Latest news with #MichelleReynolds
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
New S.F. data is most detailed yet on how long it takes to move through city's notorious permit process
The time it takes to get approval to build something in San Francisco has fallen since a number of streamlining measures were implemented last year — but some departments still struggle to meet the city's new target times. That's according to new data compiled by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, which is published in a new dashboard tracking the processes as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie's PermitSF initiative. The effort aims to simplify the city's notoriously long and often convoluted permitting process. The dashboard includes two main components: one tracks the median number of days it takes to get through the entire planning or building process, and the other breaks down how long the planning and building departments each take to complete their steps in the process. Together, the dashboard and underlying data provide more transparency into San Francisco's permitting process than previously existed. Using the data, a Chronicle analysis found that the time it takes to approve a project or issue a permit has sped up in recent years. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that the city made 'significant changes' to the planning and building review processes starting in January 2024, in response to state law as well as local changes under former Mayor London Breed. The time spent in both planning and building dropped after those changes were implemented, the data show. Planning approval plummeted from a median of 222 to 133 days, and building went from a median of 258 to 209. So far this year, the median times are on track to be even faster. Within the process, each step now has its own target for how long it's supposed to take — a metric dubbed the 'shot clock' in a press release from Lurie's administration. Such goals 'make the process more predictable for homeowners and businesses' and hold departments accountable for any delays, the release said. The target times went into effect this month. So far, according to the dashboard, the city seems to be faring well: Over the last year, though the targets had not yet been set, the building department completed tasks within the target window most of the time, and the planning department only missed its target for resubmission reviews. Still, that doesn't mean that all projects and permits are suddenly sailing through: In both the planning and the building departments, nearly 30% of permits took longer than the target 30 days to get through a first review. Missed target times will be incorporated into staff performance plans, according to Lurie's office. The metrics don't measure any time spent on required pre-application neighborhood outreach, which can add significant delays to projects. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for PermitSF, noted that in July 2023, the city removed the pre-application requirement for most projects, although some bigger projects, like new construction or additions over a certain size still need it. Additionally, the total time metric for planning approval does not include checking whether the application is complete, a process that can take multiple rounds of submittals to the city. That metric is measured, however, in the planning department's 'shot clock' dashboard, with a target time of 21 days. The new data also reveal how long permits spend at each 'review station,' or city departments that need to check various permits for safety and code compliance. While the complexity of what each department must review varies with each project, some hit the city's new targets more often than others. A number of stations fell behind in the first review stage, which is when a plan is first checked for compliance (the city sets a 30-day target for these), but most hit the target for rechecks, or reviews of plans that have been revised, over the last year (a 14-day target). Of departments that completed at least 200 reviews from May 2024 and through April 2025, only one missed the target on most projects for both first reviews and rechecks: the Bureau of Urban Forestry, which handles permits on street trees and foliage. (Because the targets are new, the Bureau of Urban Forestry was not technically held to these targets over the 12 months ending in April, but has been starting this month.) In an email, Chris Heredia, a spokesperson for the Bureau, said that slower response times are due to a 'staffing issue,' as inspectors, who are also tasked both with upkeep of existing city trees, can only allocate about 20% of their time to permits. 'San Franciscans want trees with new construction,' he wrote, noting that construction, and the load on inspectors, had seen an uptick. 'We don't have an adequate number of urban forestry inspectors to meet the demand.' Still, he said that review times had improved in recent months.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State trying again to regulate social media for Ohioans under 16
