Blog Reading

The Delicious

Opinion Journal

LGF

Hugh Hewitt

Instapundit

Frogman

No Pasaran

San Francisco Blogs

Oriental Redneck

Inside the SFPD

Rants on SF Liberals

Where's Joe DiMaggio?

Bedside Reading

The Economist

The California Patriot

New on the iPod

My Story

Current DVD

The Dark Knight

 

IS SPUR ON CRACK?

Well, any pretense of SPUR being a non-partisan "public policy group" went out the window this AM.

Their solution to the "MUNI crisis" is: Tax tax tax. Dun sound non partisan to me. It DOES sound democrap, which is what SPUR's board has been infiltrated with over the past few years.

Tax off street parking spaces. Increase sales tax. Increase the tax for on street parking spaces (AKA parking meters). Not once does it say, "reduce costs by renegotiating union contracts"or "privatize MUNI".

Read their "special report" on MUNI and take note about how much of it is filler. The history of MUNI and obvious things (if you actually ride MUNI outside of sNob Hill and Pac Heights) like clean, safe and fast buses will get more people to ride. But take note that it calls for INCREASING the MUNI payroll, not decreasing it. And in their "report", they identify payroll as being one of the problems.

In either case, MUNI's hole should NOT be filled by taxpayers because they didn't cause the problem! The unions dug the hole. Now they should have to live in it.

Stupidvisors shocked SHOCKED!!

...that the good socialists of San Francisco don't pay their MUNI fares to the tune of anywhere between US$16-24 million. That's enough to purchase AND pay off several San Francisco Stupidvisors OR keep the unions happy for a few months!

But some of the examples that are quoted in this report leaves open questions...

First off, they give an example of revenue loss due to people jumping the wickets in the Muni Metro stations, due to unmanned station booths and people not wanting to walk another block underground to get to a manned booth to flash a transfer. How is it revenue loss if they have a transfer? Or if they don't, they can simply drop 5 quarters into the turnstyle or feed it a Fast (ha ha) Pass.

Second off, the lines that were inspected were the four Muni Metro downtown stops and the 30 Stockton. What about the F Market? The 29 Sunset? The 14 Mission? The stinkin' 38? Why target the 30 even though these other lines carry far more people and are trunk lines? Gee, where does the 30 go? And I wonder which community they want to go after??

And get the last line of the story! "people thinking not paying their US$1 doesn't matter". Hey, Maggie Lynch, MUNI spokesperson! Guess what? It's US$1.50 to ride! What, people only put in 50 cents and then ride? Bet she doesn't have to ride MUNI! Remember, she works for MUNI so she's more equal than we are!

Now I have been a MUNI victim for most of my life and I've ridden these lines. I've seen "fare evasion" on the 30 Stockton. People boarding the basi from the rear doors at most of the stops downtown and through Chinatown. Clutching transfers and various passes. Now, how is that "fare evasion" when they are carrying the proper fare? As opposed to riding on the 38, the F and the 29 where people simply get on the bus/tram through the front doors or the back and not pay the fare at all. And the "best transit employees in the United States" simply let them go. Maybe its because they dun wanna deal with bums or punks. Of course, this also happens on their MUNI basi but do they do anything about it? Nope. Maybe it's because of who the victims are...

Guns don't save lives, eh?

If this happened in San Francisco, guess what? We would have one of two possible conclusions.

#1: The husband who saved his wife's life would be arrested and prosecuted by the liberals who run San Francisco because "he had a gun" and "there would be no crime if there are no guns". The criminal who tried to kill them will be turned into a martyr by the liberals and will be lionized as another "victim" of guns.

OR

#2: We would have a husband and wife killed by an "unknown intruder" and the case would eventually find its way to the dead case file.

Did you read in the article that the criminal had a gun? Hmmmm. But if guns are banned, then the criminal wouldn't have gotten a gun. Because we all know that criminals abide by the waiting period and purchase their guns at licenced gun dealers and register them.

Sure. In liberal land.