Posted in Vote! 2014 | Leave a comment

Google Donates a Half Million Dollars to a Venture Capital Funded For-Profit Corporation to Help San Francisco Homeless

So many articles about such a generous ‘donation’.

(from the mayor’s office)
News Releases
The latest news and announcements from Mayor Lee
Mayor Lee Announces $2 Million from Google to Support San Francisco’s Homeless
Google Provides Hamilton Family Center, Larkin Street Youth Services & HandUp with Grants to Help City’s Homeless Families & Residents Access Housing, Financial Support & Job Training Leading to Emplo [sic]

“’s $500,000 grant will empower thousands of homeless and low-income Bay Area residents meet their most urgent needs through our direct giving website,,” said HandUp CEO and Co-Founder Rose Broome. “This represents an important step toward deepening the collaboration between the tech community, nonprofits, the Mayor’s Office, and local citizens who want a transparent way to give back. At HandUp, we believe that new solutions are possible and that everyone can play a role in the fight against urban poverty.”


Reuters: Google to donate $2 million to San Francisco homeless groups

Hamilton Family Center will receive $1 million to reduce the waiting list for homeless families at shelters in San Francisco. Larkin Street said it will use its $500,000 grant for its college and career preparation programs.

Google said it has reserved the remaining $500,000 for San Francisco-based HandUp, an application for direct giving to homeless people. HandUp has received backing from such high-profile technology investors as Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff and ‘Lean Startup’ founder Eric Ries, among others. Through the month of December, HandUp said Google will match new recurring donations made to its San Francisco fund.

And, for a more enlightened perspective…

SF Examiner: On Guard: Corporate angels? Donors have political motivation

“These generous Google grants have the potential to change the lives of thousands of homeless families,” Mayor Ed Lee wrote last week in a glowing press release.

It painted Google as quite the hero.

But Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel for tax policy at Citizens for Tax Justice, says that amount is “just peanuts,” especially compared with tax revenue San Francisco should receive considering the number of Google employees possibly living in The City.

Google doesn’t pay heavy taxes in San Francisco because it’s not headquartered here. But many of its employees bus from The City to its 20,000-person Mountain View campus. They sleep and party all within San Francisco’s city limits, using San Francisco’s infrastructure.

And Google’s presence in Mountain View created a need for housing for 20,000 employees, according to news reports from Mountain View. Many have found that housing in San Francisco.

But the Bay Area doesn’t distribute taxes regionally, and as our housing prices fly sky-high, there will be no corporate dollars from Google to help provide affordable housing.

Well, Google did give The City $2 million for the homeless. But for Google, “that’s like a nickel to you and me,” Wilkins said.

And too many more to list here.

And this is from the HandUp website…

How It Started

The idea for HandUp started as a simple side project in early 2013 because we wanted to do something about homelessness that’s so visible on the streets of San Francisco. With the support and encouragement of Tumml, Project Homeless Connect, and so many others we turned this small side-project into a full-fledged company. Over the next year, HandUp attracted funding from some of Silicon Valley’s most experienced investors and we started the journey of expanding our community of giving across the country.


How did HandUp start?

The HandUp team is lead by founders Rose Broome and Zac Witte. They came up with the mobile donation system in Nov 2012. At that time, Rose and Zac were introduced to another group with a similar idea, including Doniece Sandoval and Barry Roeder, who was an early co-founder. Barry and Doniece continue their work in the Homeless community with their projects including Lavamae and >Bridge.

Rose and Zac incorporated HandUp PBC in August 2013 as a public benefit corporation. The HandUp pilot was launched on August 14th, 2013 at Project Homeless Connect’s 50th anniversary event.


Are HandUp donations tax deductible?

Generally, no. Donations made through are not currently tax deductible, but we’re looking into this for the future. We CAN however accept grant funding through our fiscal sponsor the Netroots Foundation, and can also offer tax deductions for donations to certain projects. Contact for more info.


What is a public benefit corporation?

