Greg, I was wrong about the date -- it's Tuesday, Feb. 28, not Feb. 22. Sue -- "g. haze" <gaze5@yahoo.com> wrote: The currnet bpu is in many ways a lost cause. the bike plans are funded every five years by the state. so i'm more concerned about the future. I percieve the problem to be more one of communication beween these different entities, i think just the idea of green transportation committee, bac and sfbc board all having a joint meeting would be a huge step forward in improving speech and process. just to meet each other and talk about how to communicate and work together more effectively. the problem with the bpu is the the sfbc and dpt basically privatized it. dave was working through the green committee to try to fix becuase ironically enough he set up the situation sfbc/dpt in total control where he could be excluded from it. this is what i percieve to be the problem (not dave individually, dave is skilled and concerned advocate) but a bike plan where sfbc and dpt staff had all meaningful input and actually worked to exclude the input of other advocates. sure they took public comment but the funded work-plan was pre-established and it excluded very important issues that ultimately led to the current problems. like the law suit, etc. for me personally this was a huge problem becuase this is what i work on and I consequently i ended up having to personally fund and do what should have been publicly funded work. for the movement at large it was even more disasterious because now all these huge issues are still unaddressed. this is also very ironic becuase the sfbc's goal the bike network is inextricably linked to these other areas of study figuring out ceqa/los etc. any rational legilsative body could have been convinced of this, but back to the problem there was no rational legislative body just dpt/sfbc staff doing only what they wanted, without realistically even the oversight of their own board. I started law school recently so i'm pretty much done with this in a way, but I would like to help the bodies that are there work together and avoid this in this future becuase it was totally unecessary and everyone lost. I think ultimately it was really a matter of communication, the sfbc board have no idea their staff are causing such problems, and the staff themselves don't even really percieve it. but no on eis benefiitting so the probolem needs to be fixed. i think this can be accomplished without saying sfbc/dpt staff bad, bad staff, by imporving speech and communication. sorry this is long but it like many of the other problems are complex issues that you have to work through or they will just keep being a problem, once again why there should be a more public process. as a final irony and another interesting aspect of this the problem of lack of legislative oversight, etc. is mirrored in the problems of street design at large. crazy huh? thanks, Greg --- "susan_e_vaughan@juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan@juno.com> wrote:
Yes, we got the item, but I have to admit, we've already been through this exercise, critiquing the BPU. In fact, we've sent 11 letters, one to each member of the Board of Supervisors, explaining the overall weaknesses of the BPU, and specific problems with it in their particular districts. So I don't know why we are doing this again.
Time: 7 p.m. Date: Tuesday, February 22 Place: 1028a Howard Street, between 6th and 7th -- you can bring your bike inside.
You'll have about 15 minutes.
Sue
-- "g. haze" <gaze5@yahoo.com> wrote: you got he item? ok?
what is the time and location?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com