Earlier this year, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency decided that a good way to save some money would be to change the street sweeping rules in parts of this city. What that meant was that some neighborhoods would start seeing their streets swept twice a month, instead of every week. Muni projected roughly $1 million in savings by not sweeping as often. Plus, as a resident of one of those neighborhoods, it was quite tiring to have to move your car twice a week just to avoid getting a ticket- couple that with limited street parking and tourists taking up those spots over the weekend, I would spend upwards of an hour sometimes just driving around trying to find a parking spot.
Well, it turns out that by not sweeping and not issuing parking tickets to those unlucky people who forget to move their car is costing the city $3.8 million a year in lost revenue from parking tickets. As usual, the geniuses that make up the Board of Supervisors want Muni to go back to revisit this decision, noting the loss of revenue.
Just so I'm clear here- Muni made a decision that it could save some money by not running street sweepers as often, not to mention that some streets just don't need to swept every week. Case in point- the numbered streets in the Inner Sunset went from every Monday and Wednesday to the 1st and 3rd Monday and Wednesday's of the month (except for 9th, which is a business district; they still sweep twice a week), but streets like Lincoln and Irving kept their sweeping schedule. So, Muni appeared to have done some amount of homework on what streets were being over-swept. But, due to the lost revenue from parking tickets related to street sweeping, the city wants Muni to go back and see if they should re-institute some of these inefficient sweeping schedules, solely because of the lost revenue.
I don't know, but I was unaware the certain municipal activities, like street sweeping, were supposed to be revenue earners for the city. I thought street sweeping was supposed to, you know, clean the street of debris and other safety-related reasons. But the city, never missing an opportunity to reach into the pockets of its residents (who, pursuant to City housing rules, likely do not have adequate on-site parking), want to figure how Muni can recover that lost revenue, and potentially re-institute Muni's otherwise wasteful and inefficient use of its property and personnel.
Since I no longer have to drive around twice a week to find a parking space, I can only wonder how much emissions I'm no longer emitting due to these new rules. Not to mention the emissions from the street sweepers and the little parking ticket vehicles that fan out in front of the street sweeper, writing $50 tickets. You'd think that if the City truly did care about emissions, these rules would be welcomed; instead, all the city really cares about is money. And if an otherwise good program ends up costing the city in lost parking ticket revenue, well, by-golly, that can't be right.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
My random baseball suspension post
Josh Beckett had his 6 game suspension for throwing at Bobby Abreu reduced to 5 games today by Major League Baseball. It means that Beckett won't miss his next start.
Forgive me, but what's the point of suspending him in the first place? He is a starting pitcher, which means he only plays every 5th to 6th day in the first place, all those other days he's sitting on the bench or doing his otherwise scheduled workouts. So, he's suspended for 5 games, which doesn't mean anything to him because he's a starting pitcher, and we're supposed to assume that that taught him a lesson? It didn't teach him anything, as the article notes, Beckett didn't think he deserved even a game suspension.
If an everyday player gets suspended for 5 games, he misses 5 games (unless you're Milton Bradley who tends to get hurt and wasn't going play in those games anyway); if a starting pitcher gets suspended for 5 games, he doesn't miss anything. How does that make any sense? Baseball needs to figure out this suspension policy as it affects starting pitchers, because if the goal is to show how a starting pitchers' actions can harm a team, then they need to tie it to starts and not to games. As the Beckett example shows- 5 games is still a serious suspension, for an everyday player, but it doesn't harm a starting pitcher who doesn't miss a turn in the rotation.
Forgive me, but what's the point of suspending him in the first place? He is a starting pitcher, which means he only plays every 5th to 6th day in the first place, all those other days he's sitting on the bench or doing his otherwise scheduled workouts. So, he's suspended for 5 games, which doesn't mean anything to him because he's a starting pitcher, and we're supposed to assume that that taught him a lesson? It didn't teach him anything, as the article notes, Beckett didn't think he deserved even a game suspension.
