Oooops, small problem!

Marcy,

  I don't think the ExCom ought to vote to void a vote of the
membership. That would be, in effect, a lower body overruling a higher
one. What I'm unclear on from what you and Justin say is whether the
vote at the meeting to restrict the proposition to the specific subject
of curb rights, or only to the broader subject of private
transportation. If the latter, then we can easily amend the process I
suggested to accept only submissions related to private transportation.
But if the vote was to restrict the subject to curb rights, and we now
have a consensus that we do not want a curb rights measure, then we
have a problem. A possible way out of this, as I suggested in my last
message, would be to proceed from square one with work on a *second*
initiative following the process and timeline I outlined, while
technically still leaving the curb rights measure alive until we can
formally vote to drop it at the next meeting.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Justin,

Thanks for your reminder of the third agreement at the meeting (I do
not recall that the committee suggestion was a formal vote), the
first being a formal vote not to abandon the transit proposition or
return to square one, and the second being a formal vote to restrict
the proposition to the subject of transit. Thus, it is correct, as
you and Starchild have indicated that in order to move in a different
direction, we must have a new vote voiding those two formal votes.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Justin Sampson <justin@k...>
wrote:

I was not aware that such a vote was taken, but I'm glad there

was a

group vote, even though I was not there to participate and would

have

voted differently had I been there. If the vast majority of

people at

the meeting voted for a transportation initiative, then that's

what we

should go with. Therefore I suggest simply amending the process I
proposed to require that any initiative submitted be related to

private

transportation.

The formal decision at the meeting was to the effect that the LPSF

would

pursue a proposition on the subject of "curb rights", and then that

a

committee made up of anyone who joined the discussion on lpsf-

activists

should prepare a report for the next meeting describing a proposed
proposition (not yet in legal language) for consideration by the

regular

meeting as to next steps. This was not necessarily a binding

commitment to

see such a proposition through to a ballot, but to put some formal

oomph

into getting the process moving. The proposition developed in this
committee still has to be reported to the regular meeting in March.

As a point of order, I'm curious whether "curb rights" was generally
understood to mean selling or leasing curbs specifically, or to mean
libertarian approaches to urban transit in general. I understood it

as the

latter, as opposed to marijuana legalization and other diverse

topics,

such that medallions were still open for consideration.

The main driver for that motion was that there had actually been

some

proposals drafted on this topic, by Phil Berg and by Michael

Edelstein.

-J-

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Starchild,

As I have indicated, the vote at the meeting was to restrict the
initiative to private transportation, not necessarily to "curb
rights." It seemed to me that the idea was to focus on at least one
area, in an effort to move forward.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Marcy,

  I don't think the ExCom ought to vote to void a vote of the
membership. That would be, in effect, a lower body overruling a

higher

one. What I'm unclear on from what you and Justin say is whether

the

vote at the meeting to restrict the proposition to the specific

subject

of curb rights, or only to the broader subject of private
transportation. If the latter, then we can easily amend the process

I

suggested to accept only submissions related to private

transportation.

But if the vote was to restrict the subject to curb rights, and we

now

have a consensus that we do not want a curb rights measure, then we
have a problem. A possible way out of this, as I suggested in my

last

message, would be to proceed from square one with work on a

*second*

initiative following the process and timeline I outlined, while
technically still leaving the curb rights measure alive until we

can

formally vote to drop it at the next meeting.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> Justin,
>
> Thanks for your reminder of the third agreement at the meeting (I

do

> not recall that the committee suggestion was a formal vote), the
> first being a formal vote not to abandon the transit proposition

or

> return to square one, and the second being a formal vote to

restrict

> the proposition to the subject of transit. Thus, it is correct,

as

> you and Starchild have indicated that in order to move in a

different

> direction, we must have a new vote voiding those two formal votes.
>
> Marcy
>
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Justin Sampson

<justin@k...>

> wrote:
>>
>>> I was not aware that such a vote was taken, but I'm glad there
> was a
>>> group vote, even though I was not there to participate and would
> have
>>> voted differently had I been there. If the vast majority of
> people at
>>> the meeting voted for a transportation initiative, then that's
> what we
>>> should go with. Therefore I suggest simply amending the process

