 |
| Ed Reiskin |
Mari at Meter Madness forwards a message from Nancy Wuerfel:
The SFMTA has done a terrible job of informing the neighbors about the proposed bike lanes on Vicente Street. The Transportation Engineering Hearing on April 14th is premature, since most people have not seen a notice.
FOR THE RECORD, here are the facts:
Tues, 4/4/17: I sent an email Jonathan Chimento that was returned to me as "undeliverable." Apparently SFMTA has some kind of problem receiving emails (not just in this case). I did have a telephone discussion with Jonathan in which he promised he would put his name and telephone number on the notices to be posted on Vicente so people could talk to him. He did not do this.
Wed, 4/5/17: The flimsy paper notices were taped onto poles along Vicente Street. There are no maps that show exactly how the bike lanes, parking and traffic lanes would be lined up on Vicente Street. I observed notices on 4 poles at the intersection of 23rd Avenue and Vicente. No protection was afforded the notices, no lamination.
Thursday and Friday: Lots of rain and wind in the Parkside District that destroyed many notices.
Sat, 4/8/17: The paper notices were in tatters from the storm, many unreadable.
Sun, 4/9/17: I walked along Vicente and noticed only one intact notice between 20th Ave and 28th Ave, and most intersections had NO notices or even tape left on the poles. Where parts of a notice were still remaining under the tape, the bottom part was torn off that had information about submitting opinions by fax or email, requesting language assistance, about getting more information, CEQA rights, etc.
So a week before the hearing, the notices were partially or completely destroyed. Therefore, the public noticing was incompetently done with no regard to keeping notices intact for 10 days. There was no public meeting to discuss the lanes before the public hearing.
Please reschedule the hearing and repost all of the notices along Vicente after scheduling a public meeting to explain the changes SFMTA is asking for. The first posting is disrespectful to the public, the businesses and the institutions affected by this change.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wuerfel
posted by Rob Anderson @ 2:29 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
It's time for another prop L. Only use a different letter this time so people do not psychologically relate it to the previous prop L.
This time play ed lees and sfmta political game. Change up the catch phrases. No more restore balance. Our streets our more dangerous emergency response can't get anywhere. Nothing is safer. These are facts and truth. So the new catch phrase should be "safer streets" or "safe streets sf". Something a long those lines.
The first 2-3 pages discuss how many pedestrians walk, bike ride and drive and how the streets are unsafe as well as emergency response getting stuck in traffic. When you get to the 4th or 5th page then discuss sfmta and cars and speak about what the measure is about in limited fashion with limited billet points. It's all still true just limited. Save all the specifics for the legal texts.
This city is so fucked up they vote on catch phrases. Exactly what the city and sfmta do. Of course they make the legal text public but they just don't put it in your hand. So do the same thing.
But again use like A B or something not L.
Want safer streets? Vote yes on prop A. Then these bike coalition pricks will vote yes all because of the words "safer streets". In the end they legally get fucked just like we do.
Follow in sfmta footsteps and play the same legal game. All the anti car idiots will vote yes on it blindly. I promise.
Anonymous@6:56, that is brilliant. Create a ballot measure that trumpets "safe streets" while really allowing cars to plow through at maximum speed. The only concern is that someone might catch on to our cunning plan.
Cyclists aren't stupid. Like a lot of religious believers, they're just delusional about bikes and anti-carism---and smart[sic] growth. No need for any deception. Unlike Proposition L, a ballot measure should simply present the facts about how City Hall is making traffic in the city a lot worse than it has to be with many of its "improvements" to city streets. Doing that on behalf of a small minority of perhaps 4% of those who now use our streets is something that Proposition L never clearly explained.
Post a Comment
<< Home