this is 100% a result of drug addiction and an overall acceptance of criminal behavior. think it's something else? let's walk through the Tenderloin, Civic Center, SOMA, and the Mission together. eyes and mind open.
-
-
Replying to @EricaJSandberg @kylezink and
Those areas are going to lose all their drug stores, can see one of big chains going to curbside pickup only if they are interested in continuing to service this area. What u gonna do then
@MattHaneySF@DeanPreston@AaronPeskin@shamannwalton Scold them like u did Hastings?2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @RichardManso3 @EricaJSandberg and
The Hastings settlement was about avoiding a precedent where the only path to relief is through litigation, at the same time as some Board members demanded a deeper commitment from the City to act more swiftly, to take bigger steps toward relief. It wasn’t about “scolding”.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LeeHepner @RichardManso3 and
bluoz Retweeted bluoz
Yeah, not quite. Not only is there already two more lawsuits against the city, the Hastings settlement retains jurisdiction and the city can still be slapped with sanctions for failing to adhere to the termshttps://twitter.com/auweia1/status/1289358133794492417 …
bluoz added,
bluoz @auweia1Replying to @auweia1 @DGN86606727Interesting side note, see the injunction link " After approval by the Board this action will be dismissed, but the court will retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce this injunction" page 5 https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8666436&GUID=82943DCB-4520-4A22-9DA4-821FE5EE6DEB …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @auweia1 @RichardManso3 and
Yes, the city should adhere to the terms for many reasons. The terms should have provided more extraordinary relief. Keep in mind, the Board of Supes had already passed legislation and was pushing to implement solutions contained in the settlement before the lawsuit was filed.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LeeHepner @auweia1 and
But BoS disagreed w/you, as they approved settlement as is. They could have rejected it. Presumably they could have conditionally accepted it, requiring Mayor to renegotiate, but risking Hastings walking. They could have let court decide. Don't need to be a lawyer to understand
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RichardManso3 @auweia1 and
Yup. I was not in closed session so am not fully apprised of the consequences of rejection or conditional acceptance, but some Board members voted against for those reasons. Btw, I am a lawyer, not that you need to be one to understand.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LeeHepner @auweia1 and
Yes, you graduated from Hastings in 2011. I am also a lawyer. Comment was about statement that some of the BoS didn't fully understand the Dean's discussion (presume on Con Law portion) since they weren't lawyers.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RichardManso3 @LeeHepner and
I seem to recall the Dean saying that Hastings very much wanted all settlement negotiations/filings to be public. I think there was even a filing to that effect
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @auweia1 @LeeHepner and
I think the BoS was public with its hotel room request, so that requirement was easily met on a conceptual level, maybe the number needed 3 parties sitting around the table, heck could even broadcast that. But it's a negotiation not a dictation of terms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Here you go "Plaintiffs would prefer that this Court be included in all aspects of the case, including settlement discussions." page 3 https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.359003/gov.uscourts.cand.359003.18.0.pdf … from the docket - case management May 13https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.359003/gov.uscourts.cand.359003.18.0.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @auweia1 @RichardManso3 and
bluoz Retweeted bluoz
Made a thread for the other ones toohttps://twitter.com/auweia1/status/1284886576653168641 …
bluoz added,
bluoz @auweia1Universal thread for people suing the City of San Francisco over homeless encampments Proper name for the Larch street lawsuit is: Daniel Giosso v. City and County of San Francisco case # 3:2020cv04255 https://ia801509.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.cand.361517/gov.uscourts.cand.361517.1.0.pdf …Show this thread0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @auweia1 @RichardManso3 and
@RichardManso3 from the Hastings docket, any recent filings you think might be worthwhile for a limited Pacer?0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.