9 ms·

San Francisco parklets an insulting display of government incompetence

33 points by hncurious 5y ago

1cvmask 5y ago
And yet they vote for the same incompetence time and time again. The SF political machine is more powerful than Tammany Hall ever was. An unresponsive corrupt machine that curries favor for the elite and connected with complete disregard for small businesses and individuals who are not politically connected. The definition of political virtue signaling is the SF political machine. For some odd reason the rules never applied to the restaurant owned by Gavin Newsom, former mayor of SF and now Governor of California. Even the old smoking restrictions were off limits.
- scotuswroteus 5y ago
  I am so glad someone else here on Hacker News gets it. I cannot believe that that thing that happened back then about the old restrictions were off limits for the restaurant that Gavin Newsom owned! I say we re-recall him! Tammany Hall! Attila the Hun! Every tyrant ever! This City's parklet policy is clearly worse than all of that! But it goes even deeper. As we all well know, the Founders' first error was forgetting to give small businesses their own constitutional rights. I say we are in a magna carta moment for small businesses in San Francisco! In fact, there should be a special mayor of this City who governs small businesses, and any other law shouldn't apply to them unless that special mayor approves. They should actually just run the city! And there should be reverse taxes. We should pay small businesses for gracing this City with their presence. I mean, what ever happened to the god-given right to realize compound interest tax free while benefitting from a City that spends billions of dollars on public infrastructure every year? What is this city, known for being left leaning or something? Small businesses in this City need to rise as one and demand that every single municipal jurisdiction across the country regard them first and foremost. Especially small businesses that are new and were started by people who weren't born here. They have the MOST to teach this City. The most, that is, other than you, dear Hacker News commenter. I'm so glad you're here.
1cvmask 5y ago
https://archive.md/XL6Yv https://archive.md/XL6Yv
hindsightbias 5y ago
Public space for private use should come with no costs and free of regulation. Short-term solutions made during a pandemic should be grandfathered in perpetuity. /s
- renewiltord 5y ago
  As far as I can tell, there was cost and regulation and both changed. The uncertainty makes things hard for people. Personally, I like to extract as much value as possible from society so additional space for my car is no problem. I can always get a reservation indoors. Also, all else being the same, I’d prefer a more expensive restaurant to a less expensive one because it prices out other people and makes it easier for me to get in.
- dude187 5y ago
  If they didn't want to keep them around then don't make them permanent. Instead SF took it's usual tactic of corruption to bring the worst of both worlds. Permanent structures for the politically connected, fines and endless ever increasing hoops to bully the ones they don't like into going away
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  I hate it that public space is taken over by restaurants and bars. No I don't want to buy a €4 cappuccino I just want to sit here in this public park sorry for my poverty.
- danielrhodes 5y ago
  I don't support government incompetence, but when you look at the reasons they need to update and enforce the code on these parklets, it is entirely reasonable. For example, they need to make sure the parklets aren't blocking access to the building by firetrucks, or aren't too close to buildings where they would catch debris in the case of a fire. The parklets were approved rather hastily to support restaurants, but now that they could become a permanent fixture, things need to change. Anecdotally, I have seen a dramatic reduction in people wanting to sit in parklets when indoor spots are available. So this all might be moot in a year or two.
- deleted 5y ago
dqpb 5y ago
California is an insulting display of government incompetence.
- dekhn 5y ago
  and yet it continues to have an incredible economy and provide enormous numbers of people with homes and food. If it did any better, it wwouldn't be the 7th largest economy in the world, it'd be the 2nd.
  - kaczordon 5y ago
    I wonder how much longer this will last.
    - archontes 5y ago
      Probably longer than the other, insolvent states.
  - fooker 5y ago
    Why is government competence measured with GDP? The function of the government is not to maximize GDP.
  - dqpb 5y ago
    Here's an analogy: if I complain that a beachside restaurant has shitty food and you say "yet it continues to have plenty of customers", that doesn't really disprove my point. All it says is we're likely to be stuck with shitty food for a long time.
    - evgen 5y ago
      Actually it does disprove your point. There are clearly plenty of people who think that the food is good enough to pay for it and keep the restaurant in business so it is far more likely that you have no idea how to properly value the food or run a successful restaurant.
  - 5y ago
reidjs 5y ago
I like the parklets, what don’t you like about them? I can’t read the article bc no chronicle subscription
- renewiltord 5y ago
  TL;DR the restaurants paid mucho bucks for parklets that the city said were okay and now city has altered the deal. The restaurants now have to pay additional bucks to bring it up to the new code. This makes it infeasible.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Wouldn't they have paid the money last year for setting it up ? At the time by no means it was certain that this arrangement would be permanent? City government also had to evolve the rules for what is brand new type of structure regulations like that take time, all code change reasons highlighted seem reasonable on why it is required. What other options the city has ? Ignore fire and pedestrian safety ?
    - x0x0 5y ago
      Options: probably spend a day or two thinking through "what if these become permanent" before incentivizing restaurants to spend what is easily low six figures. Now, there aren't good options -- blocking sight lines in intersections in intersections is intolerable, as is a lack of fire safety. Nonetheless, an ounce of prevention, etc.
      - manquer 5y ago
        My understanding is these permissions were given originally last summer during the height of the pandemic. I don't think anyone could have anticipated at City government level how long they will be needed or imagined they would become permanent . It looks obvious in hindsight, but with pandemic a lot of rapid changes at all government levels had to be made and plenty of them had mistakes, sometimes costing lives. If restaurants went ahead and bought the parklets after the announcement became permanent I can understand the complaints (vast majority were bought last year) at that time there was no intent to make it permanent. To me it sounds like restaurants are just being greedy on the amount of extra space they have for free especially with relaxing /removed capacity restrictions indoors.
omgbear 5y ago
All the comments on the chronicle article are surprisingly negative toward them. I've been a huge fan of parklets -- they make the city feel much more vibrant and alive.
cardiffspaceman 5y ago
The article's current title, "S.F. made parklets permanent — but added so many rules that many restaurants plan to tear them down", is not nearly as inflamatory as what I see here, "San Francisco parklets an insulting display of government incompetence"
- hncurious 5y ago
  It's a combination of the headline and subtitle (“It’s the most uncoordinated, messed up, insulting display of government incompetence,” one supervisor said) to fit in the character limit and reflects the overall message of the article.
more_corn 5y ago
Wow the chronicle site is hella broken on mobile.

