tries to find a way around the city's thicket of rules.

greglindahl 8y ago
This is a brand new business category and no one has any idea how much demand there is and what rules are needed or are reasonable or are sufficient to prevent problems like blocking sidewalks. What you're describing might be possible for a mature business category. The free market doesn't always magically work.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
May issue licensing is a scourge. It's just a magnet for corruption and inconsistent treatment.
matchbok 8y ago
Same thing with housing, with no end in sight. :(
ohazi 8y ago
Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.
- threeseed 8y ago
  So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.
  - ohazi 8y ago
    That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be somewhat less scantily-clad than the ones working at other locations. Regardless, this shows one way in which zoning rules don't always predict developments that neighbors might reasonably want to avoid. 1: https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-stir-up-controversy-at-proposed-coffee-shop-near-redwood-city/3852549/ https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-... EDIT: Thanks for downvoting, but perhaps a response would be more productive?
      - ohazi 8y ago
        So in situations like these, do you: a) Fix the zoning rules b) Make everybody ask the city council and all their neighbors for permission for every little thing, every time (a) is at least trying to make an even playing field for everyone. The rules are for everybody, and everybody has to follow them, regardless of political connections or money or lawyering, etc. At least in theory. With (b), you start by trying to get an exception carved out for yourself, so in practice only those with the most patience, money, lawyers, political connections, etc. will be able to get what they want, and everybody else gets the Kafka treatment.
        gnicholas 8y ago
        Can zoning rules be changed retroactively? And even if this is allowed, can zoning rules be put in place with the goal of booting out a specific business? I think ex post facto prohibitions only apply to criminal laws, but in general I think we disfavor targeting individual businesses with legislation. For background, I live in a neighborhood where the property sizes are much much smaller than the rest of the zoned area. So we have to get exceptions for many things because the rules were written for properties that are 10x to 50x the size. I wish that rules could be written to cover every possible eventuality, and I personally feel the pain because they cannot (I have to pay for every exception and variance in the approval process). So having seen how rules are blunt instruments, I have some sympathy for folks who are caught up in the process.
- upzone 8y ago
  That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good luck getting it to conform. For example, single-family home neighborhoods are pretty much stuck that way. Want a nice, compact apartment building? Or maybe even a fourplex? Good luck. In my reasonably-sized college town, upzoning happens once PER DECADE. This is the affordable housing crisis at its core, and it’s remarkably procedural and boring. People are unable to afford homes and apartments because of simple tedium that takes place in beige board rooms at 11:00 PM on a Monday (i.e. local politics).
  - maccam94 8y ago
    > The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is Yeah, zoning in the US tends to be single use, which prevents most buildings from being built in most places. I recently read a fantastic blog post on how zoning works in Japan, where uses are instead ranked by how much of a "nuisance" they are, and zones have a maximum nuisance level. Anything at or below that level can be constructed in that zone. http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin...
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      I guess it makes me a dirty NIMBY but I live on a very suburban street with a row of modest single family homes, and I'd rather my neighbor not start a tire recycling business in his backyard, or replace it with a 3 story apartment building. That said, I have no problem with people who want urban living in already-urban areas, and it's a shame when NIMBYs try to stop that kind of development.
  - eitally 8y ago
    As a local example that doesn't even apply to multi-family/multi-unit houses, consider the absolutely insane zoning rule in San Mateo county that requires every SFM to have at least 2 covered parking spaces. Seriously, wtf.
threeseed 8y ago
So if the city doesn't specifically say "do not test chemical weapons in the downtown area" then a business should be free to do so ? Is that the type of system you are proposing here ?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dmix 8y ago
  I can imagine about 100 other layers of law and regulation that would be better suited at dealing with this scenario than some municipal licensing issue. So, yes? Can we at a minimum focus on practical participants and outcomes when debating policy?
village-idiot 8y ago
I always have maintained that local governments tend to be the most corrupt compared to the amount of power that they have, but the corruption is usually too small to gain notice.