A public benefit corporation is a for-profit business structure similar to a C Corporation that includes a social mission as part of the legal foundation of the company. This allows for both a high growth business model and a high impact social mission. At HandUp, we believe in applying the power of the for-profit business model to solving global challenges like urban poverty. We also believe that our mission is the key to our success, which is why we incorporated as a Delaware PBC. Learn more here.
Why did HandUp decide to be a B Corp and not a non-profit?

Good question, in fact, we wrote an entire blog post addressing this question. You can learn more about our thinking on this topic by reading it here.


…This ability to reach the scale of a for-profit was appealing to us, but we also wanted to make sure that our social mission stayed intact as we grew, even to a very large size. To do this we looked into a number of hybrid structures that combine elements of both nonprofits and for-profits. After much research and thought, we incorporated HandUp as a Delaware public benefit corporation, a new legal entity that allows for both a high growth business model and a legally binding social mission.

Part of our decision to become a public benefit corporation was the clear message it sends to our partners, our members, our investors, and the public at-large. With it we say that HandUp’s social mission is part of the legal foundation upon which our entire company stands. It also joins us to a global movement that challenges business to reconsider its role in civic responsibility, and one that seeks to change what it means for a corporation to be considered successful.

Traditional models put shareholder returns as the sole definition of business success, but today, responsible companies can consider a double bottom line; one that measures fiscal performance, along with positive social impact. The double bottom line moves the conversation from ‘profit or impact’ to ‘profit and impact.’

And click here for some of the investors and ‘customers’ involved in HandUp…

Make special note of these two:


Samir Kaji
Samir Kaji
Active Angel Investor and Advisor. Since 12′ Focus on building early stage tech/VC practice @First Republic Bank Prior was @Silicon Valley Bank for 13 years


Yoichiro Taku
Corporate partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Completed more financings than anyone else at WSGR the last two years.


[added 20141219] Note: One of the investors in HandUp, listed on their page, is SV Angel, a Ron Conway (and his son Topher, along with Brian Pokorny, of Airbnb) company. So when our Mayor Lee gushes on about Google donating to HandUp to help the homeless of San Francisco, the underlying theme is Google is donating to HandUp which boosts that company’s value (in resources and public image and future profitability), which will profit the investors in the end–one of which is Ron Conway. Nearly everything our mayor does always seems to snake back to Ron Conway and his financial buddies and their profits.


In a nutshell…

  • They are a For-Profit company. They are funded by Venture Capital investors who expect a profit.
  • Their Banker/Advisor and IPO Lawyer are not in the business of ‘giving’ nor helping the homeless, and that is not their role in HandUp. They are there to assist them in providing the largest profit possible for the founders and funders, when the time comes.
  • They are a ‘Benefit corporation’, not a ‘Certified B Corporation’. They have not bothered, or don’t think it’s useful, or perhaps cannot pass certification (or some other reason) to achieve this status. The difference between the two is…

Some excerpts from…

The Difference Between Benefit Corporations and Certified B Corps

Benefit Corporations and Certified B Corporations are often, and understandably, confused. Both are sometimes called B Corps. They share much in common and have a few important differences.

Certified B Corporation is a certification conferred by the nonprofit B Lab. Benefit corporation is a legal status administered by the state.

Benefit corporations do NOT need to be certified. Certified B Corporations have been certified as having met a high standard of overall social and environmental performance, and as a result have access to a portfolio of services and support from B Lab that benefit corporations do not.


What is a benefit corporation?

A benefit corporation is a new class of corporation that voluntarily meets higher standards of corporate purpose, accountability, and transparency.

Benefit corporations: 1) have a corporate purpose to create a material positive impact on society and the environment; 2) are required to consider the impact of their decisions not only on shareholders but also on workers, community, and the environment; and 3) are required to make available to the public an annual benefit report that assesses their overall social and environmental performance against a third party standard.

Becoming a benefit corporation gives entrepreneurs and investors an additional choice when determining which corporate form is most suitable to achieve their objectives.

