Like let me put my camping backpack on and walk to the store and carry everything back like a pack mule.

There is a reason people around the world struggle to live the dream and own a car.  Cars are great.  I’m driving my car 3,500 miles across 5 states seeing the countryside at my own pace and going where I want.  If I were walking, flying, or taking the train that wouldn’t be possible, would it?

But in San Francisco, a very anti-car city, there are parklets popping up everywhere.  Basically, several parking spaces are legally confiscated and converted into some kind of a makeshift patio.  When I lived in Paris, France the sidewalks were wide enough to accommodate sitting and dining areas without impacting parking but not in San Francisco.

I lived on Haight Street (the site of the parklet under discussion here) for 6 months.  The parking situation there is, as you’d imagine, tough because the neighborhood gets a ton of tourist traffic.

The average San Francisco parking meter produces $1,600.00 in “revenue” (installation cost is $1,000.00) not including how ever many parking tickets are generated by expired meters.  Since the average meter ticket is just under $50.00 that parking space will make a lot more money than $1,600.00 for San Francisco (which is broke).

A parklet, on the other hand, costs $1,000.00 to apply for, $650.00 for two parking meters to be removed, then $221.00 per year renewal.

Including parking tickets that certainly would be issued, these parklets actually cost the city money every year.

Here is a photo I took a few days ago of a typical parklet (this one is on Haight Street):

Another reason to hate Haight Street.

Parklets also remove two parking spaces from the street 24 hours per day, 365 days per year even though the business they serve only use them for 8-12 hours per day.

So the other 12-16 hours are wasted.

That’s what we call Liberal Efficiency.

The residents of the neighborhood are the ones who really pay the price.  I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to be driving around at 10pm on a Sunday night looking for parking and being unable to park somewhere because there is a parklet (going unused because the business around it are closed).

These quasi-permanent structures are also magnets for graffiti because they are unattended overnight and because legally they cannot be used solely for the business which sponsors them the homeless also like them.

The parklets seem to appear only in front of cafes, bars, and restaurants (which can increase their seating capacity) but how does taking 2 parking spaces off the market help other businesses like hardware or furniture stores which depend on people getting their via car?  And since even the silly Liberals who run San Francisco wouldn’t let every bar on a street have a parklet some companies benefit more than others do.

Part of living in the modern world is dealing with cars which transport people into urban areas with money to spend and economic activity to create.  Despite the best attempts by Liberals to change reality, it won’t work.

Parklets cost San Francisco more money than they produce, the discriminate against other businesses, and punish neighborhood residents while discouraging consumers to drive to the areas in which they exist.

There’s a reason why I do most of my shopping and spending outside of where I live… it’s more convenient (and the sales tax is less, too).

In fact, the only place you can find Redskins or 49er Superbowl winner is at the retirement home!

Capitol Commentary hopes you enjoy the game and a Bronx Cheer for the winner.

In the meantime, please enjoy this week’s ObamaNation:

As we said on January 1st, Capitol Commentary might very well morph into a sort of travel blog for a bit.  I’ll be covering about 3,500 miles over two weeks as I again visit the lovely state of Wyoming.  Yellowstone National Park kind of grabbed me when I was last there in 2010 (you may read the article about that trip here) and ever since I’ve wanted to experience it in the Winter.

I grew up on the East Coast and I sometimes miss the quietness of falling snow or waking up in the morning to see everything coated with a fresh layer of the white stuff.

I am truly excited to get back to Wyoming (and Yellowstone) even though some of the Winter driving conditions will be hairy over mountain passes in Idaho, Montana, and Jackson, WY.

Although I have visited over a dozen countries and half of America there is no place I’ve ever been which I liked more than Wyoming.

What I Learned on My Vacation to the Real America explains it all.

Sadly, the Volkswagen Bus will be staying in San Francisco safe and snug in its garage (too valuable) but alternate transportation has been procured and (I hope) I’ll be able to master its on-the-road nuances in the ice and snow.

I will be publishing stories from the road (as WiFi is available) about the trip as well as any political events which permeate the cold, snow, and any potential frostbite I might have.

Having recently seen the movie The Grey I do hope wolves are not involved (or plane crashes) and that everything goes smoothly.

There will be a couple of “canned” articles (ObamaNation, for example) but most of the content will be fresh.

Since I’ll be writing from an Android tablet/netbook I’ll do my best regarding the formatting and uploading of pictures.

I hope the next two weeks will be a lot of fun and that you will enjoy following along.

See you again from the road!

Mitt’s absolutely correct in what he says but telling people you’re not worried about the very poor and thus won’t focus on them isn’t the best way to look concerned is it?

Mitt’s got to do better if he wants to play in the Major Leagues.

This isn’t the Massachusetts governor’s race, after all.

Not long ago Mitt also talked about loving to fire people.  He meant that in the context of someone he’d hired to provide him a service who didn’t do a good job.

That still didn’t sound right. Sure, he was speaking out against a planned economy but can we say “poor choice of words”?

Then we learn Mitt has bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.  There’s nothing illegal being done, taxes aren’t being dodged, but if you’re running for president it’s not a wise idea to keep your money someplace voters couldn’t drive to if they wanted.

Logically these little errors don’t really matter because factually speaking, Mitt’s totally 100% correct.

But it still doesn’t sound very good, does it?

My theory is that Mitt is going to govern a lot like George H.W. Bush did.  He certainly seems to have the verbal acuman of that former president, doesn’t he?

Team Obama might be killing the country, the economy, and our will to do things for ourselves, but they are polished.  When Obama’s Teleprompter is working gives a good speech.  He might be signing legislation that puts people into the poor house (or ignorning things that pulls them out of it like the Keystone pipeline) but he sure does sound like he care, doesn’t he?

Mitt’s got the hair, the tan, attractive family, and that haughty Old Republican air about him.  That’s kind of like Old Spice but before it became hip.

Unless Mitt starts doing some batting practice after work he’ll never get into the Big Leagues.

Share/Email

For me, it (homosexuality) is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but, for me, it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.

Apparently, there was “outrage” by many in the gay community that Nixon had chosen to be gay.

We always thought choice was a good thing but not when straight people are running the world, apparently.  The fear is that if everyone thought you could choose to be gay then maybe adoptions to gay couples would be ended, same sex rights would regress, domestic partner laws would change, etc…

So Nixon, who has two children by her former husband, now says she is in that category that gay people detest… the bisexual:

[T]he actress on Monday released a statement to The Advocate magazine explaining she is technically bisexual, and not by choice.

Nixon told the magazine: “What I have ‘chosen’ is to be in a gay relationship.”

Being a bisexual in the gay community is like that character from Seinfeld, Dr. Tim Whatley, whom Jerry thought converted to Judaism so he could tell Jewish jokes with impunity.  Gay activists view Switch Hitters as trying to have the best of both worlds and of being a fair-weather friend to their cause (because they can always claim they are straight and were just “experimenting” with being gay).

Nixon’s comments appear to bear this suspicion out.

What I find so fascinating is the almost totalitarian-like broom that appeared in an attempt to sweep Nixon’s remarks under the rug (until she “clarified” herself) and back into the, uh, closet.

Maybe it says more about the straight community that the idea of people choosing to be gay is an idea that shouldn’t be promoted.  If this is the case, however, then don’t attempts by gay activists to push the line that they are gay only because of genetics make it seem that something is abnormal about them?

After all, most people are not gay.

What I find most ironic is how intolerant a community has shown itself to be even as they seek tolerance from others.