- thefounder 8y ago
  Many work in the local gov and make it in the fed gov after they "prove" they are worth it so I wouldn't say they are less corrupt. It's not uncommon for mayors to run for the ultimate job in the fed gov.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  "Corruption" has a meaning, and there doesn't seem to be any mention in either the article or this discussion of anything that would be corruption.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Picking winners and losers sure looks corrupt to me.
bsder 8y ago
> Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. The problem is that the named companies already have shown their willingness to use their VC backed resources to stomp over local regulation. These companies were jerks who basically said "Nya. Nya. We're too powerful, you can't regulate us. <middle finger>" To which SF replied: "Nya. Nya. Yes we can. No permits for you and now we can fine the snot out of you if you disregard us."
LeoPanthera 8y ago
The companies in question already had a history of operating illegally in San Francisco. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as "picking and choosing". Dumping those scooters over the city is effectively littering. Business should be able to operate freely, but they should not be able to break the law until someone catches them.
- ckocagil 8y ago
  If you think about it, Uber and Lyft literally built their businesses on breaking taxi laws of every city they operate in.
  - Pyxl101 8y ago
    They did not break the taxi laws of every city they operated in. The taxi laws of many cities only required a "medallion" for taxi-style car services that allowed passengers to "hail" the car on the street. So-called "black" cars where passengers arranged transportation in advance were governed differently, and required no licensing or a different and more permissive kind of licensing. Black car services were already widely available in many cities from lots of different companies, often independent owner/operators - it's just that no one had provided a service that worked across many different cities and was available conveniently as an app. I won't claim that Uber and Lyft broke no laws, because there are a lot of jurisdictions in the world, and I don't know the laws of all of them, but many cities regular taxies and black cars very differently. Edit: Why the downvotes? Am I wrong? Evidence would be appreciated.
    - jerkstate 8y ago
      When Uber started, they were all black cars anyways. It was a couple of years (iirc) until "normal" cars were allowed to drive for Uber.
    - mavhc 8y ago
      As soon as the mobile phone was invented this system was obviously stupid, who invented it in the first place?
draw_down 8y ago
Why? If people don’t want it there then the permits shouldn’t be issued. Not that this is necessarily the case in SF specifically.
emodendroket 8y ago
I doubt there is any affirmative set of rules about dumping thousands and thousands of vehicles on city sidewalks and streets.
BurningFrog 8y ago
I'll say it: With "shall-issue" rules there is no one in city government to bribe and/or make special deals with. That's not how SF likes to operate.
lkb2k 8y ago
Doesn't that normally start with a pilot to determine what rules are good? It seems like if you want to come up with a permit process and rules, rather than just making them all up at once you'd grant permission to a small group for a limited period to figure out what rules make sense, then write the rules, then open up the permitting process. When selecting the pilot group it also makes sense to try to find partners that are likely to co-operate and be responsive to your requirements rather than companies with long histories of completely ignoring local laws. You're right that SF has a history of abusing permits in the interest of Nimby-ism -- see the 'war on fun' for one example -- so I do agree it could all turn out terribly in the end, but that doesn't make this an unreasonable start.
freyr 8y ago
> "due to rampant interference in the operation of the free market" But maybe in another sense, San Francisco is a product, and the feature it's selling includes rampant overregulation. If that's not a good business model, another city can step up and offer better incentives. And people can move there. There are many nice cities and towns in the US. If you insist on living on the dirty tip of a tiny overcrowded peninsula, that's a choice. You're trying to regulate San Francisco's right to regulate.
- colordrops 8y ago
  And that's how a city should operate. The citizens should regulate how the city regulates.
  - anonsfnative 8y ago
    We do. That's what people here are complaining about. They have no stake in this game, have no intention of becoming part of the community, they're just looking for a cheap buck and don't mind if they ruin everything that makes our home great. There are plenty of other places to go to, and everybody whining about "San Francisco being a zoning failure" might want to remember that we have a larger GDP than many developed nations. If that's failure, what exactly is your idea of success?
    - colordrops 8y ago
      Based on your response I'm guessing you are not being sarcastic in saying that GDP is the main measure of success. GDP is just a measure for a particular system. I could think of several more direct measures than GDP without trying very hard, for instance quality of life, cost of living, and overall happiness.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