As it says above, Benefit corporations “…have a purpose…”, and “are required to consider…”, and “are required to make available…against a third party standard”. And we’ve already seen more than many instances in the corporate world where that third party was created, funded, and maintained by the very corporations they are intended to oversee. It’s like creating a new type of real estate entity, the TLLC, the ‘Trustworthy Limited Liability Corporation’ that promises it will try its best not to Ellis Act evict any tenants when it buys a building–but no-one can hold them to it. End result is the Benefit corporation is pretty much the same as any other corporation, but they say they’re in it for a worthy cause. But no-one can hold their feet to that fire.

You can learn more about Benefit corporations here.

You can learn more about Certified B Corps here.

In essence, when Google says it is helping the homeless by donating to HandUp, it’s like saying they’re helping the rideless by donating free UBER carfare to people: the for-profit tech company gets more business and both companies get some good PR on the way to their IPO, where everybody makes out like bandits. Except the homeless. And the rest of us.

And if your feeling nostalgic…
Some of it may not still apply at this point, but here’s a link to my original post about HandUp…
This is some crazy shit…

Posted in Bad Neighbor, Bullshit Tech Journalism, Google Bullshit, New SF Tech Class, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Tech Social Work Bullshit | 1 Comment

SFMTA Private Commuter Shuttle Bus Stops ~ Rising like the Stock Market

And, like the stock market, not everybody benefits from this.

The SFMTA “Commuter Shuttles Policy and Pilot Program” can be found here

The updated list of stops can be found here on their website.

The original list of stops, no longer available on their site, can be found here (hosted on this site)

Since the original announcement of shuttle stops being used in August, there has been an increase in 15 stops (12 of them MUNI stops) and 288 hours the stops are being used (all related to MUNI stops)

Here are some tables summarizing each document:

Table 1: Original (August 2014) Stops

zone status Count of Stops Sum of Hours Average Hours
Bus Zone Approved 2 48.0 24.0
Muni Zone Approved 87 2088.0 24.0
Muni Zone Approved* 2 48.0 24.0
Muni Zone Pending 4 96.0 24.0
White Zone Approved 7 48.0 6.9
White Zone Pending 5 30.5 6.1
White Zone Pending** 2 12.0 6.0
TOTAL 109 2370.5

Table 2: Updated (November 2014) Stops

zone status Count of Stops Sum of Hours Average Hours
Bus Zone Approved 2 48.0 24.0
Muni Zone Approved 100 2400.0 24.0
Muni Zone Pending 3 72.0 24.0
Muni Zone Temporary 2 48.0 24.0
White Zone Approved 16 86.5 5.4
White Zone Pending 1 4.0 4.0
White Zone To be removed 1 4.0 4.0
TOTAL 123 2654.5

Which gives us Tables 3 and 4…

Table 3: Original Stops by Zone

zone Count of Stops Sum of Hours
Bus Zone 2 48
Muni Zone 93 2232
White Zone 14 90.5
TOTAL 109 2370.5

Table 4: Updated Stops by Zone

zone Count of Stops Sum of Hours
Bus Zone 2 48
Muni Zone 105 2520
White Zone 17 90.5
TOTAL 124 2658.5

And then the net Increase/Decrease, by Zone, for the Number of Stops and the Number of Hours

Table 5: Net Increase/Decrease

zone Count of Stops Sum of Hours
Bus Zone 0 0
Muni Zone 12 288
White Zone 3 0
TOTAL 15 288
Posted in corporate welfare, Gentrifucked, New SF Tech Class, Private Commuter Shuttle Buses, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area | 2 Comments

Look At This Tech Bus!

Look At This Tech Bus!.

Posted in business bastards, corporate welfare, Gentrifucked, links, New SF Tech Class, photo, Private Commuter Shuttle Buses, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area | Leave a comment

Ron Conway? Louie Gohmert? I really can’t tell the difference sometimes…


Wait–I get it! One of them has hair.

Anti Eviction Mapping Project ~ Ron Conway Owns San Francisco

(puppet image: Vanishing SF)

Posted in Bad Neighbor, business bastards, corporate welfare, crackpot, please die (gently) in your sleep, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, self-entitled ass, SF Bay Area, Sharing Economy Bullshit, Too Much Cash, Vote! 2015 | Leave a comment

Any takers? … No-one?

