The city retaliates for Bicycle Plan litigation
John Upton's story in today's Examiner (below in italics) essentially buys the city's version of events when it calls me a "car activist" and refers to bike lanes as "improvements" to city streets. I haven't owned a car in more than 20 years, and the litigation was not about cars per se; it was about city traffic in general---cars, buses, trucks, and emergency vehicles, all of which will be stuck in slower traffic after the city takes away 56 traffic lanes and more than 2,000 parking spaces on busy city streets to make bike lanes.
This will benefit the often-obnoxious minority in the city that ride bikes, but it won't be an "improvement" for the overwhelming majority of city residents and others who use city streets.
And it's inaccurate to write that the EIR on the Bicycle Plan concluded "that implementation of the plan could cause some traffic impacts,"[emphasis added] since one of Upton's colleagues, Mike Aldax, found otherwise after an in-depth analysis of the Plan's impacts in an Examiner story last year:
However, an extensive environmental review of the plan facing certification by the Planning Commission this week---an important step toward an official groundbreaking---warns the changes would bring congestion spikes, slow Muni vehicles and shrink street-parking options in key areas. Twenty-seven intersections, some heavily trafficked, were identified in the environmental review as those in which bike improvements would create an “unavoidable significant impact” to street congestion.
These problems would of course be avoidable if the Plan isn't implemented on the busy streets Aldax mentions.
Matt Dorsey refers to the code of Civil Procedure, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the relevant law, since it allows plaintiffs to assemble the administrative record to avoid exactly the kind of excessive costs city is trying to collect---and to prevent this kind of intimidation/retaliation against public interest litigation to enforce the most important environmental law in the State of California.
The city's bike people like to think they are the good guys, making the world a better place by using a sustainable transportation "mode."
But the dark side of the bike movement is nicely represented by the City Attorney's bullying behavior. A number of individual cyclists routinely intimidate pedestrians, and they all get together to bully everyone on city streets on the last Friday of every month with Critical Mass.
And you have the ongoing attempt by militant cyclists to shut down the Arco gas station at Fell and Divisadero that will be happening again tonight as it does every Friday night.
By: John Upton September 10, 2010
SF Examiner The City is demanding tens of thousands of dollars in court-related expenses from a pro-car group whose legal maneuvers forced cyclists and motorists to share lanes citywide for five years.
SF Examiner The City is demanding tens of thousands of dollars in court-related expenses from a pro-car group whose legal maneuvers forced cyclists and motorists to share lanes citywide for five years.
Rob Anderson formed the Coalition for Adequate Review and took The City to court after lawmakers approved a bike plan in 2005, arguing that California’s environmental laws required the plan’s impacts to be thoroughly analyzed. Anderson won, and implementation of the bike plan---which included creation of new bike lanes and installation of bike racks and other improvements citywide---was delayed by a court-ordered injunction pending completion of an environmental impact report.
Following years of analysis, a lengthy report concluded that implementation of the plan could cause some traffic impacts. A judge allowed The City to roll out a small number of bicycle projects last year, and the bike plan injunction was fully lifted in August after the report was certified, leading to a proliferation of green bike lanes in San Francisco.
Despite Anderson’s victory, San Francisco is demanding that the coalition cover costs related to preparation and delivery of administrative legal documents. “The recovery of these costs, which total $51,959, is authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure,” city attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said in an e-mail. “Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of The City’s costs in litigation is a standard practice by the City Attorney’s Office.”
Anderson, who said he lives on Social Security payments and can’t afford the hefty bill, said the coalition elected to do the administrative work itself to avoid the costs. “It’s just an attempt to bully us, to punish us for daring to bring a suit against The City here in progressive land,” Anderson said.
The coalition filed court documents Wednesday opposing the demanded payment.
jupton@sfexaminer.com
Following years of analysis, a lengthy report concluded that implementation of the plan could cause some traffic impacts. A judge allowed The City to roll out a small number of bicycle projects last year, and the bike plan injunction was fully lifted in August after the report was certified, leading to a proliferation of green bike lanes in San Francisco.