I

>>> proposed to require that any initiative submitted be related to
> private
>>> transportation.
>>
>> The formal decision at the meeting was to the effect that the

LPSF

> would
>> pursue a proposition on the subject of "curb rights", and then

that

> a
>> committee made up of anyone who joined the discussion on lpsf-
> activists
>> should prepare a report for the next meeting describing a

proposed

>> proposition (not yet in legal language) for consideration by the
> regular
>> meeting as to next steps. This was not necessarily a binding
> commitment to
>> see such a proposition through to a ballot, but to put some

formal

> oomph
>> into getting the process moving. The proposition developed in

this

>> committee still has to be reported to the regular meeting in

March.

>>
>> As a point of order, I'm curious whether "curb rights" was

generally

>> understood to mean selling or leasing curbs specifically, or to

mean

>> libertarian approaches to urban transit in general. I understood

it

> as the
>> latter, as opposed to marijuana legalization and other diverse
> topics,
>> such that medallions were still open for consideration.
>>
>> The main driver for that motion was that there had actually been
> some
>> proposals drafted on this topic, by Phil Berg and by Michael
> Edelstein.
>>
>> -J-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

We could go with the liberation of the jitney stops from the ban on
picking up and discharging pasengers, call it libertarian, and forget
the whole gren vehicle angle. It would be much purer and it would in
the end work better, maybe, but...I don't think we will get out of the
starting gate. I think this is a discussion between purity and
pragmatism. Is it really selling out, the proposition does increase
liberty in a dignificant way. Once the idea is shown to work, it cna
be wxpanded. We line in a Socialist city, that is a fact. Wvery
seccessful political party uses the desires of people to to get them
to buy thier line. Yes it is a little Machevellian. But liberty is
increased. Besides why the hell can't we take all the credit in the
world. Liberty is a hell of a lot greener than Socialism. We know that
and when they start complainig about us stealing the color, we can
proclaim to all that libery is best for the environment in the case of
this proposition, and in all cases. Does the Nature conservancy
clearcut, no. Does wheyhauser or Georgia Pacific leave thier own
property barren without planting. Bo the disasters occur on Government
land , not privately owned. It wil be a great opportunity to take the
offensive on the environmental issues. So I vote for green jitney
commons, but am OK with just plain Jitney Commons.

As for Jitneys using bus stops, the Jitneys willsteal MuBIs
accumulation of passsengeres in space and time. Not a problem on
Geary or van Mess, but it will destroy all service in thinly populted
and thin time zones, where the schedules are important to creat
suppley of passengers, and insufficient tomaintain theJitbney stream.
The headaches in well travelled areas such as geary of common use with
busses is easy to see and would cause a lot of opposition. Why be in
thier face when we can find common ground and use it to open some
minds. Are we gong to have a political party and make some progress,
ar a debating society that gets gets shot down before we even taci off
the tarmac. I say we come out loud and clear that this green, and this
is liberty.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Would the no votes change to yes if we dropprd the requirement for
environmentally friendly vehicles??? As I said, I could support
drippingit,(but am concerned it would greatly lessen our chances for
success). No voters and others please comment.

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, "ricochetboy" <philzberg@e...>
wrote:

We could go with the liberation of the jitney stops from the ban on
picking up and discharging pasengers, call it libertarian, and forget
the whole gren vehicle angle. It would be much purer and it would in
the end work better, maybe, but...I don't think we will get out of the
starting gate. I think this is a discussion between purity and
pragmatism. Is it really selling out, the proposition does increase
liberty in a dignificant way. Once the idea is shown to work, it cna
be wxpanded. We line in a Socialist city, that is a fact. Wvery
seccessful political party uses the desires of people to to get them
to buy thier line. Yes it is a little Machevellian. But liberty is
increased. Besides why the hell can't we take all the credit in the
world. Liberty is a hell of a lot greener than Socialism. We know that
and when they start complainig about us stealing the color, we can
proclaim to all that libery is best for the environment in the case of
this proposition, and in all cases. Does the Nature conservancy
clearcut, no. Does wheyhauser or Georgia Pacific leave thier own
property barren without planting. Bo the disasters occur on Government
land , not privately owned. It wil be a great opportunity to take the
offensive on the environmental issues. So I vote for green jitney
commons, but am OK with just plain Jitney Commons.

