=v= I've read through this initiative. It's useless. Bottom line: it doesn't guarantee what we want from it. We might *hope* that Dede Wilsey et al will behave, but there are no guarantees here and the track record shows the opposite: their promises and assurances are reliably unreliable. It's long past time we kept that in mind and vote accordingly. =v= Policy is far more malleable than infrastructure. This initiative seems designed to entrench car infrastructure (a car lane that cars supposedly won't use) while enacting an ill-defined, and unenforced, policy. This is a recipe for failure. =v= Infrastructure has more influence than policy: it tells people what to do. Mike Ellzey tries to spin it so that those who recognize this fact are unkind to assume that people won't follow the rules, but this is nonsense. Every urban planner knows about "the three Es" -- that Environment tells people what to do, followed by Education, and as a last resort, Enforcement. Here the Environment is a driving lane, and neither Education nor Enforcement are provided for. (Even if they were, it would be at YET MORE hidden public expense.) =v= Plus, people aren't following car-restricting policies in Golden Gate Park right now. So, it's not an unkind assumption at work, it's a recognition of reality. =v= I notice also that this slips in on-street parking for private automobiles, which Prop J currently disallows. Why? =v= Finally, while it's all well in good to assert in email that taxis are "privately-owned automobiles," the law doesn't make that distinction in that way. 1999's Prop E made the mistake of defining taxis as "transit." Limos are just glorified taxis. =v= Tell your Supe we do *not* want yet another sneaky avenue for the de Young crowd to drive over us on. <_Jym_>