Recall Mayor Ed Lee.
Evict Mayor Ed Lee.
Defeat Mayor Ed Lee.


I pledge my vote, and five dollars to the campaign, to anyone who runs for mayor of San Francisco against Ed Lee (and realistically stands a chance of winning) and supports most of the following:

  • Developing affordable housing for current San Francisco residents
  • Putting reasonable limits on housing developments not affordable to most of the current San Francisco residents
  • Tenant protections from predatory and unfair evictions
  • Tenant relocation housing and/or reimbursement due to Ellis Act evictions
  • All city employees are required to be San Francisco residents
  • Rescind the Airbnb/Home Sharing legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors and explore better ways to regulate this type of industry that will be fair to all
  • Aggressively go after back taxes owed by Airbnb and any other ‘platform’ based company (or anyone else) that has evaded and/or ignored its tax debt to the city
  • Rescind the SFMTA ‘Google Bus’ pilot program and explore better ways to regulate this type of transportation by outside corporations for its employees living in San Francisco and to study in depth its effects on, and costs to, the city and its communities
  • Explore and develop a policy which creates revenue for the city from companies located outside of the city who promote living in the city as a company benefit and help their employees to do so, to their benefit and our detriment
  • Any company doing business in San Francisco must employ 50% of their workforce from San Francisco residents
  • Promote local election campaigns to be financed solely through public funds
  • ..?

$5.00. I’m not kidding. It’s right here, waiting for you…

Posted in Giving Democrats a Bad Name, please die (gently) in your sleep, politics, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Take Action, Vote! 2015 | Leave a comment

Airbnb is at it again ~ Bullshit hype and statistics about Airbnb in New York

New York and San Francisco coalitions team up against Airbnb
on Mashable (click for full article)

From the article (bold type added):

Airbnb has countered those assertions, saying that short-term rentals actually make cities more affordable. The company commissioned studies in several cities, and said in February of this year it found that 56% of its hosts in San Francisco use Airbnb income to help pay their mortgage or rent, and 87% of hosts in New York only share the home they live in.

In response to that statement about 87% ‘sharing‘ their homes…

I found only 41.9% of all rental units were listed as ‘shared’, and 58.1% of all rental units were listed as ‘entire apartment/house’ for rent. Some of these ‘Not Shared’ units are seasonal/temporary rentals by the actual residents of the unit, for sure. There are other scenarios that could account for ‘Not Shared’ migrating to the ‘Shared’ category, but it would take some extremely heavy lifting to get to that Airbnb “87%” number from what I found.

But this is what I think Airbnb is referring to by the ‘87%’ number (and it’s not the same as what they are stating it is; they are being intentionally misleading, if I am correct): I found 18,305 total unique Hosts. Of those 15,916 list only 1 unit for rent on the Airbnb website. 15,916 is almost exactly (86.9%) 87% of 18,305. So Airbnb assumes (wrongly), and wants you to believe, that any host renting only 1 unit must live there, and is using this to hype and support the company’s folksy sharing aspect.


Airbnb in New York City

Listing files were downloaded from Airbnb website on December 5, 2014.

Files were found by asking for all listings in each of the following New York zipcodes:

# Manhattan 10001 10002 10003 10004 10005 10006 10007 10009 10010 10011 10012 10013 10014 10016 10017 10018 10019 10020 10021 10022 10023 10024 10025 10026 10027 10028 10029 10030 10031 10032 10033 10034 10035 10036 10037 10038 10039 10040 10044 10048 10065 10069 10075 10111 10115 10128 10280 10281 10282

# Brooklyn 11201 11203 11204 11205 11206 11207 11208 11209 11210 11211 11212 11213 11214 11215 11216 11217 11218 11219 11220 11221 11222 11223 11224 11225 11226 11228 11229 11230 11231 11232 11233 11234 11235 11236 11237 11238 11239 11251