omarforgotpwd 8y ago
Oh, you don't want the apps and services you use chosen by the San Francisco city government based on criteria they choose? Why not, they do such a good job with everything else right?
kurthr 8y ago
What's the permit for leaving your product lying on the public sidewalk? There are several (for signs, seats, etc), and you're also supposed to pick up after your animals, not leave stuff laying about. Undocked transportation? I think that without some formal approval it would be within the cities right to confiscate items left on the public right-of-way and auction it off to the highest bidder. You can't even legally leave garbage out for collection (in unapproved containers) except for certain days.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  I guess you’re just overlooking cars? People leave their cars all over SF all day every day.
  - kurthr 8y ago
    And they get towed all day every day... the fine for towing from a sidewalk is $400 last I checked, plus towing fees, plus nightly storage. Pretty soon you'll owe $10k on each scooter, and if you want to operate as a business within city limits you have to pay the fines. Actually, if the city went after them as moving vehicles they would be collected by the towers in hours.
  - coddingtonbear 8y ago
    You have to realize that those parking spots are explicitly intended for car storage, no? The city even marks many of them --- even charges for their use by the hour. If you were going to claim that our allocation of city resources to parking is excessive, I'd agree, but you can't reasonably claim that parking a car there isn't using the space for it's intended purpose.
1024core 8y ago
San Francisco has a 14-page rulebook for ... just replacing windows. http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards_for_Window_Replacement.pdf http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards...
- fipple 8y ago
  And the federal government issues effectively binding guidelines for the cap design of baby food. The upside? Windows don’t fall out into people and babies don’t choke on the caps.
  - emelski 8y ago
    Nothing in the linked 14-page window replacement guide has anything at all to do with safety in general or windows falling onto people. It is entirely to do with preserving the "historic character" of buildings. I don't think you can reasonably equate that to the regulations governing the design of caps on baby food.
pergadad 8y ago
Look at the last paragraph. A good city government will not just aim to meet business easy, they'll also have criteria for ensuring good impact on other policy fields, eg here low income residents. This whole "hands off" approach has proven a failure many times,. Look at how Uber and Lyft are exploiting their drivers, which end up working below minimum wage and 100% on own risk - in the big scheme/long term these have no insurance, no pension benefits, might lose everything through an accident, and will mostly end up dependent on handouts. In some cities bike rental schemes failed and the city is left to clean up broken bikes, stations, etc once the provider disappears. Sure, it was easy to get in, but the taxpayer foots the bill. Yes, an application process makes things a bit more intransparent and slow, but (if done well) it also assures that the average citizen is not left holding the sticky end.
- wellyeah 8y ago
  Isn't that up to the workers? Uber drivers know they don't get benefits. It's meant to be a side-hustle not a full-time job. No one forces anyone to drive for Uber or Lyft. I don't find it exploitive in the slightest bit.
anonsfnative 8y ago
Kindly, get involved in our political system, shut-up, or leave. This is our home, we have spent decades building a radical system of democracy, something lacking in most cities. We the people own San Francisco, not a bunch of rich, bratty little start-up bros. If you want this city to match your view of the world, then get involved in our political process, it's that simple. Otherwise, go read your Ayn Rand books in New York or Dallas where it's cool for businesses to own every aspect of living.
jijji 8y ago
if san francisco spent half as much time trying to deal with the homeless problem (needles, urine, poop and people on the streets) than restricting businesses the right to operate, it would be a better place.
wellyeah 8y ago
Does San Francisco miss the powerful impact on traffic and the environment this can have? There are so many cars in SF already, parking is a nightmare, and "rush hour" lasts most of the day. Public transit is limiting, Uber is unpredictable and expensive. With a city the size of SF, you can go almost anywhere on a scooter in a reasonable amount of time. But when I commute up to the city, I'll take my car instead of Lime or Bird (which I use regularly in my home city). The walk from Caltrain to my typical destinations is too long, yet probably faster than waiting for an Uber, and I'm not going to get stuck waiting on public transit. You'd think that what seems to be one of America's more socially-conscious liberal cities, would embrace getting more cars off of the road and use of personal zero-emission vehicles.

