CycleSF event canceled, but RecPark gets paid anyway

|
(115)
Maybe people didn't understand why they needed to pay for the "simple pleasure of a bike ride."
Nich Baressi

Bicycling around San Francisco has become increasingly popular with both residents and tourists, but apparently that doesn't mean people want to pay $40-75 for an organized ride around the city's perimeter, even when the money goes to the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department and the cause of putting more bike racks into the parks.

Despite a citywide ad campaign (for which I was one of several cyclists voluntarily photographed with our bikes) and aggressive social media effort, Jumping Fences – the company that also produces the San Francisco Marathon, which is set for June 16 – has canceled the CycleSF event it had planned for April 28, citing lower than anticipated demand.

The company had pledged $100,000 to RPD in connection with the event, which was to involve 13- and 26-mile rides through the city ending with a big party in the park, and the company announced that it would still be giving the department $25,000 despite “postponing” the event.

“We are disappointed Cycle SF has chosen to postpone their event. We are looking forward to working with them in the future on a family-friendly bicycle event,” said Connie Chan, spokesperson for the Recreation and Parks Department.

Jumping Fencing Marketing Director Joanna Reuland contended that “awareness was strong” surrounding the event and she wasn't sure why it didn't take off. “It had become clear that we weren't going to make our promise so we thought it was probably best to just postpone the event,” Reuland told us.

Part of the problem might have been how cheap and easy it is to cycle around the city and the availability of free monthly group rides like Critical Mass and SF Bike Party. Apparently paying to bike around the city just doesn't have the same demand as the San Francisco Marathon, which costs $35 for the 5K or $145 for the full marathon.

Some in the bike community also grumbled that the event was benefiting a city department about which many have decidedly mixed opinions, particularly given its closeness with corporate donors, rather than a bike advocacy organization such as the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, whose 12,000-plus members organizers did little to directly target. What whatever it was, it is no more.

Comments

Part of the issue here might be that the "bike community" isn't in touch with the average bike rider. The average bike rider may look at bikes as just a way to get around the city, not a lifestyle choice, many have no interest in lemming-ing it up with "the community."

Paying money to ride with some bike lemons?

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 4:38 pm

impression that the bike lobby are a fascist group who are more interested in screwing over cars than actually working with others consensually to build solutions that are better for everyone.

Just as you cannot be progressive without hating the the successful, you cannot be a bike activist without hating drivers. Class warfare is a hard habit to break, evidently.

The three stages of progressivism - classify, separate, hate.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

"Just as you cannot be progressive without hating the successful" (rest of the whining skipped) - did one of those big bad progressives say something mean to you? Awe poor baby. Can someone take this baby in their arms so he / she can cry in them?

Speaking of hard habits to break, making no sense is apparently one of them - or it is in your case. It's not an accident that the most progressive cities, states, countries make the most $, are the most educated, are the most innovative, and have the hightest QOL. Of course the most conservative locations are the exact opposite in all of these measures - your post is a perfect example of how screwed up conservatives are.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 5:49 pm

Instead of wondering aloud why poor people vote to lower taxes for the rich?

(Answer - because they hope one day to be rich themselves).

Posted by anon on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 6:12 pm

I see the only contribution you made is spouting your nutty fantasies about poor people wanting the taxes on the rich to be lowered. If asked, I would bet a majority would want a chance to get an education or for their kids to get an education. Guess what anon-dummy? It takes $ to provide for the schools, the teachers, the buildings, the desks, etc. And the rich with the most disposable income should be paying the highest % in taxes. It's no accident that when taxes were 90% on some people's portion of their income that the educational system functioned better in that $ was available for lower income families to receive a free education.

They also want clean air and water and a political system that's not corrupt instead of corrupt system where big $ can buy elections.

Fortunately for society, poor people aren't as dumb as you or as you make them out to be. Your team has one and only one tool - it's certainly not the facts, no that tool is massive propaganda like a one-party, communist state.

That's why a site like the Bay Guardian is so threatening to your team. No doubt you are getting paid to post here. What are they paying you? Come on, you can tell us here. I'll keep it a secret you piece-of-shit loser toady.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 7:45 pm

LOL. Otherwise nobody could possibly disagree with your class warfare manifesto?

We're not all motivated by envy nor harbor wet dreams of expropriating the fruits of success from those who have worked hard for it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 6:53 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 8:47 pm

as it doesn't come from them.

So what?

