We are back this week to cannabis.
The SF supes were unable to decide how to handle the new industry last meeting. There’s pressure from some anti-pot folks to keep sales away from schools and child-care centers (and the 1,000-feet-away rule could make most places in the city ineligible and concentrate cannabis stores in a few small areas). Sup. Jeff Sheehy, anxious to get something approved before legalization takes effect Jan. 1, suggested that the city allow the 46 existing medical cannabis dispensaries to operate as adult-use sales outlets at least temporarily.
But Sup. Hillary Ronen pointed out that the War on Drugs has devastated communities of color, particularly the African and American and Latino communities, and that the city has a responsibility to create an equity plan for what will be a huge source of income and wealth in the next few years.
Besides, why is this something to be afraid of?
So they put the question off until after the holiday, and now all of the issues will be back Tuesday/27, with no obvious solution in sight – and something of a time issue.
SF has already missed the deadline for passing a law that would allow legal adult-use weed Jan. 1. If the supes pass something this week, pass it on second reading next week, and the mayor signs it immediately, the first permits could be issued in time for Jan. 5 sales.
The sidewalk robots are back again, too, at the Land Use and Transportation Committee Monday/20.
Delivery companies (of course) are looking to get rid of human labor, and use robots to bring everything from pizza and Chinese food to Amazon purchases to your door.
There are so many things that could go wrong here: Robts running over seniors and children, robots blocking wheelchair access, robots falling over (or getting pushed over) and blocking sidewalks, people trying to steal deliveries from robots … and Sup. Norman Yee wants to ban the deliveries.
But he couldn’t get six votes for a ban, so he is prepared to allow a pilot program with robots wheeling along through parts of SoMa and other neighborhoods with production, distribution, and repair zoning.
The committee will need to rework this, and perhaps deal with some of the missing questions. If a robot runs over and injures someone, who is liable? If an angry pedestrian pushes the robot over on its side or into the street, who comes and fixes the mess? Will robots only be allowed on sidewalks broad enough to accommodate both the machines and humans in wheelchairs (which would rule out my neighborhood)? What if kids jump on and try to ride the robots and fall off? What if the robots terrify dogs (or dogs start to piss on them)?
Have we really thought this through? Do we really want to once again allow a new technology that could have huge negative impacts go forward before we figure out the right rules?
I am dubious.
Meanwhile, as the supes try to figure out what to do with the traffic mess known as the Hairball, where Cesar Chavez, Bayshore, Highway 101 and I-280 all intersect, a group that has long fought new bike lanes is trying to block some improvements to the area. The city wants to add more bike lanes and make pedestrian safety changes (including removing some parking spaces), but Mary Miles, attorney for the Coalition for Adequate Review, is trying to block the process by arguing that the city didn’t do a valid environmental review.
This is the same group that blocked the city’s bicycle plan for years by suing to say that adding bike lanes (and removing space for cars) created significant environmental impacts.
Rob Anderson, the driving force behind this operation, has said repeatedly that bikes aren’t safe on city streets and interfere with cars, creating more traffic problems.
The appeal of the changes to the hairball is on the Tuesday agenda.
The Land Use Committee hears the latest report on the city’s housing balance (hint: we are way out of balance, with too much market-rate and too little affordable housing) on Monday/27. Three days later, the Planning Commission will consider five projects that include 446 housing units, the majority of them high-end condos that will just make the balance worse.
One of those projects, at Mission between 25th and 26th, would take advantage of the state’s Density Bonus Law to create 75 new units – only 12 percent of which (that’s nine units) would be affordable.
You drop those luxury units into the Mission and you will inevitably see displacement.
We keep going backwards here. And there’s no end in sight.
Actually, to someone not familiar with whats pictured in the photo – it DOES seem scary and menacing (spiky, odd coloring, and … too close)
Now, if there were a lot of seeds-n-stems in there, then I’d know what I was looking at.
So is the standard whether risk to peds is involved, or is it some claim that we won’t see ‘tens of thousands” of the one but not the other?
Frankly, I’d vote with you if a ban included robots, bikes, Segways, and shopping carts.
And if the punishment involved tens of thousands of dollars as a fine (or work-release, if short of funds) – to level the risk to non-compliance , we’d probably see as many shop-n-rollers as we see Segways.
Think about it – a pot carrying robot. All the bot would need is a rainbow flag and some anti – Vietnam war graffiti and you have a perfect hybrid of old and new SF
That is what the equity program is for. They just have to find a way to write a regulation that does that, without saying that. Meanwhile, the will of the voters is ignored.
I know, Uber is a bit of a basket case. But it has to be tough to argue that the streets are full of thousands of cars providing a service that their customers don’t value.
Yes. When new technology is proposed, it should be vetted for safety, potential impact to quality of life, potential impact to employment, potential impact to the ‘wealth imbalance’ and more.
Here in the wild west of San Francisco, libertarian CEOs who have no respect for laws, human rights or how their businesses affect people spend a lot of money bribing government officials.
As for Uber, given that they lost over $2 billion last year and are on target to lose even more this year, and give the almost weekly Uber scandal that makes it into the press and given their childish tantrums, I don’t think they will be around much longer.
Stop telling other people what they’re thinking (“technophobia” etc.) Thanks.
Or delivering pot.
Maybe pot licenses should go only to Black people as reparations?
OK. So since there some potential problems we shouldn’t explore the possibilities at all.
Like when the wheel was invented, there was a possibility that it could roll down a hill and injure someone. They NEVER should have proceeded with that one, either. The old way, dragging stuff, was good enough.
I don’t think that it is possible to state exactly how far out of touch you are guys are regarding Uber and Lyft. If they weren’t so highly valued by so many people across so many demographic segments they wouldn’t terrify you the way that they do.
Why don’t you schedule a ballot measure on banning Uber and Lyft? Lets let the voters decide. I wonder what they will say.
Yes. Because the engineers at Amazon will build a unit that is easy to break into and they will put a big sign on it that says “Oxycodone Inside!”.
Just wait until amazon starts selling pharmaceuticals. Think how easy it would be to grab someone’s oxycodone from one of those robots
People with shopping carts are not funded by venture capital and it is highly unlikely that we will see tens of thousands of them EVER. On the other hand, using Uber and Lyft as examples of what VC funded ‘technology’ brings us – in numbers, we can expect so many robots on sidewalks that pedestrians will be negatively affected.
Based on your logic we should criminalize anyone pushing a shopping cart on a sidewalk. But each one of these instances — bicycles, Segways, shopping carts and robots — has its own set of risks and benefits and needs to be evaluated separately.
We really do need programs for people with technophobia. Maybe these robots can work out, maybe not. But the concept that we need to shut them down without finding out if they can work is not the product of a well functioning mind.
A bicycle, too, “requires a human attendant who can quickly take control.” So does a Segway. Neither is allowed on SF sidewalks.
The delivery robot law, as currently written, will require a human attendant who can quickly take control.
San Francisco Supervisor Seeks Permit Program For Delivery Robots.
This would negate just about everything that Tim is fretting about We’ll see how they perform and if there is a way that is beneficial to the general population.
Meanwhile perhaps there is a good therapy program for people with an irrational fear of any new technology that they don’t understand.