33 points by hncurious 5y ago

And yet they vote for the same incompetence time and time again. The SF political machine is more powerful than Tammany Hall ever was. An unresponsive corrupt machine that curries favor for the elite and connected with complete disregard for small businesses and individuals who are not politically connected. The definition of political virtue signaling is the SF political machine. For some odd reason the rules never applied to the restaurant owned by Gavin Newsom, former mayor of SF and now Governor of California. Even the old smoking restrictions were off limits.

scotuswroteus 5y ago
I am so glad someone else here on Hacker News gets it. I cannot believe that that thing that happened back then about the old restrictions were off limits for the restaurant that Gavin Newsom owned! I say we re-recall him! Tammany Hall! Attila the Hun! Every tyrant ever! This City's parklet policy is clearly worse than all of that! But it goes even deeper. As we all well know, the Founders' first error was forgetting to give small businesses their own constitutional rights. I say we are in a magna carta moment for small businesses in San Francisco! In fact, there should be a special mayor of this City who governs small businesses, and any other law shouldn't apply to them unless that special mayor approves. They should actually just run the city! And there should be reverse taxes. We should pay small businesses for gracing this City with their presence. I mean, what ever happened to the god-given right to realize compound interest tax free while benefitting from a City that spends billions of dollars on public infrastructure every year? What is this city, known for being left leaning or something? Small businesses in this City need to rise as one and demand that every single municipal jurisdiction across the country regard them first and foremost. Especially small businesses that are new and were started by people who weren't born here. They have the MOST to teach this City. The most, that is, other than you, dear Hacker News commenter. I'm so glad you're here.