greglindahl 8y ago

This is a brand new business category and no one has any idea how much demand there is and what rules are needed or are reasonable or are sufficient to prevent problems like blocking sidewalks. What you're describing might be possible for a mature business category. The free market doesn't always magically work.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

May issue licensing is a scourge. It's just a magnet for corruption and inconsistent treatment.

matchbok 8y ago

Same thing with housing, with no end in sight. :(

ohazi 8y ago

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.

threeseed 8y ago
So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.
- ohazi 8y ago
  That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be somewhat less scantily-clad than the ones working at other locations. Regardless, this shows one way in which zoning rules don't always predict developments that neighbors might reasonably want to avoid. 1: https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-stir-up-controversy-at-proposed-coffee-shop-near-redwood-city/3852549/ https://abc7news.com/business/lingerie-bikini-clad-baristas-... EDIT: Thanks for downvoting, but perhaps a response would be more productive?
    - ohazi 8y ago
      So in situations like these, do you: a) Fix the zoning rules b) Make everybody ask the city council and all their neighbors for permission for every little thing, every time (a) is at least trying to make an even playing field for everyone. The rules are for everybody, and everybody has to follow them, regardless of political connections or money or lawyering, etc. At least in theory. With (b), you start by trying to get an exception carved out for yourself, so in practice only those with the most patience, money, lawyers, political connections, etc. will be able to get what they want, and everybody else gets the Kafka treatment.
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        Can zoning rules be changed retroactively? And even if this is allowed, can zoning rules be put in place with the goal of booting out a specific business? I think ex post facto prohibitions only apply to criminal laws, but in general I think we disfavor targeting individual businesses with legislation. For background, I live in a neighborhood where the property sizes are much much smaller than the rest of the zoned area. So we have to get exceptions for many things because the rules were written for properties that are 10x to 50x the size. I wish that rules could be written to cover every possible eventuality, and I personally feel the pain because they cannot (I have to pay for every exception and variance in the approval process). So having seen how rules are blunt instruments, I have some sympathy for folks who are caught up in the process.
upzone 8y ago
That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good luck getting it to conform. For example, single-family home neighborhoods are pretty much stuck that way. Want a nice, compact apartment building? Or maybe even a fourplex? Good luck. In my reasonably-sized college town, upzoning happens once PER DECADE. This is the affordable housing crisis at its core, and it’s remarkably procedural and boring. People are unable to afford homes and apartments because of simple tedium that takes place in beige board rooms at 11:00 PM on a Monday (i.e. local politics).
- maccam94 8y ago
  > The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is Yeah, zoning in the US tends to be single use, which prevents most buildings from being built in most places. I recently read a fantastic blog post on how zoning works in Japan, where uses are instead ranked by how much of a "nuisance" they are, and zones have a maximum nuisance level. Anything at or below that level can be constructed in that zone. http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin...
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I guess it makes me a dirty NIMBY but I live on a very suburban street with a row of modest single family homes, and I'd rather my neighbor not start a tire recycling business in his backyard, or replace it with a 3 story apartment building. That said, I have no problem with people who want urban living in already-urban areas, and it's a shame when NIMBYs try to stop that kind of development.
- eitally 8y ago
  As a local example that doesn't even apply to multi-family/multi-unit houses, consider the absolutely insane zoning rule in San Mateo county that requires every SFM to have at least 2 covered parking spaces. Seriously, wtf.

threeseed 8y ago

So if the city doesn't specifically say "do not test chemical weapons in the downtown area" then a business should be free to do so ? Is that the type of system you are proposing here ?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dmix 8y ago
I can imagine about 100 other layers of law and regulation that would be better suited at dealing with this scenario than some municipal licensing issue. So, yes? Can we at a minimum focus on practical participants and outcomes when debating policy?

village-idiot 8y ago

I always have maintained that local governments tend to be the most corrupt compared to the amount of power that they have, but the corruption is usually too small to gain notice.

thefounder 8y ago
Many work in the local gov and make it in the fed gov after they "prove" they are worth it so I wouldn't say they are less corrupt. It's not uncommon for mayors to run for the ultimate job in the fed gov.
greglindahl 8y ago
"Corruption" has a meaning, and there doesn't seem to be any mention in either the article or this discussion of anything that would be corruption.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Picking winners and losers sure looks corrupt to me.

bsder 8y ago

> Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. The problem is that the named companies already have shown their willingness to use their VC backed resources to stomp over local regulation. These companies were jerks who basically said "Nya. Nya. We're too powerful, you can't regulate us. <middle finger>" To which SF replied: "Nya. Nya. Yes we can. No permits for you and now we can fine the snot out of you if you disregard us."