Despite Anderson’s victory, San Francisco is demanding that the coalition cover costs related to preparation and delivery of administrative legal documents. “The recovery of these costs, which total $51,959, is authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure,” city attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said in an e-mail. “Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of The City’s costs in litigation is a standard practice by the City Attorney’s Office.”
Anderson, who said he lives on Social Security payments and can’t afford the hefty bill, said the coalition elected to do the administrative work itself to avoid the costs. “It’s just an attempt to bully us, to punish us for daring to bring a suit against The City here in progressive land,” Anderson said.
The coalition filed court documents Wednesday opposing the demanded payment.
jupton@sfexaminer.com
Labels: Anti-Car, Bicycle Plan, CEQA, City Government, Critical Mass, Dennis Herrera, Divisadero, Examiner
posted by Rob Anderson @ 9:36 AM
45 comments
45 Comments:
"A number of individual cyclists routinely intimidate pedestrians, and they all get together to bully everyone on city streets on the last Friday of every month with Critical Mass."
or...
A number of individual motorists routinely intimidate pedestrians, and they all get together to bully everyone on city streets everyday with Rush Hour.
You got your EIR, so you won. Then you appealed and lost. And you talk like you'll appeal again - on what grounds should be interesting to see play out.
Oh, yes, you bike people are the real victims here. Busch rejected our argument on the EIR, but we may appeal his decision. In the meantime, you poor bike people---where's my hanky?---will continue to be oppressed on the streets of San Francisco.
I'm just saying, two people were hit last week by cars, not bikes. You see what you want to see Rob, the rest of us are going to enjoy the new bike lanes.
And really, on what grounds are you appealing his decision? Spite?
I guess you missed the story in the Examiner yesterday: "Fatalities, injuries on city's streets down..."
I've posted on the safety issue, too, based on the city's own documents: our streets have been getting safer for years even without the Bicycle Plan. But don't let the facts get in the way of your self-pity.
Once population density gets to a certain level, private cars are a very costly way to move people - and that doesn't even count things like pollution. If we need to get rid of something in big urban centers, it would be private cars, not bikes. No one is trying to get rid of highways and freeways for cars and mass transit.
You have a few valid points with your lawsuit (some areas shouldn't have bike paths), but it was so mired in scorn for bikers to the point of being unreasonable and stupid. You ruined any chance of actually doing any good for the city.
Rob, nice dodge of the question about your appeal. Spite it is.
And I'm not arguing if the streets are safer or not, you obviously think bikes make being a pedestrian in this city a dangerous task. I'm just pointing out that last week two cars hit people when you clearly assert that bikes are the problem.
And I'm the one ignoring facts?
Where's my hanky - Poor Rob is being retaliated against!
Martyrdom! Call the Pope!
Mike: You raised the safety issue, and I cited evidence that in fact our streets are getting safer. For years the SFBC has fanned hysteria about the safety of city streets, but it turns out that that campaign has no factual basis. I'm not the lawyer on this case and won't hazard a legal opinion on the possible basis for an appeal.
Jesse writes: "You have a few valid points with your lawsuit (some areas shouldn't have bike paths), but it was so mired in scorn for bikers to the point of being unreasonable and stupid. You ruined any chance of actually doing any good for the city."
Bullshit. Could you be more specific about the "valid points" in the lawsuit? No, of course not, because you're faking it and don't know what you're talking about. My "scorn" for some cyclists and the great bicycle movement in general has been expressed on this blog, not in the litigation, which was about other issues---environmental review and the adequacy of the EIR on the Bicycle Plan.
Anonymous wrote: "Where's my hanky---Poor Rob is being retaliated against! Martyrdom! Call the Pope!"
It may be impossible for you bike people to understand this, but there are larger issues at stake here. Next time a neighborhood group---or even you bike people---think the city is engaged in a serious violation of the law, how likely will it be that your group will be willing to litigate against the city? The city has sent a message to all groups and "activists" in San Francisco: sue city government and you will punished by getting a big, fat bill at the end of the process.
"The city has sent a message to all groups and "activists" in San Francisco: sue city government and you will punished by getting a big, fat bill at the end of the process."
Bullshit.