If an everyday player gets suspended for 5 games, he misses 5 games (unless you're Milton Bradley who tends to get hurt and wasn't going play in those games anyway); if a starting pitcher gets suspended for 5 games, he doesn't miss anything. How does that make any sense? Baseball needs to figure out this suspension policy as it affects starting pitchers, because if the goal is to show how a starting pitchers' actions can harm a team, then they need to tie it to starts and not to games. As the Beckett example shows- 5 games is still a serious suspension, for an everyday player, but it doesn't harm a starting pitcher who doesn't miss a turn in the rotation.
Challenges ahead
In a surprise move that has basically been telegraphed since the day after he said it last year, President Obama said they he will not re-open talks on NAFTA. In the Democratic primary debate on February 16, 2008, Obama was crystal clear on his view of NAFTA:
"I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA], in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. ... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far."
It didn't take long for the campaign to offer whispers to Canada that Obama didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA. In fact, members of the campaign allegedly met with Canadian officials 8 days before the debate to re-assure Canada that whatever candidate Obama said publicly about NAFTA was simply for show to get nominated.
Backing down from this promise is good news for markets and for all three countries involved. The article also notes that there are positive steps in getting the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia moving forward, after the Democratic congress shamefully refused to hold an up or down vote on these agreements solely for political posturing on behalf of labor unions during the final days of the previous administration.
There is an interesting article from Yahoo news today talking about whether couples who make $250K a year are rich. The conclusion: probably not. The problem, the article finds, is that as these couples' wealth have increased, education and health care costs have skyrocketed beyond their income growth. The article notes "data show that over the last 10 years, education costs have risen 5.91% annually, and health- care expenses have gone up 4.16% annually, while wages and income have risen only 3.7% over the same time span. That means many families are seeing a greater percentage of their income going toward those two areas." Additionally, that wealth may also be tied up in their house, and with falling housing prices, their wealth may also have suffered as a result. Then there are those who live in states with high costs of living and high tax rates, such as California. That is to say, the tax code does not take into account standards of living. As San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said, "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley." Yet, the Obama budget plan seeks to increase taxes on just those people, based on an arbitrary definition of "rich."
One can only wonder what other tricks this charlatan has up his sleeves in his attempt to pull another fast one over on the American people? Carolyn Lochhead at the Chronicle has an idea: "Obama hopes we can't count."
"I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA], in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. ... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far."
It didn't take long for the campaign to offer whispers to Canada that Obama didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA. In fact, members of the campaign allegedly met with Canadian officials 8 days before the debate to re-assure Canada that whatever candidate Obama said publicly about NAFTA was simply for show to get nominated.
Backing down from this promise is good news for markets and for all three countries involved. The article also notes that there are positive steps in getting the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia moving forward, after the Democratic congress shamefully refused to hold an up or down vote on these agreements solely for political posturing on behalf of labor unions during the final days of the previous administration.
There is an interesting article from Yahoo news today talking about whether couples who make $250K a year are rich. The conclusion: probably not. The problem, the article finds, is that as these couples' wealth have increased, education and health care costs have skyrocketed beyond their income growth. The article notes "data show that over the last 10 years, education costs have risen 5.91% annually, and health- care expenses have gone up 4.16% annually, while wages and income have risen only 3.7% over the same time span. That means many families are seeing a greater percentage of their income going toward those two areas." Additionally, that wealth may also be tied up in their house, and with falling housing prices, their wealth may also have suffered as a result. Then there are those who live in states with high costs of living and high tax rates, such as California. That is to say, the tax code does not take into account standards of living. As San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said, "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley." Yet, the Obama budget plan seeks to increase taxes on just those people, based on an arbitrary definition of "rich."
One can only wonder what other tricks this charlatan has up his sleeves in his attempt to pull another fast one over on the American people? Carolyn Lochhead at the Chronicle has an idea: "Obama hopes we can't count."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)