LeoPanthera 8y ago

The companies in question already had a history of operating illegally in San Francisco. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as "picking and choosing". Dumping those scooters over the city is effectively littering. Business should be able to operate freely, but they should not be able to break the law until someone catches them.

ckocagil 8y ago
If you think about it, Uber and Lyft literally built their businesses on breaking taxi laws of every city they operate in.
- Pyxl101 8y ago
  They did not break the taxi laws of every city they operated in. The taxi laws of many cities only required a "medallion" for taxi-style car services that allowed passengers to "hail" the car on the street. So-called "black" cars where passengers arranged transportation in advance were governed differently, and required no licensing or a different and more permissive kind of licensing. Black car services were already widely available in many cities from lots of different companies, often independent owner/operators - it's just that no one had provided a service that worked across many different cities and was available conveniently as an app. I won't claim that Uber and Lyft broke no laws, because there are a lot of jurisdictions in the world, and I don't know the laws of all of them, but many cities regular taxies and black cars very differently. Edit: Why the downvotes? Am I wrong? Evidence would be appreciated.
  - jerkstate 8y ago
    When Uber started, they were all black cars anyways. It was a couple of years (iirc) until "normal" cars were allowed to drive for Uber.
  - mavhc 8y ago
    As soon as the mobile phone was invented this system was obviously stupid, who invented it in the first place?

draw_down 8y ago

Why? If people don’t want it there then the permits shouldn’t be issued. Not that this is necessarily the case in SF specifically.

emodendroket 8y ago

I doubt there is any affirmative set of rules about dumping thousands and thousands of vehicles on city sidewalks and streets.

BurningFrog 8y ago

I'll say it: With "shall-issue" rules there is no one in city government to bribe and/or make special deals with. That's not how SF likes to operate.

lkb2k 8y ago

Doesn't that normally start with a pilot to determine what rules are good? It seems like if you want to come up with a permit process and rules, rather than just making them all up at once you'd grant permission to a small group for a limited period to figure out what rules make sense, then write the rules, then open up the permitting process. When selecting the pilot group it also makes sense to try to find partners that are likely to co-operate and be responsive to your requirements rather than companies with long histories of completely ignoring local laws. You're right that SF has a history of abusing permits in the interest of Nimby-ism -- see the 'war on fun' for one example -- so I do agree it could all turn out terribly in the end, but that doesn't make this an unreasonable start.

freyr 8y ago

> "due to rampant interference in the operation of the free market" But maybe in another sense, San Francisco is a product, and the feature it's selling includes rampant overregulation. If that's not a good business model, another city can step up and offer better incentives. And people can move there. There are many nice cities and towns in the US. If you insist on living on the dirty tip of a tiny overcrowded peninsula, that's a choice. You're trying to regulate San Francisco's right to regulate.

colordrops 8y ago
And that's how a city should operate. The citizens should regulate how the city regulates.
- anonsfnative 8y ago
  We do. That's what people here are complaining about. They have no stake in this game, have no intention of becoming part of the community, they're just looking for a cheap buck and don't mind if they ruin everything that makes our home great. There are plenty of other places to go to, and everybody whining about "San Francisco being a zoning failure" might want to remember that we have a larger GDP than many developed nations. If that's failure, what exactly is your idea of success?
  - colordrops 8y ago
    Based on your response I'm guessing you are not being sarcastic in saying that GDP is the main measure of success. GDP is just a measure for a particular system. I could think of several more direct measures than GDP without trying very hard, for instance quality of life, cost of living, and overall happiness.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

omarforgotpwd 8y ago

Oh, you don't want the apps and services you use chosen by the San Francisco city government based on criteria they choose? Why not, they do such a good job with everything else right?