Deterring enterprise and hard work means less revenues from everyone. The pie isn't a fixed size.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 6:54 am

The 1% are happy to take money that doesn't belong to them in the form of inordinate tax cuts amid high deficits in time of war, paid for by working folk in the form of 15% Social Security withholding tax.

The 1% will be happy to see this country go down in a malestrom of ignorance and poverty by starving public education for needed funding.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 8:21 am

And given the impending deficits of SSI and MediCare, the 15% (total, including employer contribution) is too little, not too much.

SS is insurance and so you have to pay a premium for it. It is not a welfare program paid for by general taxes.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 8:42 am

"Only self-employed folks pay 15% SSI"

LOL. Because your employer pays half of SSI, and doesn't reduce your salary in response to that expense.

You think employers are very altruistic, don't you?

"SS is insurance and so you have to pay a premium for it. It is not a welfare program paid for by general taxes."

LOL. You probably believe there is an actual Social Security "trust fund", don't you?

Wanna buy a bridge between SF and Oakland? I'll sell it to you for real cheap!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 8:55 am

an employer's ability to otherwise give higher pay. Nonetheless it is still inaccurate to state, as Lilli did, that the empoylee pays 15%. Clearly the system could be designed to work way, but it does not.

There doesn't have to be a "trust fund" for SS to be considered an insurance. The "I" in SSI stands for insurance, and that is why SSI contributions are capped - because benefits are capped and, once you have earned the max, there is no need to pay in more.

MediCare and SS pensions could be funded out of general taxation. But it is not.

The best taxes are the most broadly based taxed. That includes payroll tax and sales tax, but excluded narrower taxes like Estate Tax, CGT, Property Tac and even income tax.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 9:21 am

I think D is a bit confused.

In any case, the "half is paid by the employer" story only made sense when the tax first came out, and to a lesser degree when the figure got bumped from 12%.

In fact, the employer certainly *does* reduce the worker's pay accordingly. How else could it ever be? Invisible hand?

Yes. It is a fact that every bit of the 15% falls on workers whether or not they are self-employed.

SS withholding is a tax on the workers labor transaction which the workers cannot evade. Employers, on the other hand, have options to outsource labor or purchase "labor saving" machinery.

And my point is that the 15% that's been collected from working men and women of my generation is being ripped-off by the carpulent "productive sectors of the economy" one-percenters, and my generation is completely qualified to observe what is going on.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 9:32 am

It builds up your entitlement to benefits which otherwise you will not get, like a pension, disability pay and medicare.

Whether that makes you a viable employee is another matter, and it's possible that others can do your work for better value.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 9:50 am

to start shutting the fuck up at a your earliest convenience.

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html

"Topic 751 - Social Security and Medicare Withholding Rates

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax includes two separate taxes. One is social security tax and the other is Medicare tax."

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 10:14 am

Notice how you get no benefits if you don't contribute?

Just like, er, insurance?

Sure they get called tax as well, and sometiems they feel like taxes. But if you don't see the difference, then you're even dumber than folks here thought.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 10:27 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 10:57 am

We could abolish FICA and SSI, increase income taxes, give universal entitlement regardless of contribution history, and rename the whole thing "welfare".

But we do not and, until we do, the system is separate, distinct and has at least some key elements of insurance.

Posted by anon on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 10:45 am

If I pay over $450,000 in Social Security and Medicare tax after working for 30 years ($15K per year) and I die at age 61, none of the $450,000 I paid is credited to me or my heirs. This is very different from insurance that would make a payout to my estate either for accumulated earnings on a whole-life insurance policy or as a lump-sum payout from term insurance.

Poorer people die much earlier than rich people, and lower income people pay a higher percentage of their total earnings for SS tax, which means that not only is SS a tax, but it's a regressive tax since the poor pay more of their wealth for it each year and they often get the fewest benefits from the program.

Eliminating the SS tax on payroll and replacing it with a tax on rents is fairer since it would collect part of the community generated ground rent; it would pump billions of dollars of income into the economy since working people would have much more disposible income; employees would buy more, businesses would have higher sales, and employment would increase.

Posted by guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 10:44 am

You just confirmed the person's posting of "classify - separate - hate" by classifying conservatives one way, over-generalizing the differences between progressive and conservative places, then saying conservatives are screwed up. If you represent a typical progressive, then I'm ashamed to be associated at all with progressives. I'm a Green Party member, btw.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 11:42 am

You just confirmed the person's posting of "classify - separate - hate" by classifying conservatives one way, over-generalizing the differences between progressive and conservative places, then saying conservatives are screwed up. If you represent a typical progressive, then I'm ashamed to be associated at all with progressives. I'm a Green Party member, btw.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 11:44 am

There is a difference between an honest conservative and a neoliberal trickle up libertarian capitalists. There are overlaps between honest conservatives and progressives.