"Make a frivolous lawsuit against city government and you will be punished". And I'm not talking about the EIR suit - just your appeal. The appeal was frivoulous, which is why you were smacked down
mikesonn:
Here's my theory on arguing with someone like Rob. Someone who's invested so much time, money, and energy in a certain ideology is almost never going to admit they're wrong. How could he be expected to admit that all he's essentially done is wasted time on making the city safer for everyone as well as our tax dollars doing it? If he were to ever waver from his narrative that this is about "you bike people" and let it be framed as being about the population in general's safety & choice of transportation mode, to concede to the reality: of course bike lanes will have impacts on auto traffic because auto traffic is having impacts on bike traffic (i.e. suppressing it), that the premise of automobile-traffic priority is false (I don't care whether you drive or not, Rob, you're fighting for it), that bicycles will never amount to the kind of danger to pedestrians that autos present (Copenhagen - one of the highest bike mode shares, yet lowest road death rates [0-1/yr] in the world?), that bicycles are a legitimate transportation mode due to the fact that thousands of regular people in this City, and countless others of all types in places around the world, use it as their primary mode every day (If not by bike, then how have we been getting around? How is it that I don't remember the last time I've driven or taken Muni, and that I don't walk very much?)(Never go to Copenhagen Rob, your brain might explode.), then the psychological consequences could be quite dire (unless he can learn to apply the same resilience he shows in his denial and is able move on from it).
How dare us, Mike, expect such a thing from him?
So where's the money going to come from if you do in fact, have to pony up? Have you got it? Will you need a fundraiser? I'd help arrange it.
You're blowing more smoke, Anon. Typical, stupid, nasty bike nut blather. As a CEQA specialist, you of course are familiar with that complex law and have read the important documents in this case---the Bicycle Plan, the EIR, and all the briefs filed in the case, right? All you know is Bikes are Good and Cars are Bad. That may be enough in your birdbrain circles, but it's not likely to impress anyone else.
"A number of individual cyclists routinely intimidate pedestrians"
But you just said the streets are safe. Which is it?
I'll cede to Judge Busch's expertise... Did you win, or lose the appeal?
"But you just said the streets are safe. Which is it?"
You can intimidate someone without injuring him. I've personally been nearly run over by cyclists while in a crosswalk a couple of times, but I wasn't hurt.
"Make a frivolous lawsuit against city government and you will be punished. And I'm not talking about the EIR suit---just your appeal. The appeal was frivolous, which is why you were smacked down."
You mean if you don't win in court, your argument by definition is "frivolous"? Since you're implying that you're familiar with our brief against the city's EIR, can you be specific about exactly why it was frivolous? You can't because you're faking it.
"I'll cede to Judge Busch's expertise...Did you win, or lose the appeal?"
You mean decisions by judges are always right? We're still thinking about an appeal.
"Someone who's invested so much time, money, and energy in a certain ideology is almost never going to admit they're wrong."
True, but that's a good description of you bike nuts, not me. I don't have any ideology. Besides, I haven't spent any money on the litigation, which, as I say, isn't necessarily over yet.
"...of course bike lanes will have impacts on auto traffic because auto traffic is having impacts on bike traffic (i.e. suppressing it), that the premise of automobile-traffic priority is false..."
You mean the fact that most people in SF choose to drive or ride Muni means their choices are "false"? You deny that you bike people are a small minority in the city? This is why people like you are such assholes: you want to impose your stupid hobby on the overwhelming majority of people in SF. And you're convinced that you're the ones who're being imposed on! You're crybabies, bullies, and assholes.
"You can intimidate someone without injuring him. "
Drivers do this on a daily basis, countless times to both pedestrians and cyclists alike. I'm sure you've had WAY more drivers stop long on a crosswalk or pull a right turn on red while looking the other way then have had been "nearly run over" by cyclists. Especially if so few people are cycling as you so regularly state.
"You mean the fact that most people in SF choose to drive or ride Muni means their choices are "false"? You deny that you bike people are a small minority in the city? This is why people like you are such assholes: you want to impose your stupid hobby on the overwhelming majority of people in SF. And you're convinced that you're the ones who're being imposed on! You're crybabies, bullies, and assholes."
