Chris Pederson

S.F. has zero office conversion projects. Could this new legislation make a difference? San Francisco has been rolling out the red carpet for developers and building owners, trying to entice them to start office-to-residential conversion projects in the city.

Here's more on SF's latest effort to encourage office-to-housing conversions:

www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/d...

Judge Bruce Chan apparently thinks that even a few hours of community service would be too great an imposition on a homicidal driver.

Who would ride this ferry? People who now ride BART or AC Transit transbay buses? Those who drive to SF? Who don't go to SF because they don't like current options but might if they could take the ferry? If it'd mainly be those who already take transit to SF, what benefit would the service provide?

This was the final straw. I finally cancelled my Washington Post subscription today.

Muni Metro stations have Clipper Card machines that don’t take either debit or credit cards and Muni ticket machines, but no signage telling people they can simply tap their credit or debit cards on the Clipper readers on the fare gates. Why is that?

"On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1 More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (TPS statute). It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually. See Part VI. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. [screenshot of tweet].

So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program. And one of those (her word) “damn” countries is Haiti. Relevant here, three days before making the above post, Secretary Noem announced she would terminate Haiti’s TPS designation as of February 3, 2026. See 90 Fed. Reg. 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025) (Termination). Plaintiffs are five Haitian TPS holders. They are not, it emerges, “killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.” They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease, Dkt. 90 (Second Am. Compl. (SAC)) ¶ 1; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank, id. ¶ 2; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department, id. ¶ 3; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major, id. ¶ 4; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse, id. ¶ 5. They claim that Secretary Noem’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Government counters that the Court does not have jurisdiction, and, in any case, the Secretary did not violate the law. Plaintiffs seek to stay the Secretary’s decision under 5 U.S.C. § 705 pending the outcome of this litigation. See Dkt. 81 (§ 705 Mot.). To decide their motion, the Court considers first whether it has jurisdiction. It does. See Part II. It then considers: whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; whether they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; and whether a merged balance of the equities and public interest analysis favors a stay. See Part III. Each element favors Plaintiffs. See Parts IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem

has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down. See Section IV.A.2. Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record (CAR). See Section IV.A.3.a. She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A); see Section IV.A.1. Indeed, she did not consult other agencies at all. See id. Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so. See Section IV.A.3.b. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy. See id. The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability. See Section I.A. As to irreparable harm, the Government contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS holders are speculative. But the Department of State (State) warns [screenshot]

Dkt. 100 (§ 705 Reply) at 20–21.4 “Do not travel to Haiti for any reason” does not exactly scream, as Secretary Noem concluded, suitable for return. And so, the Government studiously does not argue that Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if removed to Haiti. Instead, it argues Plaintiffs will not certainly suffer irreparable harm because DHS might not remove them. But this fails to take Secretary Noem at her word: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” See Section IV.B.2.b. Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay. The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste. Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our healthcare system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. 81.

Even if you don't have time to read all 83 pages of Judge Reyes's opinion barring the Trump administration from rescinding Temporary Protected Status for 350,000+ Haitians, please at least check out the four-page introduction.

It's a tour de force:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

The short 3-page order is worth reading in full. No legal expertise required to understand and appreciate it.

Really hard to look at this and all the other examples of bravery and kindness from ordinary people in this moment not think also of the tremendous cowardice exhibited over the past year by some of the richest, most well-protected people in business, media and politics

Will you vote to block funding for ICE and the Border Patrol? Mere rhetoric isn’t remotely good enough.

This is courage. Looking a masked, government fascist dead in the eye, face to face, knowing full well that your life is on the line.

If elected officials had 1/10th of Alex Pretti's resolve, we would have far fewer troubles.

Signature Gathering Kickoff for Connect Bay Area Transit · Luma To avoid devastating Bay Area transit service cuts, we need to gather 200,000 signatures to get Connect Bay Area, the regional transit funding measure enabled…

🚨 Save the date to save Bay Area transit: January 23rd!

This is our all hands on deck moment: we’re kicking off signature gathering for the regional measure with a day of action across all five counties on the 23rd.

luma.com/le1g7slf?tk=...

And SF will be subject to SB 79. But SF will lose state funding for affordable housing and transit, which I guess would cheer them up.

From the minnesota community on Reddit: ST. PAUL, MN: A sobbing resident calls 911 as federal agents force their way into her home to chase down a DoorDash driver who was just trying to deliver food. Explore this post and more from the minnesota community

Everybody should watch this and see this woman, who has a baby in her arms and is thrust into basically a standoff, develop courage in real time.

I wish I could say the same. I verified my ID then ran into what the website called an “unexpected error.” It provided no guidance on how to resolve whatever the error may’ve been. The auto-response to my email query said they will try to respond within 2 weeks.

As a teacher, let me put S.F.’s Marina Safeway project in historic context OPINION: You don’t have to like the Marina Safeway project, but there’s no denying San Francisco needs it, John Lisovsky writes.

Great op-ed

As a teacher, let me put S.F.’s Marina Safeway project in historic context www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...

I was confused when reading the article until I saw that it's dated last January.

I wouldn't mind bars having 10 different IPAs if they also had a decent selection of other kinds of beers. Unfortunately, they too rarely do.

Thread of Waymo problems with the power outage. Waymos are an earthquake disaster waiting to happen, unable to navigate when street lights go dark, and their data umbilical cord (the cell network) congests and then fails. The CA DMV/CPUC doesn't seem to care.

how about if Sunset residents start to use their garages for storing cars?

Waymo vehicle backing up into other cars.

Close up of Waymo showing license plate

I just saw a @waymo.bsky.social try to dangerously back up in intersection of Market, Sanchez & 15th St. Other cars were stopped behind it, but it just kept backing up. Ironically, another Waymo several cars behind made it difficult for the other cars to back up. Crazy.

An ignition interlock device isn't "taking away one's wheels."

California also did this

Which is what California did with its pilot program

I think we should take another run at repealing Prop 13 for non-residential properties, but this time coupled with a sweetener, such as a cut to the statewide sales tax.

And a liar, too.

Thanks to SB 951, San Francisco is now treated the same as other coastal cities. Simplifying somewhat, projects in coastal cities that are inland of the first public road, more than 300' from the beach, & more than 100' from a wetland aren't appealable to the Coastal Commission.

Here you go: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNa... It was from the 2023-24 legislative session.

FYI the Safeway near Ocean Beach is in the coastal zone, but - thanks in part to SB 951 (Wiener) - outside the Coastal Commission's appellate jurisdiction. The Commission won't have authority over it unless for some reason it requires an LCP amendment.

That would be quite something considering that it's far outside the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction. (BCDC has jurisdiction over the bay. The Coastal Commission's jurisdiction in San Francisco doesn't extend east of Land's End.)