NIMBY's shutdown Blue Bottle
Steve Pope
Coffee stand in park nixed.
S.
spamtrap1888
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=75091...
>
> Coffee stand in park nixed.
I think they should keep Dolores Park as a spot for gay ogling and
recreational drug use, as god intended.
sf
You'd approve of a coffee kiosk/trailer/shack (and all the resulting
trash) in any Berkeley park, even if the park was ringed with
restaurants where park goers could get their shot of java when the
mood strikes?
--
Never trust a dog to watch your food.
Steve Pope
>On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:05:55 +0000 (UTC), spo...@speedymail.org
>> Coffee stand in park nixed.
>You'd approve of a coffee kiosk/trailer/shack (and all the resulting
>trash) in any Berkeley park, even if the park was ringed with
>restaurants where park goers could get their shot of java when the
>mood strikes?
Sure, if it creates civic revenue for the retired public employee
pensions, I'm all for it.
Although it would be much better to put the trailer in a BART parking
lot than in an actual park.
Steve
sf
I can agree with putting it in a BART parking lot (open during the
afternoon commute), but not in Dolores Park. Like any other fast food
stand, that espresso cart will generate a lot of trash - which will be
yet another drain on public funds for clean up. SF doesn't have that
kind of money to throw away on cleaning up yuppie trash.
Steve Pope
>I can agree with putting it in a BART parking lot (open during the
>afternoon commute), but not in Dolores Park. Like any other fast food
>stand, that espresso cart will generate a lot of trash - which will be
>yet another drain on public funds for clean up. SF doesn't have that
>kind of money to throw away on cleaning up yuppie trash.
Socially-conscious Blue Bottle types would never litter.
Steve
sf
HA! LOL
Patti Beadles
sf <sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Like any other fast food
>stand, that espresso cart will generate a lot of trash - which will be
>yet another drain on public funds for clean up. SF doesn't have that
>kind of money to throw away on cleaning up yuppie trash.
Presumably the fees that Blue Bottle was going to pay to the city
would more than cover any additional cleanup expenses.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
Ciccio
> Presumably the fees that Blue Bottle was going to pay to the city
> would more than cover any additional cleanup expenses.
Given the financial condition of local governments, SF in particular,
I sure wouldn't presume that.
Ciccio
Peter Lawrence
Even *IF* that were true (a *BIG* if), there would be many
non-socially-conscious people partaking of the coffee stand at the park.
Maybe if they decided to serve the coffee and espresso drinks only in
reusable ceramic cups and have no paper sugar packets and no disposable
stirring sticks would the coffee trailer pose no major littering problem to
the park.
- Peter
Dan Abel
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/10 11:00 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> > sf<sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I can agree with putting it in a BART parking lot (open during the
> >> afternoon commute), but not in Dolores Park. Like any other fast food
> >> stand, that espresso cart will generate a lot of trash - which will be
> >> yet another drain on public funds for clean up. SF doesn't have that
> >> kind of money to throw away on cleaning up yuppie trash.
> >
> > Socially-conscious Blue Bottle types would never litter.
>
> Even *IF* that were true (a *BIG* if), there would be many
> non-socially-conscious people partaking of the coffee stand at the park.
This is why it needs to go in the BART parking lot. People would NEVER
litter in a BART parking lot. Even if one or two did, BART has lots of
money to throw at cleaning up parking lots, unlike the city of SF.
:-(
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
sf
Beadles) wrote:
> In article <sa32c6trc52sl7oo6...@4ax.com>,
> sf <sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Like any other fast food
> >stand, that espresso cart will generate a lot of trash - which will be
> >yet another drain on public funds for clean up. SF doesn't have that
> >kind of money to throw away on cleaning up yuppie trash.
>
> Presumably the fees that Blue Bottle was going to pay to the city
> would more than cover any additional cleanup expenses.
>
and we all *know* how that works out when Peter robs Paul to pay for
x.
Ciccio
> This is why it needs to go in the BART parking lot. People would NEVER
> litter in a BART parking lot. Even if one or two did, BART has lots of
> money to throw at cleaning up parking lots, unlike the city of SF.
Absolutely! Auto burglaries, auto thefts, robberies, the occasional
rapes and murders, but never-ever littering.
Ciccio
Steve Pope
The plan is that the business license revenue from these stands would go
directly to Park and Rec.
In theory.
Steve
Ciccio
> The plan is that the business license revenue from these stands would go
> directly to Park and Rec.
>
> In theory.
Even in theory, it's a bad idea.That business license revenue would
only amount to a few hundred dollars, hardly justifying the eyesore of
the litter and the cost to abate it. Then there's the cost of
bureaucratic administration relating to the business. Hell, the few
hundred bucks would probably be eaten up just going up bureaucratic
food chain.
Ciccio
Steve Pope
>> In theory.
The expected revenue to the city from the Blue-Bottle stand in
Dolores Park would have been $40K/year. And I don't think it
would add much to litter costs as the park is already impacted
with litter so the park needs regular litter-cleaning anyway.
Everyone on the Park and Rec side evaluated it as a financial
win. Only the NIMBY's had a problem withit.
Steve
Peter Lawrence
>
> The expected revenue to the city from the Blue-Bottle stand in
> Dolores Park would have been $40K/year. And I don't think it
> would add much to litter costs as the park is already impacted
> with litter so the park needs regular litter-cleaning anyway.
Even if a *single* new employee was hired to either administer this new
program, or help clean up the park, the $40K/year would be wiped out.
- Peter
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The plan is that the business license revenue from these stands would go
> >> directly to Park and Rec.
> >> In theory.
> >Even in theory, it's a bad idea.That business license revenue would
> >only amount to a few hundred dollars, hardly justifying the eyesore of
> >the litter and the cost to abate it. Then there's the cost of
> >bureaucratic administration relating to the business. Hell, the few
> >hundred bucks would probably be eaten up just going up bureaucratic
> >food chain.
>
> The expected revenue to the city from the Blue-Bottle stand in
> Dolores Park would have been $40K/year.
That's not from "business tax revenue" as you stated. Rather, that's
an estimate based upon an the 10% of its profits graft Blue-Bottle was
going to pay to Parks and Rec. Blue-Bottle is going to net $400k net
per year? Maybe, after all, that's only about $1,100.00 per day
NET.
In any case, I haven't been to Dolores Park in decades. If it hasn't
changed much, then paper cups/plates is the least of the problem...It
was like Berserkeley's Telegraph Avenue at that timeE2.
Ciccio