But the neoliberal/libertarian capitalists are on an anti-democratic mission subsidized by the most greedy and powerful interests in society that progressives, liberals, leftists, moderates and honest conservatives all oppose to some extent.

One can attack that project without attacking honest conservatives. Indeed, the successful tactic of that project has been to play us all off against one another for their benefit.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 11:58 am

on how much good conservatives have done for the planet as well. The Reagan/Thatcher axis weaned us off the insufferable nanny state that you yourself deemed to be excessive today.

I hope Tim deigns to write on Maggie's great influence on the west, although I suspect he would gag trying.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

Thatcher and Reagan were anything but conservatives, they were radicals with an aggressive agenda that changed the status quo back 500 years to before the rise of classical economics.

Environmentalists are conservatives.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 08, 2013 @ 12:37 pm

Guest (anon), if you keep seeing facists behind every bush maybe it's an issue with the observer and not with the phony strawmen you keep seeing.

Out of the hundreds of bike riders and supporters I've met over the years not one closely resembles your description. Hmmm. Most bikers mainly want safe places to operate, just as walkers and car drivers want the same.

Guest's (anon's) extensive rhetorical repetoire:

ad hominem
facist strawmen
ad hominem
misdirection
ad hominen
evasion
ad hominen

Posted by guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

http://www.sfbike.org/

Everything is written in the style of the professional activist.

They use their pet politicians the same way the NRA uses it's monkeys. The voters turned down closing GG Park twice, since the voters were too dumb to vote right the Bike true believers went to the board. etc...

Not Fascist, just scheming, one among many at the city level.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 8:58 pm

Yeah they're probably all the same person. I would bet anything that anon guy or gal is paid to post here. The rightwing organizations - thx to many millions of dollars from wealthy donors like the Kock brothers - have very sophisticated operations to spread their propaganda. And in just the past three years, it's exploded in intensity, number, spending, media tools used, etc etc. The fact that you see this site flooded with rightwing trolls is hardly an accident. Yeah they're might be a couple of genuine ones like Matlock - possibly - but the majority of the RW posts here are part of a large plan - run at the state level in almost every state - to dry up support for an organization that runs counter to the rightwing agenda.

Of course their biggest targets are the unions - public and private. That's priority one but this is also part of it. It's worked good on this website since they've driven away the majority of the BG's natural constituents.

It's going to take an amazing level of organization by those opposed to these fascists for they have big media and big money in their corner.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 9:07 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 6:57 am

I was recommended this web site by my cousin. I'm not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty. You're wonderful!
Thanks!

Posted by online pokemon game on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 5:54 pm

"cagers"

The buzz word is cagers.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 9:02 pm

wish to demonize is first to come up with a derogatory term for them.

Other examples:

the one percent (successful people)
cisgendered (not a tranny)
breeders (families)
repugs (moderates)

and so on

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 6:59 am

Streetsblog bans me for not toeing the cyclist party line even though cycling is my primary form of transportation and I've been hip deep in transportation and land use policy for the last ten years.

Instead of demanding investment in transit and shielding existing glacial surface transit from delays due to bike and ped facilities, they prefer to speed up the train wreck of raising barriers to driving before investing in attractive transit.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:31 am

fragile and vulnerable they know their positions to be.

Note: SFSB block by IP address so it's trivially easy to get around their bans. I've been banned at least 4 times, and I just keep bouncing IP addresses.

I posted from the SF central library once, and got their IP address blocked. Too funny.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:54 am

It really reflects Streetsblog's insecurity. I want to move an alternative transportation agenda but the direction we need to move to do that is not the one that takes us off of a cliff.

The SFBC's incestuous relationship with the MTA is raising eyebrows amongst their traditional base.

They get paid, their folks get hired, developers get rich, transit investment is abandoned and the costs for all of that fall on current San Franciscans through City services that continue to deteriorate and streets that are more congested with angry motorists that snarl transit and endanger peds and cyclists.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 9:06 am

So your point appears to be that the "bike community" - something you don't define but presumably is made up of bicyclists - isn't in touch with bicyclists? So that's what you took from the article? That's strange.