kurthr 8y ago

What's the permit for leaving your product lying on the public sidewalk? There are several (for signs, seats, etc), and you're also supposed to pick up after your animals, not leave stuff laying about. Undocked transportation? I think that without some formal approval it would be within the cities right to confiscate items left on the public right-of-way and auction it off to the highest bidder. You can't even legally leave garbage out for collection (in unapproved containers) except for certain days.

ebikelaw 8y ago
I guess you’re just overlooking cars? People leave their cars all over SF all day every day.
- kurthr 8y ago
  And they get towed all day every day... the fine for towing from a sidewalk is $400 last I checked, plus towing fees, plus nightly storage. Pretty soon you'll owe $10k on each scooter, and if you want to operate as a business within city limits you have to pay the fines. Actually, if the city went after them as moving vehicles they would be collected by the towers in hours.
- coddingtonbear 8y ago
  You have to realize that those parking spots are explicitly intended for car storage, no? The city even marks many of them --- even charges for their use by the hour. If you were going to claim that our allocation of city resources to parking is excessive, I'd agree, but you can't reasonably claim that parking a car there isn't using the space for it's intended purpose.

1024core 8y ago

San Francisco has a 14-page rulebook for ... just replacing windows. http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards_for_Window_Replacement.pdf http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards...

fipple 8y ago
And the federal government issues effectively binding guidelines for the cap design of baby food. The upside? Windows don’t fall out into people and babies don’t choke on the caps.
- emelski 8y ago
  Nothing in the linked 14-page window replacement guide has anything at all to do with safety in general or windows falling onto people. It is entirely to do with preserving the "historic character" of buildings. I don't think you can reasonably equate that to the regulations governing the design of caps on baby food.

pergadad 8y ago

Look at the last paragraph. A good city government will not just aim to meet business easy, they'll also have criteria for ensuring good impact on other policy fields, eg here low income residents. This whole "hands off" approach has proven a failure many times,. Look at how Uber and Lyft are exploiting their drivers, which end up working below minimum wage and 100% on own risk - in the big scheme/long term these have no insurance, no pension benefits, might lose everything through an accident, and will mostly end up dependent on handouts. In some cities bike rental schemes failed and the city is left to clean up broken bikes, stations, etc once the provider disappears. Sure, it was easy to get in, but the taxpayer foots the bill. Yes, an application process makes things a bit more intransparent and slow, but (if done well) it also assures that the average citizen is not left holding the sticky end.

wellyeah 8y ago
Isn't that up to the workers? Uber drivers know they don't get benefits. It's meant to be a side-hustle not a full-time job. No one forces anyone to drive for Uber or Lyft. I don't find it exploitive in the slightest bit.

anonsfnative 8y ago

Kindly, get involved in our political system, shut-up, or leave. This is our home, we have spent decades building a radical system of democracy, something lacking in most cities. We the people own San Francisco, not a bunch of rich, bratty little start-up bros. If you want this city to match your view of the world, then get involved in our political process, it's that simple. Otherwise, go read your Ayn Rand books in New York or Dallas where it's cool for businesses to own every aspect of living.

jijji 8y ago

if san francisco spent half as much time trying to deal with the homeless problem (needles, urine, poop and people on the streets) than restricting businesses the right to operate, it would be a better place.

wellyeah 8y ago

Does San Francisco miss the powerful impact on traffic and the environment this can have? There are so many cars in SF already, parking is a nightmare, and "rush hour" lasts most of the day. Public transit is limiting, Uber is unpredictable and expensive. With a city the size of SF, you can go almost anywhere on a scooter in a reasonable amount of time. But when I commute up to the city, I'll take my car instead of Lime or Bird (which I use regularly in my home city). The walk from Caltrain to my typical destinations is too long, yet probably faster than waiting for an Uber, and I'm not going to get stuck waiting on public transit. You'd think that what seems to be one of America's more socially-conscious liberal cities, would embrace getting more cars off of the road and use of personal zero-emission vehicles.