# Queens 11001 11004 11005 11040 11096 11101 11102 11103 11104 11105 11106 11109 11354 11355 11356 11357 11358 11359 11360 11361 11362 11363 11364 11365 11366 11367 11368 11369 11371 11372 11373 11374 11375 11377 11378 11379 11385 11411 11412 11413 11414 11415 11416 11417 11418 11419 11420 11421 11422 11423 11426 11427 11428 11429 11430 11432 11433 11434 11435 11436 11451 11691 11692 11694 11697

# Bronx 10451 10452 10453 10454 10455 10456 10457 10458 10459 10460 10461 10462 10465 10466 10467 10468 10469 10470 10471 10472 10473 10474 10475

# Staten Island 10301 10302 10303 10304 10305 10306 10307 10308 10309 10310 10312 10314

Since I’m not familiar with the neighborhoods of New York I included all listings found that had “NY” in “region” field.

Found/downloaded 22,562 Files.

Successfully parsed 22,342 files (220 files returned parsing errors or were duplicate rental IDs; not added to database).

Excluded 29 files (non ‘NY’ in “region”)

Net total unique Listings found and processed = 22,313

Note: from an article in USA TODAY on October 16, 2014 (see New York calls many Airbnb NYC rentals illegal) : “In all, more than 25,000 of the more than 35,000 short-term rentals appeared to violate local laws”. This is 57% more rentals than I found.
You can read the entire NY Attorney General’s report here

As a sidenote…

San Francisco Pop ~ 837 thousand.
New York City Pop ~ 8.406 million ~ 10x San Francisco.
SF Airbnb listings ~ 5k
New York City Airbnb listings ~ 22k == 4.4x SF listings, not 
10x (~50k), as might be expected
SF Airbnb listings = roughly 1 rental per 0.59% of population
NYC Airbnb listings = roughly 1 rental per 0.26% of population
Airbnb has a larger footprint (or, you might say, tighter 
stranglehold) on the rental housing market in San Francisco 
than it has in New York City (2.27x).

re: Property Type and Unit Type

Where listing for Property Type or Unit Type was (1) blank, (2) “Other”, or (3) html error, the listing description, title, etc, was examined to specify the type. These adjustments are marked as such in the tables with an asterisk (generally any Type in all lower case letters is an adjustment).

All listings are then categorized as A(partment) or H(ouse) or O(ther).

All listings are categorized as S(hared) or N(ot Shared). ‘Not Shared’ means listing showed entire unit for rent; ‘Shared’ means listing showed shared or private room within unit for rent.

No effort is made to discern which rentals are available full time nor which rentals are temporary, seasonal, or other. It cannot be done successfully from examining the files.


TABLE 1: New York City Airbnb Rentals by Type and by Sharing Type

Shared Not Shared Shared % Total Not Shared % Total Shared % Type Not Shared % Type
Apartment 8245 12398 37.0% 55.6% 39.9% 60.1%
House 894 525 4.0% 2.4% 63.0% 37.0%
Other 218 33 1.0% 0.1% 86.9% 13.1%
Total 9357 12956 41.9% 58.1%

CHART 1: New York City Airbnb Rentals by Type and by Sharing Type

Continue reading

Posted in airbnb, Bad Neighbor, Bullshit Statistics, corporate welfare, Gentrifucked, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Sharing Economy Bullshit, Tenant Landlord | 6 Comments

Intended Ellis Act Evictions in San Francisco for November 2014 (final)

These are “NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY” records recently posted by City Recorder, which is required prior to an Ellis Act Eviction.
Click on links for CRIIS website owner, records info
Click on APN number (####?-###?) for link to SF Planning Property Map website (from there you can click a link to see all CRIIS records for that property)
Click here to open html file in separate window
*note: if SF Planning site offers multiple APNs, APN listed here has probably been sub-divided
*note: some CRIIS links may show more names than listed here; these are not necessarily involved in intent to evict notice
Continue reading

Posted in Ellis Act Evictions, Gentrifucked, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Tenant Landlord, Too Many Luxury Condos | 1 Comment

“You Promised me there would be Fewer Cars, not More!”

San Francisco Facts from US Census Bureau ‘American Community Survey’, comparing years 2010 vs 2012
Respondents to the survey were all San Francisco residents.
(most of the charts used are direct from Census Bureau reports)

Charts 1a & 1b below: “Commute Mode, 2010 vs 2012″ or “You Promised me there would be Fewer Cars, not More!”