I thought it said that the bicyclists - not enough of them anyway - weren't in touch monetarily with the organization that wanted to charge them $40 to ride their bike on their ride? That organization isn't the "bike community" - they're trying to make some bucks throwing an event. How did you come to the conclusion that bicyclists were at war with other bicyclists?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

As to bike community, the last line of the blog may give you some sort of tip on that one. The people who define the "bike community" seems to be those people who view bikes the same way the NRA views guns, the born againers view Jesus, the I'm special because of my self identification.

Your last line is so strange, there is no war, there are people who ride bikes and there are the special people.

http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Im-Special-Individuality-Conformity/dp/08728...

Jones (who posed for a picture with his bike free, FOR FREE!!!) seems puzzled why the "bike community," or anyone else isn't down for paying $40 to ride some place that 99.99999999% of the time is free anyways.

Maybe if there was a well planned and organized yoga flash mob with at the end?

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 11:51 pm

A stupid idea from the fertile minds of the corporate-connected insiders at City Hall who think everyone is just like them.

Some people do in fact "pay to bike" -they pay dues to the SFBC. They pay because they see value in it. But why pay to bike around the city when you can do it for free? The fun of riding in an organizing event? Nope. There are free, organized rides like Critical Mass and SF Bike Party. The fact that it's going to a good cause? Nope, not when Rec and Park squanders money on corporate friends of the City Family. That leaves.... nuthin. No wonder it failed.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:27 am

Free driving for all!

If bikes want "equal access and use" then they should be registered, licensed, insured and taxed, like cars and drivers.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:35 am

Bikes are supposed to be registered in California. I've been cited, twice, in different cities, for having an unregistered bike. The Huntington Beach PD confiscated my bike & wouldn't give it back until I got it registered. As far as license & insurance, implementing that would involve yet more gummint, wouldn't it? The whole point of using a bike, for me & most people I know, is economy & simplicity. You start setting up requirements like insurance & that kills it.

Posted by pete moss on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:09 am

I hate surfing in HB, hate surfing in HB, hate surfing in HB because the waves are always shitty.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:26 am

Literally! They spent a wad on a treatment plant that turned out to be a long pipe that dumped raw sewage barely 4 miles offshore. And you thought Frsco was kurupt.

Posted by pete moss on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:48 am

two years. What recompense does the victims of those cyclists if there is no insurance.

If you operate a vehicle that can and does kill, then you need training, testing, licensing, registration and insurance.

Of course you want "simple". Nobody wants to be regulated. The irony here is that it is usualy progressives who want more regulation - unless it's about them, of course.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:51 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 9:11 am

In Amsterdam this past week, it was too chilly for me to rent a bike, so I was on foot, the better to get to know the city more intimately. Everyone shares road and sidewalk space there pretty respectfully. One time, a guy about 10 years older than me biked past me at speed with minimal clearance cut in front of me and skid to a stop 20' ahead of me, unlocked his door and was gone. Here, the senior and ped activists would go on a whining rampage. But space can be shared if everyone knows how to handle the intimate mixing of modes, peds, bikes, transit and autos without wallowing in a steaming pile of victimhood. Americans are so concerned about what other people are doing that we've forgotten how to live our own lives.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 9:25 am

Speeding past people on sidewalks with "minimal clearance" is an anti-social activity prone to cause injuries. Pedestrians have the right of way on sidewalks and they have a right to move about without "checking their mirrors."

I remember a story a friend of mine told of foiling a mugging in Amsterdam by steering the bicycle-borne mugger into his on-foot accomplice. Watch out on the sidewalk marcos: bikeys belong on the street unless you are moving dead slow.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 9:54 am

Always the poor, defenseless victim in need of protection...waa waa.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 11:13 am

to force pedestrians -- many of whom may be aged or otherwise infirm -- to "defend themselves" from you when you break the law.

I see at any rate that you opted for some foolish ad hominem nastiness rather than attempt to justify your intimation that bicycling on sidewalks is legal in Amsterdam.

"Wah, wah" the petulant and nasty marcos is a hazard to all that is good and just.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 11:54 am

When everyone acts rationally, nobody gets hurt.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 12:37 pm

by, say, reaching to grab a newspaper or to wave to an aquaintance; or bending down to retie their shoelaces; or to change directions because they forgot something; etc., without getting creamed by some *asshole* on a bike moving four, five, or ten times walking speed.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

You don't get to live in your private little bubble in shared public space.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:35 pm

Also from this author