1cvmask 5y ago

https://archive.md/XL6Yv https://archive.md/XL6Yv

hindsightbias 5y ago

Public space for private use should come with no costs and free of regulation. Short-term solutions made during a pandemic should be grandfathered in perpetuity. /s

renewiltord 5y ago
As far as I can tell, there was cost and regulation and both changed. The uncertainty makes things hard for people. Personally, I like to extract as much value as possible from society so additional space for my car is no problem. I can always get a reservation indoors. Also, all else being the same, I’d prefer a more expensive restaurant to a less expensive one because it prices out other people and makes it easier for me to get in.
dude187 5y ago
If they didn't want to keep them around then don't make them permanent. Instead SF took it's usual tactic of corruption to bring the worst of both worlds. Permanent structures for the politically connected, fines and endless ever increasing hoops to bully the ones they don't like into going away
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
I hate it that public space is taken over by restaurants and bars. No I don't want to buy a €4 cappuccino I just want to sit here in this public park sorry for my poverty.
danielrhodes 5y ago
I don't support government incompetence, but when you look at the reasons they need to update and enforce the code on these parklets, it is entirely reasonable. For example, they need to make sure the parklets aren't blocking access to the building by firetrucks, or aren't too close to buildings where they would catch debris in the case of a fire. The parklets were approved rather hastily to support restaurants, but now that they could become a permanent fixture, things need to change. Anecdotally, I have seen a dramatic reduction in people wanting to sit in parklets when indoor spots are available. So this all might be moot in a year or two.
deleted 5y ago

dqpb 5y ago

California is an insulting display of government incompetence.

dekhn 5y ago
and yet it continues to have an incredible economy and provide enormous numbers of people with homes and food. If it did any better, it wwouldn't be the 7th largest economy in the world, it'd be the 2nd.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  I wonder how much longer this will last.
  - archontes 5y ago
    Probably longer than the other, insolvent states.
- fooker 5y ago
  Why is government competence measured with GDP? The function of the government is not to maximize GDP.
- dqpb 5y ago
  Here's an analogy: if I complain that a beachside restaurant has shitty food and you say "yet it continues to have plenty of customers", that doesn't really disprove my point. All it says is we're likely to be stuck with shitty food for a long time.
  - evgen 5y ago
    Actually it does disprove your point. There are clearly plenty of people who think that the food is good enough to pay for it and keep the restaurant in business so it is far more likely that you have no idea how to properly value the food or run a successful restaurant.
- 5y ago

reidjs 5y ago

I like the parklets, what don’t you like about them? I can’t read the article bc no chronicle subscription

renewiltord 5y ago
TL;DR the restaurants paid mucho bucks for parklets that the city said were okay and now city has altered the deal. The restaurants now have to pay additional bucks to bring it up to the new code. This makes it infeasible.
- manquer 5y ago
  Wouldn't they have paid the money last year for setting it up ? At the time by no means it was certain that this arrangement would be permanent? City government also had to evolve the rules for what is brand new type of structure regulations like that take time, all code change reasons highlighted seem reasonable on why it is required. What other options the city has ? Ignore fire and pedestrian safety ?
  - x0x0 5y ago
    Options: probably spend a day or two thinking through "what if these become permanent" before incentivizing restaurants to spend what is easily low six figures. Now, there aren't good options -- blocking sight lines in intersections in intersections is intolerable, as is a lack of fire safety. Nonetheless, an ounce of prevention, etc.
    - manquer 5y ago
      My understanding is these permissions were given originally last summer during the height of the pandemic. I don't think anyone could have anticipated at City government level how long they will be needed or imagined they would become permanent . It looks obvious in hindsight, but with pandemic a lot of rapid changes at all government levels had to be made and plenty of them had mistakes, sometimes costing lives. If restaurants went ahead and bought the parklets after the announcement became permanent I can understand the complaints (vast majority were bought last year) at that time there was no intent to make it permanent. To me it sounds like restaurants are just being greedy on the amount of extra space they have for free especially with relaxing /removed capacity restrictions indoors.

omgbear 5y ago

All the comments on the chronicle article are surprisingly negative toward them. I've been a huge fan of parklets -- they make the city feel much more vibrant and alive.

cardiffspaceman 5y ago

The article's current title, "S.F. made parklets permanent — but added so many rules that many restaurants plan to tear them down", is not nearly as inflamatory as what I see here, "San Francisco parklets an insulting display of government incompetence"

hncurious 5y ago
It's a combination of the headline and subtitle (“It’s the most uncoordinated, messed up, insulting display of government incompetence,” one supervisor said) to fit in the character limit and reflects the overall message of the article.

more_corn 5y ago

Wow the chronicle site is hella broken on mobile.