A finer breakdown for the categories in the charts (2010 numbers):
Total: 437,814 (sample of workers surveyed)
Car, truck, or van: 192,456
   Drove alone 157,799 (can be within or outside SF)
   Carpooled: 34,657 (can be within or outside SF)
      In 2-person carpool 28,545
      In 3-person carpool 4,011
      In 4-or-more-person carpool 2,101
Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 149,077
   Bus or trolley bus 104,210 (MUNI, SamTrans, GoldenGate, AC Transit, etc)
   Streetcar or trolley car 10,307 (SF only)
   Subway or elevated 29,818 (MUNI, BART; both within and outside SF)
   Railroad 4,577 (CalTrain, Amtrack) (outside SF)
   Ferryboat 165 (outside SF)
Bicycle 15,208 (within SF) (Bicycle numbers are included with ‘Other’ in the charts, not specified in their own category, as here)
Walked 41,362 (within SF)
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 10,491 (assume within SF for taxi; motorcycle and ‘other’ (private corporate shuttle, for one) within or outside SF)
Worked at home 29,220 (within SF)
Chart 1a: Commute Mode, 2010

Chart 1b: Commute Mode, 2012

‘Drove Alone’ +0.3% (+473) more cars on the road
‘Carpooled’ -0.2% (-69) more cars on the road
(we assume they’re not riding MUNI now, because public transit ridership is down)
‘Public Transit’ -1.0% (-1490) more cars on the road
‘Walked’ +0.4% (+165) fewer cars (or bicycles) on the road
‘Other’ +0.4% (+102) more private shuttle buses
(or bicycles or motorcycles or taxicabs or pedicabs) on the road
‘Worked at Home’ no change no change

Continue reading

Posted in Bullshit Statistics, Bullshit Tech Journalism, corporate welfare, Gentrifucked, New SF Tech Class, Private Commuter Shuttle Buses, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Domain Names Available

My Wife is Trying to Poison Me .com


How can I Poison my Husband .com

and (equal time)

My Husband is Trying to Poison Me .com


How can I Poison my Wife .com

Believe it or not, these are available! Register the pair! Both pairs!

(available until you search available domain names at networksolutions, which appears to automatically register every name you search for, and then offers it to you at an inflated price, or as part of their web-hosting package; in either case, it is suddenly no longer ‘available’, except through them. Network Solutions ~ Try it and see…)

Maybe they’ve stopped this practice…?
Or maybe it never happened…just another internet malcontent ruse?


Posted in Domain Names Available | Leave a comment

San Francisco Residents: Transportation to Work

aka: “Goddammit, I missed my bus! Did you see where I put my car keys? No, the other car keys, the battery’s not fully charged on that yet.”


Survey asked how do you get to work, (1) Carpool (2) Drive Alone (3) Public Transportation
Generally around 78% responded with one of the above; the remainder can be assumed to fall under work at home, or walk to work, or bicycle to work, or private commuter shuttle bus to work, or some other mode (or a combination).
Then, per category, asked other questions such as how many vehicles do you have access to, and do you work within the county of San Francisco, etc.

The charts are self-explanatory when you look at them. I’ve only made a few comments where I think something might be overlooked.
(click on any chart for a larger image)

CHART 1: Commuting within/without San Francisco

re Chart 1:
‘None of Above’ is slightly, yet steadily climbing.
For those using public transportation the within San Francisco numbers far outweigh the without, by a ratio of nearly 8:1; but the use of public transportation for the commuters outside San Francisco has been gaining in the past couple of years.
Overall (‘total’) the within vs without ratios have been fairly consistent, with a slight uptick for without in the past couple of years.

Continue reading

Posted in Bullshit Statistics, Bullshit Tech Journalism, corporate welfare, Gentrifucked, New SF Tech Class, Private Commuter Shuttle Buses, Recall David Chiu, Recall Jane Kim, Recall Mayor Ed Lee, SF Bay Area | Leave a comment