As for Jitneys using bus stops, the Jitneys willsteal MuBIs
accumulation of passsengeres in space and time. Not a problem on
Geary or van Mess, but it will destroy all service in thinly populted
and thin time zones, where the schedules are important to creat
suppley of passengers, and insufficient tomaintain theJitbney stream.
The headaches in well travelled areas such as geary of common use with
busses is easy to see and would cause a lot of opposition. Why be in
thier face when we can find common ground and use it to open some
minds. Are we gong to have a political party and make some progress,
ar a debating society that gets gets shot down before we even taci off
the tarmac. I say we come out loud and clear that this green, and this
is liberty.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Phil,

It's good to hear from you, it's been a few days. :slight_smile:

I just watched a few minutes of the Budget & Finance Committee
(Supervisors Ammiano, Elsbernd, and Daly) on TV. A representative from
Muni was describing their plan (and budget request) for achieving zero
emissions throughout the fleet by 2020. For example, they're buying 75 or
so hybrid buses and installing "particle traps" on existing buses.

Apparently this is largely to comply with Prop. I of March 2004 (passed
with 67.5% of the vote), which requires Muni to replace all diesel buses
purchased before 1991 by the end of 2006, and requires all new buses
purchased to comply with the anti-pollution standards that already apply
to all other City departments when purchasing vehicles.

(By the way, did you know that "Muni buses are typically funded 80% by the
Federal government and 20% by local sales taxes"? That's from the
Controller's Statement on "I" in the March 2004 Voter Information
Pamphlet.)

So anyway, it does make political sense for any new transit proposal to
contain a zero-emissions clause. And I do agree with Kelly that
environmental protection is a legitimate subject of law.

On the other hand, as has been stated often before, we are not the typical
political party. The nature of a political party is of course to "win" in
the political arena, but our definition of "winning" is to largely (though
perhaps not totally) dismantle the very political power we're trying to
"win" in the first place. As Michael Edelstein and David Rhodes have been
consistently reminding us, the more regulatory verbiage we allow, the more
rope the Supervisors have to hang us with.

That said, my favorite so far is Kelly's wording allowing zero-emissions
vehicles to pick up and drop off passengers at existing bus stops. Any of
these proposals is going to be opposed by Muni. Requiring a new jitney
stop for every existing bus stop is going to eliminate over 10,000 parking
spaces, which won't be particularly popular. (There are 4,125 transit
stops in the City; I'm figuring there will be 2 to 4 parking spaces
eliminated per jitney stop.)

Some numbers: "San Francisco Transportation Fact Sheet"
http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/dpt_index.asp?id=13454

Justin

We could go with the liberation of the jitney stops from the ban on
picking up and discharging pasengers, call it libertarian, and forget
the whole gren vehicle angle. It would be much purer and it would in the
end work better, maybe, but...I don't think we will get out of the
starting gate. I think this is a discussion between purity and
pragmatism. Is it really selling out, the proposition does increase
liberty in a dignificant way. Once the idea is shown to work, it cna be
wxpanded. We line in a Socialist city, that is a fact. Wvery seccessful
political party uses the desires of people to to get them to buy thier
line. Yes it is a little Machevellian. But liberty is increased. Besides
why the hell can't we take all the credit in the world. Liberty is a
hell of a lot greener than Socialism. We know that and when they start
complainig about us stealing the color, we can proclaim to all that
libery is best for the environment in the case of this proposition, and
in all cases. Does the Nature conservancy clearcut, no. Does wheyhauser
or Georgia Pacific leave thier own property barren without planting. Bo
the disasters occur on Government land , not privately owned. It wil be
a great opportunity to take the offensive on the environmental issues.
So I vote for green jitney commons, but am OK with just plain Jitney
Commons.