Apr. 3—Ohio Republicans have introduced a plan to require parental consent before Ohioans under the age of 16 download an app after the state's first attempt at social media regulation was blocked by a federal court due to free speech concerns. Ohio's previous plan attempted to make app operators themselves (Meta, X, TikTok, YouTube and others) responsible for verifying the age of its users, notifying parents of an attempted account creation, and blocking the account creation for users under 16 if the parent did not consent. The new plan, contained in Senate Bill 167, represents a slight change in approach — ultimately putting the burden of obtaining and abiding by parental consent on app stores. Under the bill, phone and operating system manufacturers would be required to take "commercially reasonable and technically feasible steps to determine or estimate the age of the primary user of the device." From there, the bill would require app marketplaces like the Apple App Store or Google Play to obtain parental consent before any user the store operator "knows or should know is under sixteen years of age" can actually download the app. Bill sponsor Sen. Michelle Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, told reporters Thursday that S.B. 167 is "going to be able to withstand the constitutional challenges (that) at least we believe may come up." "While the 'what' may be the same, the 'how' is different," Reynolds said. However, it's not clear if the "how" will be different enough to escape a federal court's concerns. In early 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio blocked the state's first attempt, Judge Algenon L. Marbley argued that the legislation lacked the necessary elements to protect the First Amendment rights of both minors and app operators. "Foreclosing minors under sixteen from accessing all content on websites that the Act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media's harm to children," Marbley wrote at the time. The lawsuit that foiled Ohio's first plan was brought by NetChoice, a tech trade association that acted on behalf of X, Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Google and other tech giants. Bill sponsors said at least one of those industry powerhouses, Meta, is in support of this new legislation. A bill identical to S.B. 167 will be introduced in the House by Rep. Melanie Miller, R-Brook Park. She told reporters Thursday that she believes the new approach "strikes a balance between protecting our children and upholding the First Amendment free speech rights." She called the newly proposed framework user-friendly. "When a teen tries to download an app on their smartphone, the parent would simply receive a notification on their phone to either approve or deny the download," Miller said. "The app wouldn't download on the teen's phone unless the parent approves it. This legislation will put parents, not the government, in charge of their children's online access." Like the state's first attempt, S.B. 167 would require app operators to provide tools to allow parents to manage the accounts associated with their child, manage the age-appropriateness of content, and set usage limits on their child's account. Neither S.B. 167 or its yet-to-be-named House counterpart have been referred to committee yet, but Miller and Reynolds said they're looking forward to the debate that's sure to ensure. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Reddit, Inc. (RDDT) Went Down on Friday
We recently compiled a list of the . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Reddit, Inc. (NYSE:RDDT) stands against the other stocks. Wall Street finished the trading week on a strong note, with all major indices recording gains as investors digested the latest US jobs data, which fell short of expectations. The tech-heavy Nasdaq posted the largest gain with 0.70 percent, followed by the S&P 500 with 0.55 percent, and the Dow Jones by 0.52 percent. Ten companies across mixed sectors bucked a wider market optimism, ending Friday in the red territory. In this article, we have listed the 10 worst-performing names and detailed the reasons behind their performance. To come up with the list, we considered only the stocks with at least $2 billion in market capitalization and $5 million in daily trading volume. A content marketing website showing the audience reach of the company's products. Reddit, Inc. (NYSE:RDDT) dropped its share prices for a second day on Friday, slashing 11.11 percent to end at $133.98 apiece following news that its chief accounting officer, Michelle Reynolds, disposed of a significant portion of her holdings in the company. In a regulatory filing, Reddit, Inc. (NYSE:RDDT) said Reynolds sold shares amounting to $1.88 million at a stock price ranging from $151.35 to $164.31 apiece. Following the sale, Reynolds's ownership in the company now stands at 48,418 shares. Amid the lack of a clear reason for the sell-off, investors will be closely looking out for cues on broader trends and changes within the company. Last year, Reddit, Inc. (NYSE:RDDT) saw net losses expand by 433 percent to $484.27 million from the $90.82 million registered in 2023, despite revenues growing by 62 percent to $1.3 billion from $804 million. However, it recorded a 283.7-percent jump in its net income for the fourth quarter last year at $71 million versus $18.5 million in the same period a year earlier. Revenues for the quarter also surged by 71 percent to $427.7 million versus $249.8 million. Overall RDDT ranks 3rd on our list of Friday's worst performers. While we acknowledge the potential of RDDT as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and doing so within a shorter time frame. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than RDDT but trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and Complete List of 59 AI Companies Under $2 Billion in Market Cap Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