No, of course not that their choices are false! It's that bicycle transport is also a legitimate one that deserves equal attention in providing conditions for regular people to do. How can you hold such a huge double standard?
Why can't you seem to get this through your head: More people would bike if there were better conditions for it, such as dedicated bike lanes. By "suppressing bike traffic", I mean that the potential for bicycle ridership is not being reached because of the domination of auto-traffic over safe conditions. This has been proven time and time again throughout cities. When Copenhagen's street space was becoming dominated by autos in the 1960's, bicycle ridership was declining, and the city decided to turn it around (and has done so successfully).
Why don't you ride a bike, Rob? I expect your answer is that it feels too unsafe. And that's exactly what we want to change!
"I don't have any ideology."
Everyone has an ideology, Rob. Yours just very forcefully skews reality and denies facts and evidence.
Oh yeah, why am I arguing with you again?
I drive, ride and walk in San Francisco. Recently all the bike lanes and other improvements have made my days in SF more pleasant. SF was a geographically beautiful city with terrible street asthetics. The city is looking better lately. I can still get around fine by car, always could, but now its getting better to ride around and walk. More room for pedestrians.
If you are a person that stopped PROGRESS then I am glad to see u get hit w fees.
I agree with you that cyclists are the real victims here. But they are not the only ones. Transit riders are also the victims of CAR - the closing of Market street to private vehicles has improved overall transit times. I wish they'd close all main streets to private vehicles!
Policies that favor individual car owners over productive members of society should be stopped, and the city is right to sue this Bob Anderon guy, who seems to have some kind of problem with transit and bicycles. Maybe those critical mass people were mean to him?
Honestly, I don't understand his argument at all.
Hey Rob
LOOK AT THESE ASSHOLES DEMANDING THAT EVERYONE LIVE LIKE THEM. WHAT NERVE:
http://www.streetfilms.org/the-taming-and-reclaiming-of-prospect-park-west/?t=The+Taming+and+Reclaiming+of+Prospect+Park+West
You're assuming that Streetsblog is telling you the whole story. Besides, the story is about New York. Try to focus on San Francisco, the city we live in.
You have to realize that SF is different then EVERY city ever in the history of the world and future also. We can't possibly do without cars. We aren't NYC or Copenhagen, we are San Francisco! Our version of the human needs access to free/cheap parking with many many lanes of travel for our automobiles.
You may that bike lanes and plazas and the like will work elsewhere, but not here - this is San Francisco!
And Rob, you still haven't touched on intimidation not being a stat kept - sure you pulled some crap out about a few bikes buzzing you, but I'm sure that cars come closer to hitting you and causing bodily injuring way more often the bikes. And on that note, how can bikes be that big of a threat if there aren't that many of them out there?
Like most bike commenters, you want to change the subject to cars, which is understandable given the bad behavior by cyclists witnessed by anyone who spends any time on city streets. But aren't you cyclists supposed to be better than the people driving cars, aka "death monsters"?
Rob, you flip it on cyclists constantly. And the point is that drivers are worse offenders (and much more common) of road rules then cyclists. You continually say there aren't many bikers on the road but then turn around and say that they are the main threat to pedestrians.
Two people got hit by cars, one died, last week. When was that last time you heard of a bike on ped collision? You live in a fantasy world where the facts just don't apply.
You pick out a couple of instances where a cyclist intimidated you, would you prefer (I'm assuming - 20 something male) was behind the wheel of a car? You think he'd be a model citizen with a ton of steel at his disposal? But I'm sure if you actually walked the streets of San Francisco as you claim, you'd have FAR more stories about drivers blowing half way into crosswalks or taking right hand turns into active crosswalks without looking. But then again, I'm just flipping the conversation to cars because I'm a bike nut, not a person who actually walks these streets and lives the near-misses from cars everyday.
"Rob, you flip it on cyclists constantly."
I'm the only local writer who does "flip on cyclists," and even that bothers you.
"And the point is that drivers are worse offenders (and much more common) of road rules then cyclists."
Simply not true, though when drivers break the rules it's admittedly more dangerous for everyone. I point out how badly many cyclists behave on city streets, and you immediately try to change the subject to drivers and cars. Many cyclists not only behave badly on city streets, but they also ride recklessly: the city's annual collision reports show that cyclists are so reckless that they cause 50% of their own injury accidents.
"But then again, I'm just flipping the conversation to cars because I'm a bike nut, not a person who actually walks these streets and lives the near-misses from cars everyday."
Yes, evidently. Of course you want to change the subject. I avoid "near-misses" of all kinds by being very careful when I'm on city streets. But the subject here is the punk behavior of many cyclists, not accidents and injuries. You can deny that this behavior is a fact of life on our streets, but, as I say, anyone who spends time on city streets---on foot, in a car, on a bus---witnesses a lot of dumb and annoying behavior by cyclists.
The terrible public image city cyclists have is why the SFBC didn't, as threatened, put the Bicycle Plan on the ballot several years ago. And that's why the Healthy Saturdays issue wasn't also put on the ballot back in 2006, when Mayor Newsom betrayed the clearly expressd will of city voters by arranging a "compromise" that allowed closing the park on Saturdays. Our progressive leadership and the SFBC understand, even if you don't, that the bike people aren't very popular, even here in Progressive Land.
It wasn't put on the ballot because we got through via legislation.
If you don't like the legislation, you can follow Valero and submit a ballot initiative to overturn current policy, much like Prop 23 is trying to do with AB32.
And you would fail, just like Valero will. Representative democracies work. If the bike plan was so oppressive, the Supervisors who voted Unanimously to approve it would be out on their can. Instead they are falling over themselves for photo ops owning it. Because they know it's a winning issue.
But even if the bike plan would fail if put to a vote - why would we bother? When you are winning the game with 2 seconds to go - you take a knee and win the game. Unless you're Lovie Smith.
Rob, you are a joke, but you know this already.
And if there aren't that many bikes out there, why are they posing such a threat? And you are so careful, so why worry? It is because you are bat-shit crazy. You'd rather some teenage punk be behind a wheel then on a bike? Come on. If jumping the shark could jump the shark - it'd be Rob "Muni runs just fine for me" Anderson.
Murph:
Whether it's a "winning" issue remains to be seen, since the hard part---actually implementing the Plan without making city traffic a lot worse---is ahead, including the ongoing attempt to "calm" Masonic Avenue. Your failed attempt to close off Noe Street should be a cautionary tale: the anti-car movement isn't universally popular in the city. Of course if you can get what you want through the Board of Supervisors, you don't have to go to the ballot, where a lot of unprogressive voters might have a different view than their enlightened leadership.
Mike Sonn writes: "And if there aren't that many bikes out there, why are they posing such a threat? And you are so careful, so why worry? It is because you are bat-shit crazy."
Your comments are so muddled it's time to deploy the insults. What "threat" are you talking about? I'm not particularly worried about my own safety. Recall that the topic was the bad behavior of many cyclists on city streets, and then, as per bike guy protocol, you changed the subject to cars and drivers.
"You'd rather[have] some teenage punk be behind a wheel then on a bike?"
You mean our choices are either a punk in a car or a punk on a bike?
"If jumping the shark could jump the shark---it'd be Rob 'Muni runs just fine for me' Anderson."
Muni does run fine for me, but then I don't have to commute downtown any more. Rescinding the recent service cuts is a step in the right direction. Muni is the real alternative to drving in the city for most people; bikes are for the young, PC folks and a few old farts, their ponytails blowing in the wind, who like to think they're still cool.
You say there aren't many bikes on the roads so they don't deserve space. Then you say that pedestrians greatest risk is getting buzzed by bikes. But then you say that the streets are safe, but only safe because intimidation isn't accounted for - but only intimidation by bikes cause we can't talk about cars.
The circle logic is all on your side. I'm trying to wade through the huge amounts of crap you keep spewing out.