As for Jitneys using bus stops, the Jitneys willsteal MuBIs accumulation
of passsengeres in space and time. Not a problem on Geary or van Mess,
but it will destroy all service in thinly populted and thin time zones,
where the schedules are important to creat suppley of passengers, and
insufficient tomaintain theJitbney stream. The headaches in well
travelled areas such as geary of common use with busses is easy to see
and would cause a lot of opposition. Why be in thier face when we can
find common ground and use it to open some minds. Are we gong to have a
political party and make some progress, ar a debating society that gets
gets shot down before we even taci off the tarmac. I say we come out
loud and clear that this green, and this is liberty.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Phil - Just back in town..apologies for the delay.

Yes, I think the green aspect should be dropped from
the initiative. Of course I'm all for clean air
personally (as I pick the soot out of my nose) but I
don't see how or why 'saving the environment' should
be part of a libertarian proposal. There are numerous
environment groups in town who could champion that
cause.

By promoting a free market alternative, if the people
of SF want to ride zero-emission vehicles, I'm sure
transportation companies will provide those choices
once unfettered. Non-green alternatives will then fail
or modify there ways. Either way, a Dodge maxi-van is
still 'greener' than an empty Muni bus chugging up a
hill. And people still have the right to sue polluters
if they feel harmed by emissions.

Another related point I want to bring up - assuming
that the goal here is still to provide shock value
rather than a small win (yes?) - I think the actual
proposal wording should be as simple and straight
forward as possible. Then the role of the spin doctor
comes to play to fill in the gaps.

I know it is very libertarian to always be accurate
and truthful all the time, but that's a terrible way
to effectively market anything. I don't think we
should feel guilty about skewing the benefits of our
proposal in the media, etc. We could even call it the
'green jitney' initiative in LTE's so that the name
sticks when people go to the polls. How many people
actually read and understand these measures anyway?

Also, this may be a ten year effort like the anti-rent
control measures that show up from time to time. There
is plenty of time down the road to add in riders once
we know what they will buy us. It would be sad to add
in a bunch of green rhetoric now only to be spurned by
the environmentalists for not banning vehicles all
together....or out of spite.

cheers,

David

BTW - I would support either the anti-medallion
proposal or a modified curb proposal that is
free-market oriented

Would the no votes change to yes if we dropprd the
requirement for
environmentally friendly vehicles??? As I said, I
could support
drippingit,(but am concerned it would greatly lessen
our chances for
success). No voters and others please comment.

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, "ricochetboy"
<philzberg@e...>
wrote:
>
> We could go with the liberation of the jitney
stops from the ban on
> picking up and discharging pasengers, call it
libertarian, and forget
> the whole gren vehicle angle. It would be much
purer and it would in
> the end work better, maybe, but...I don't think we
will get out of the
> starting gate. I think this is a discussion
between purity and
> pragmatism. Is it really selling out, the
proposition does increase
> liberty in a dignificant way. Once the idea is
shown to work, it cna
> be wxpanded. We line in a Socialist city, that is
a fact. Wvery
> seccessful political party uses the desires of
people to to get them
> to buy thier line. Yes it is a little
Machevellian. But liberty is
> increased. Besides why the hell can't we take all
the credit in the
> world. Liberty is a hell of a lot greener than
Socialism. We know that
> and when they start complainig about us stealing
the color, we can
> proclaim to all that libery is best for the
environment in the case of
> this proposition, and in all cases. Does the
Nature conservancy
> clearcut, no. Does wheyhauser or Georgia Pacific
leave thier own
> property barren without planting. Bo the disasters
occur on Government
> land , not privately owned. It wil be a great
opportunity to take the
> offensive on the environmental issues. So I vote
for green jitney
> commons, but am OK with just plain Jitney Commons.
>
> As for Jitneys using bus stops, the Jitneys
willsteal MuBIs
> accumulation of passsengeres in space and time.
Not a problem on
> Geary or van Mess, but it will destroy all service
in thinly populted
> and thin time zones, where the schedules are
important to creat
> suppley of passengers, and insufficient tomaintain
theJitbney stream.
> The headaches in well travelled areas such as
geary of common use with
> busses is easy to see and would cause a lot of
opposition. Why be in
> thier face when we can find common ground and use
it to open some
> minds. Are we gong to have a political party and
make some progress,
> ar a debating society that gets gets shot down
before we even taci off
> the tarmac. I say we come out loud and clear that
this green, and this
> is liberty.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide
underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student
project in NYC/NC today!

http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM

--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/