3 ms·

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

by reidjs 5y ago

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.
      - x0x0 5y ago
        There was no rush to get parklet rules out in March 2020: there were no lives at risk here. The "rapid changes" could have been delayed by a week or so to think through them and the city wouldn't be screwing restaurant owners -- things like intersection sight lines and disabled access were a concern from the very beginning, already discussed in a briefing in june 2020.
        manquer 5y ago
        I cannot make "Rapid changes" on things in my team in weeks, I would wager that is the same for anyone on this forum, any bureaucracy (company or city) takes many months if not years to come up with plans for new policy, delaying the temporary relief to businesses to get inputs from all departments in the middle of the pandemic especially frontline staff like in Fire Service were working non stop does not seem realistically feasible. My recollection is that temporary permissions only happened in late June 2020 [1] not before. It was announced always as temporary it was sold as a way to help businesses comply with aggressive seating capacity restrictions then and still make some money. Those capacity restrictions are broadly relaxed now, additional costs for compliance to make it permanent, a change that is also bringing in additional new revenue - given capacity restrictions are largely removed doesn't seem unreasonably harsh to me. [2][3] --- [1] https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61107/637435841268300000 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61107/6... . This is Emergency Order for San Jose, I don't think San Fransisco did it much earlier than SJ [2] The low /weak recovery argument cannot really made either, if there is no demand then indoor is adequate, what is the point of outdoor extra seating when no one is eating? . [3] Some people do prefer to eat outside more so than before the pandemic, but unless most customers refuse to eat indoor, this does not seem to be major factor as far as i have observed.
        x0x0 5y ago
        I don't know why you invested in the belief it's just impossible to have a tight turnaround on review (it isn't), but let's just start with this: "frontline staff like in Fire Service were working non stop". The frontline staff in the fire service -- EMTs and firefighters -- are not the people who review city code for fire safety. The "review" can be largely copied from other cities who have already developed similar policies. SF is not the first, second, or 20th city in the US to have such parklets. ADA, fire, and daylighting concerns are not in any way unique to sf.
hindsightbias 5y ago
Shanty’s are shanty. If the city is going to cede spaces permanently, pave the parking spaces and move the curb out. Retailers buy umbrellas for tables and lease space. No site lines, no fire code, no ADA violations, no cars crashing into you, no campers in shanty at night… and a million other reasons.
- reidjs 5y ago
  Are you for or against homeless people sleeping in the parklets at night? That almost seems like a reasonable way to provide temporary housing to the city’s homeless since we seem so incapable of building actual housing. I agree that the site lines can be a bit dangerous. There should be regulations on that. Have many cars crashed into parklets already?

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

by reidjs 5y ago

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

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.
    - x0x0 5y ago
      There was no rush to get parklet rules out in March 2020: there were no lives at risk here. The "rapid changes" could have been delayed by a week or so to think through them and the city wouldn't be screwing restaurant owners -- things like intersection sight lines and disabled access were a concern from the very beginning, already discussed in a briefing in june 2020.
      - manquer 5y ago
        I cannot make "Rapid changes" on things in my team in weeks, I would wager that is the same for anyone on this forum, any bureaucracy (company or city) takes many months if not years to come up with plans for new policy, delaying the temporary relief to businesses to get inputs from all departments in the middle of the pandemic especially frontline staff like in Fire Service were working non stop does not seem realistically feasible. My recollection is that temporary permissions only happened in late June 2020 [1] not before. It was announced always as temporary it was sold as a way to help businesses comply with aggressive seating capacity restrictions then and still make some money. Those capacity restrictions are broadly relaxed now, additional costs for compliance to make it permanent, a change that is also bringing in additional new revenue - given capacity restrictions are largely removed doesn't seem unreasonably harsh to me. [2][3] --- [1] https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61107/637435841268300000 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/61107/6... . This is Emergency Order for San Jose, I don't think San Fransisco did it much earlier than SJ [2] The low /weak recovery argument cannot really made either, if there is no demand then indoor is adequate, what is the point of outdoor extra seating when no one is eating? . [3] Some people do prefer to eat outside more so than before the pandemic, but unless most customers refuse to eat indoor, this does not seem to be major factor as far as i have observed.
        x0x0 5y ago
        I don't know why you invested in the belief it's just impossible to have a tight turnaround on review (it isn't), but let's just start with this: "frontline staff like in Fire Service were working non stop". The frontline staff in the fire service -- EMTs and firefighters -- are not the people who review city code for fire safety. The "review" can be largely copied from other cities who have already developed similar policies. SF is not the first, second, or 20th city in the US to have such parklets. ADA, fire, and daylighting concerns are not in any way unique to sf.

hindsightbias 5y ago

Shanty’s are shanty. If the city is going to cede spaces permanently, pave the parking spaces and move the curb out. Retailers buy umbrellas for tables and lease space. No site lines, no fire code, no ADA violations, no cars crashing into you, no campers in shanty at night… and a million other reasons.

reidjs 5y ago
Are you for or against homeless people sleeping in the parklets at night? That almost seems like a reasonable way to provide temporary housing to the city’s homeless since we seem so incapable of building actual housing. I agree that the site lines can be a bit dangerous. There should be regulations on that. Have many cars crashed into parklets already?