Looks like it's OK for some groups to sue government over clean air (but others can't):
Sierra Club Sues EPA
"You say there aren't many bikes on the roads so they don't deserve space. Then you say that pedestrians greatest risk is getting buzzed by bikes. But then you say that the streets are safe, but only safe because intimidation isn't accounted for---but only intimidation by bikes cause we can't talk about cars."
I never said any of those things, Mike. Like a lot of you bike guys, you find it too painful to read what I actually write, which puts you at a disadvantage when you try to form an argument.
Actually Rob, you'd said all those things.
-You state that city streets are safe.
-You state that pedestrians are often put in danger by errant cyclists.
-You state that there are not many cyclists on the road.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the streets are safe or they aren't. Either there are a lot of cyclists putting peds at risk, or there aren't.
Simply untrue. Why don't you provide some direct quotations? Shouldn't be too hard, should it?You don't put any of these statements in quotation marks, because I never made them.
The goat will pay!!! Moooooo!!! The goat will pay!!!
Rob knows the truth, he's just stuck in the nurry nurry when it comes to admiting it.
Here's another great article on the proof of mainstream bikes:
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100912/FREE/309129988#
"our streets have been getting safer for years". yet two people were hit within the last two weeks (one died) and there was a huge crash in the Tenderloin today.
"A number of individual cyclists routinely intimidate pedestrians". However, the entire premise of your blog is that there aren't that many cyclists out there to begin with.
"where a lot of unprogressive voters might have a different view than their enlightened leadership."
unprogressive must mean stupid if they keep voting in people who don't share their views. How you didn't win in a landslide I'll never know...
True, but that's a good description of you bike nuts, not me. I don't have any ideology.
"I don't have any ideology"
Rob Anderson - stand up comedian.
A bike nut - anyone who disagrees with Rob Anderson's position on SF Bicycle Plan.
Rob, stop chasing windmills and focus on something worthwhile. You should spend your considerable free time on the Judy Bari/Daryl Cherney evidence case.
"Chasing windmills"? While I look for windmills that will move around, maybe you could tell me what my ideology is. No, my attention has to be mostly on San Francisco, the birthplace of both Critical Mass and Burning Man, because this is where I live. I lived in Mendocino County when the timber wars took place, which is why I'm still interested in the attempted assassination of Judi Bari. There are still some intellectually challenged "progressives"---I won't mention any names---on the Northcoast who insist that Bari's ex-husband put the bomb in her car, though, like belief in the great bicycle movement, this is based on faith, not the facts. There isn't any new evidence available on the Bari bombing, which is why Cherney's attempt to prevent the Feds from destroying that evidence is important.
I missed this before:
"I'm the only local writer who does "flip on cyclists," and even that bothers you."
You are a local writer? Ha ha.
And you totally ignored the quotes I found. Your circle logic confuses you as well.
Yes Mike, I am a local writer writing about local issues.
What "quotes are you referring to? This?:
"our streets have been getting safer for years". yet two people were hit within the last two weeks (one died) and there was a huge crash in the Tenderloin today.
According to the city's accident numbers---you can download the reports from the MTA's website---the streets of SF have been getting safer over the last ten years. Of course there are accidents every day in the city. "Safer" doesn't mean no accidents at all; it just means, well, safer than before. I understand that you bike guys think that the city is obligated to make your risky hobby absolutely safe, but that's impossible.
And this:
"A number of individual cyclists routinely intimidate pedestrians". However, the entire premise of your blog is that there aren't that many cyclists out there to begin with.
I made the statement you put in quotes, but that's a truism to anyone who spends time on our streets. The second statement is simply false. Obviously there are a lot of cyclists "out there" on city streets, but not nearly enough to justify redesigning city streets on their behalf.
How is some tree hugger from Mendocino being killed a "local issue". How is the "Ground Zero Mosque" a local issue?
As long as you can sleep at night, Rob. And you may be a writer but that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
I found your buddy and by god his name is Rob also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nySs1cEq5rs&feature=player_embedded
It's my blog, and I write about whatever interests me, local, national, internationalj, but I write about mostly SF issues.
I wonder if pedestrians/cyclists hurt or killed during the injunction can also sue Rob, claiming if the improvements had been in place, their accidents could have been avoided..
Post a Comment
<< Home