CFAH

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 to endorse Mayor Gavin Newsom’s term sheet and support San Francisco’s bid to host the 34th America’s Cup. Supervisors Chris Daly and John Avalos cast the two dissenting votes.
QuickLinks: Term Sheet For San Francisco’s Bid For America’s Cup [SocketSite]
San Francisco’s America’s Cup Fundraising And Property Pledge [SocketSite]
The Pitch To Sail The America’s Cup Into San Francisco’s Bay [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “Supervisors Chris Daly and John Avalos provided the two dissenting votes.”
    Good grief. Daly can’t leave fast enough IMO.

  2. Posted by Jamie

    Chris Daly is being unfairly criticized here for requesting some verification of the $1.4 billion advertised economic benefit coming from the bay area chamber… Would you give away the Port property usage for 75 years without doing the math to make sure it pencils out to benefit the City? I am glad they passed it, but I hope they are working out and verifying promised economic benefits before giving away the store… And the criticism of Daly is unjust, in my opinion.

  3. Posted by @ Jamie

    You sure do give the guy (Daly) a lot of credit.
    “San Francisco should not be going so out of its way, using the people’s money so that a billionaire can have his yacht race,” Daly said.
    http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/09/chris-daly-yacht-hater-d6-supe.php
    Will you all join me on Daly’s last day as supervisor in a mass email “Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey, GOODBYE!” campaign?
    chris.Daly@sfgov.org

  4. Posted by g

    I usually never agree with Daly on anything, but I think he’s on the mark here.

  5. Posted by ellbee

    From an attendee:
    The hearing opened with Supervisor Daly asking a great number of questions, many of which were actually quite relevant. Upon completing his questions, he promptly left to go pick up his children instead of staying to fulfill his civil duty and listen to each and every one of his questions being answered.
    I don’t think Daly is being treated unfairly – he’s a lame-duck, loud-mouth local politician. Soon he will be a low-rent, car-over-bridge commuting, loud-mouth bar owner.
    One can quibble with the terms, but not with the idea that having this event here would be good for San Francisco.

  6. Posted by resp

    not to digress into politics but my city/county/state ballot arrived yesterday, reminding me of how easy it is to vote on issues here.
    Daly yes – me no
    Daly no – me yes
    Pelosi yes – me no
    Pelosi no – me yes

  7. Posted by OneEyedMan

    I was there too. Despite the histrionics, Daly did have some valid points. SF may be stepping on their own d–ks in their rush to close the deal on the America’s Cup. Newsom is trying to cram as much through as possible before he leaves and it shows in the quality of department staff’s work.
    How competitive do we have to be to get the cup? Our competition are charter members of PIIGS who can’t finance any kind of infrastructure.

  8. Posted by goblue72

    Nail on head, OneEyedMan. I’d go ever further – how competitive do we have to be when its Larry Ellison who gets to pick where the Amercia’s Cup is going to be?
    And any rah-rah, boosterism “economic projections” from the Chamber of Commerce is essentially birdcage liner – they’re lobbyists, not third-party independent analysts. If you buy what they are selling, I have some unbuilt subdivisions in Fresno you might be interested in.
    Every time any independent economist has examined the after the fact ecnonomic benefits over costs for these types of large sporting events where the public has to kick in infrastructure spending (Olympics, Super Bowl, etc), the original projections have been found to be completely overblown. Half the time, the locality winds up losing money. And even when there is a net positive, its generally marginal.

  9. Posted by [anon.ed]

    First off, an Olympics, a Superbowl and an America’s Cup are all three different kettles of fish. We’re talking about underutilized bayfront property here, and a goal that will serve cut through the stagnation we’ve seen with other bayfront development plans. And there’s nothing worthwhile already in place.

  10. Posted by Al

    In addition to this 75 years of free rent, there’s the $270 million which the city is “supposed to help raise from donors”. Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? The mayor will politely ask around? Or will the city provide some tit-for-tat, like tax breaks, which mean that the $270 million will actually end up coming out of the city budget after all? To me, it sounds a lot like they’re passing it off as if the city will not be on the hook, when in fact the city will very much be on the hook.

  11. Posted by lol

    We have a gorgeous bayfront that is surrounded by a few decaying piers. They can be great public places when done right. Building new visually appealing large scale spaces inside the city is almost impossible.
    The post-Embarcadero Freeway era is still in its infancy. These piers must be restored/developed. Our kids will thank us for this.

  12. Posted by sfrenegade

    “The hearing opened with Supervisor Daly asking a great number of questions, many of which were actually quite relevant. Upon completing his questions, he promptly left to go pick up his children instead of staying to fulfill his civil duty and listen to each and every one of his questions being answered.”
    Yep, that’s what happened. Daly is all flash and no substance.

  13. Posted by Happy in SF

    “I will bring a white squall to make sure those boats never see the water,” Daly said before the vote. (quoted in SFGate)
    Doesn’t sound like Daly was trying be be objective or just asking some valid questions. As usual, he had his own pre-formulated agenda and acted like an infantile jerk. So sad to hear that he’ll be staying in the city.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles