CFAH

8 Washinton Revised Rendering: North

At three o’clock this afternoon, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 8 Washington Street project.

An opposing perspective from Frederick:

The present proposal is the 4th attempt to change the Golden Gateway Swim & Tennis Club from a recreational facility into part condominiums and part recreational.

The reason that the use of the site is still recreational is that the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency took control of the area in the 1960’s, used Federal Funds to relocate business and residents and with 5 developers bidding, chose the Perini Corp of Boston to develop the Golden Gateway area. Perini won the rights to build the Alcoa Office Building (25 stories), the Golden Gateway Center (1,200+ rental apartments) and the Golden Gateway Commons (mixed use with 3 blocks of office & retail and 155 condominiums).

One of the reasons that Perini was accepted by the Redevelopment Agency is that Perini proposed to build a private 2 acre park (Sydney Walton Park) and build the Golden Gateway Swim & Tennis Club (Club) that was made available to the tenants at the GG Center and GG Commons. This helped create the neighborhood with both office and residential uses and today is the most successful project the SF Redevelopment Agency has completed.

Perini paid the Redevelopment Agency market rate land cost for the rights to build the Alcoa Building, the GG Center and GG Commons, but paid below market for the land for the Park & Recreational Club.

The neighborhood and anyone visiting has enjoyed both the Park and Club since the 1970’s.

There have been 3 previous attempts to build condominiums on the Club and reduce the size of the Club. All 3 previous attempts were turned down, first by Mayor Diane Feinstein, then Mayor Art Agnos and most recently by the Board of Supervisors.

Members of the Club have formed an organization to “Save the Club” called Friends of Golden Gateway “FOGG” with over 1,300 members.

In December 2006, FOGG joined with the San Francisco Tennis Club, the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association and numerous other City organizations to have the Supervisors (who voted 11-0) to require any changes in public or private recreational facilities in San Francisco to replace the recreational component with 100% of the existing recreational facilities. This action has saved the SF Tennis Club from being replaced with over 500 condominiums.

The neighborhood that enjoys using the Golden Gateway Swim and Tennis Club feels that the project that was approved by the Redevelopment Agency 30 years ago, did not call for it to change at a later date. If the recreational facility can be taken away, how soon will Sydney Walton Park have a 25 story building replacing that open space?

Get educated and make up your own mind.

Also noted by Frederick, a lawsuit backed by the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Neighbors to Preserve the Waterfront, San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth, Golden Gateway Tenants Association, San Francisco Neighborhood Network, Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association, Russian Hill Neighbors, and the San Francisco Tenants Union among others has been filed in San Francisco’s Superior Court in an attempt to prevent the development.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by J.K.R.

    Let’s not pretend that saving the Tennis Club is for the greater good. It’s just about a powerful group of elite wanting to preserve their walled off country club. Not that development won’t bring in even more wealthy elite, but at least it will bring change to the current eyesore by adding ground retail space and more life to the area.

  2. Posted by gellan

    Please approve and build! Next.

  3. Posted by anon

    Consider me educated, Frederick.
    As for my mind being made – get rid of the ridiculous parking lots and tennis courts and build this!

  4. Posted by Dolores Guerrero

    I didn’t realize that a project approved by the Redevelopment Agency 30 years ago can never be changed and is forever set in stone – that appears to be what Frederick is saying in the quote. Add to that the fact that the tennis and swim club members don’t want to lose their club, and these seem to be the main reasons for the opposition to this project (besides the usual crap that the THD throw at these things). The city needs to change and grow in order to remain livable. Having a swim and tennis club at this location makes no sense whatsoever; the best use of the parcel is for exactly what is being proposed by whoever is building this thing. So just let them build it already and move on.

  5. Posted by James

    “Members of the Club have formed an organization…” tells you everything you need to know. Of course members want to save their private club privileges, but it’s deliberately misleading to call them a “neighborhood” as though they have any public interests in mind. Golden Gateway is a private complex, not a neighborhood. Regarding Sydney Walton Park, that space is privately owned and cannot be slippery-sloped into this argument. The city owns the parcel in question and wants to activate a fairly dead stretch of the Embarcadero and put it to better use than a members-only (not “neighborhood”) tennis club.

  6. Posted by ejay

    Yes, and at the time Redevelopment took control of this parcel it was adjacent to an elevated freeway. 30 years later the neighborhood has changed – so it is time to allow this parcel to change as well.
    If we expect this city to grow and allow neighborhoods to redefine themselves we can’t continue to blanked the city in amber.
    This provincial way of thinking just can’t continue.

  7. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I just can’t imagine that the PC won’t see right through this subterfuge and vote the way that someone would vote had they the understanding that J.K.R. describes above. Unless the body snatchers have taken over a majority of the commissioners, I can’t see Friends of Golden Gateway prevailing on this one, but I’ve been really wrong on these kinds of things before.
    What I would float as an idea (assuming the PC attempts to mollify the club members) would be to have the developer still build the building(s), and change the design to place the bloody pool and tennis courts on the top deck(s). Raise the club dues accordingly to pay for the marginal increase in project cost.

  8. Posted by anon

    All this talk of ‘elites’ is quite amusing. It’s a freakin sports club, nothing more. Believe it or not there are actually other clubs in SF such as Sports Club LA, Equinox and the Bay Club! Imagine all those elites exercising. They’re probably chatting in pilates class or in the steam room, plotting their next moves on how they will enslave us all.

  9. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I can relate to Frederick regarding promises made by past administrations that are later “forgotten”. Ideally officials should not be cavalier with implying that a facility will remain in place perpetually, especially if such a facility is in the center of a city.
    But I do like Brahma’s plan to reconcile the desire to preserve the club while allowing the project. If the groups who want to keep the club are really only interested in having a club at this location then they ought to be satisfied with Brahma’s plan. If they continue to oppose the project then their real motives will become clearer.

  10. Posted by rubber_chicken

    Frederick’s 30-yr old Redevelopment-open-space-deal argument is disingenuous in the extreme:
    What was then several acres of elevated concrete freeway to the south is now verdant Sue Bierman Park. Thus, there is no cogent public-benefit argument for preserving private recreational open-space here.
    The PC may approve. But what about the supes when the appeal lands on their desks?

  11. Posted by anonanon

    “It’s a freakin sports club, nothing more.”
    Exactly. There is nothing exclusive about it, anyone can join. Interesting how a developer trying make megabucks by building luxury condos has convinced some gullible people that this is a country club for the elite.

  12. Posted by rocco

    @brahma: that’s basically the solution
    @anonanon: True, anyone can join. It’s not however, free. And you may not have walked around it lately but the courts and pool- which are directly on the Embarcadero- are unattractively fenced off. It’s a walled compound.

  13. Posted by Scooter

    Sue Bierman Park has been anything but verdant for the past year…

  14. Posted by Modernqueen

    Get rid of the tennis courts and club. Build housing. Build it high end. It will sell.

  15. Posted by anonanon

    @rocco: It’s not free, but how many fitness clubs are free? Let’s do some math. If you like to swim everyday, you can go to public pools managed by Parc & Rec and pay about $135/month ($45 for 10 swims). That’s probably about the same kind of money that you would pay for unlimited access to the pool and the gym at the Gateway. So much for the idea that the club is some kind of elite institution catering to the rich.
    But I do think the developers have done a great job of convincing the truly naive (of which there is no great shortage in SF) of the notion that replacing a decidedly middle-class sports club that has maybe 1500 members with luxury condos for the rich constitutes progress.

  16. Posted by anon

    ^I don’t care about the “rich” folks at the club or the condos.
    I just don’t like looking at an ugly parking lot and ugly fences along the Embarcadero. It’s pretty much entirely an aesthetic issue for me. Put ugly stuff like that in ugly places or on roof tops. At street level, I want to look at shops and/or stoops.

  17. Posted by anonanon

    The current fence is not that great, but hardly the worst eyesore in town. Could probably be improved to the level of the proposed condo development at a cost of a few 100k.

  18. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    How did the Planning Commission meeting go? I have pretty much decided that whatever the Telegraph Hill Dwellers wants, I am against that. Is there an anti-THD group out there that I can give money to?
    This empty eyesore of a parking lot has sat this way far too long due to the obstructionists at THD.
    This is perhaps not the best use of the land, but it is time to do something with it. I will write a letter to Wiener telling him that I support it if it gets past the PC.

  19. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    anonanon wrote:

    I do think the developers have done a great job of convincing the truly naive…of the notion that replacing a decidedly middle-class sports club that has maybe 1500 members with luxury condos for the rich constitutes progress.

    Zing! Well played, anonanon 🙂
    Far be it from me to appear to be advocating luxury condos for the rich, but this little bit of mischaracterization for rhetorical point-scoring can’t pass uncommented upon.
    What “constitutes progress” is bringing into being a higher, better use of scarce resources, in this case land in the location under discussion. Even if we ignore the aesthetic issues that ‘anon’ touches on, the fact remains that for no reasonable definition of the terms “highest, best use” can lead to concluding that surface-level parking lots and tennis courts for that location results in the greater public good. The alternative being put on the table here, keeping the surface level tennis courts, etc. for use by the members of the incumbent private club, is a conservative one.
    One thing that would make people like me think that the members of the incumbent sports club are elites, regardless of what the developers try to convince us of, is the fact that they’ve launched a lawsuit against a project which hasn’t even been approved yet for the sole purpose of preserving their surface-level recreational facilities and with the help of the fellow traveler organizations mentioned above (well, the ones mentioned that I am familiar with) in the final sentence of the post, which in turn are nothing if not political pressure groups dedicated to defending the interests of incumbent landowners and the monied elite of their respective neighborhoods. Land use lawyers don’t work cheap.

  20. Posted by Jimmy C

    playing tennis where I grew up was a good way to get your ass kicked. build some housing and keep out the affordable housing. there is a place for “affordable” housing, and it’s called San Leandro.

  21. Posted by Theo

    Here are a number of thoughts:
    **
    1. I help Friends of Golden Gateway http://fogg.us with their web site. I would like to add to Fred’s comments. The number of people who want to protect their neighborhood sports facility is huge – much larger than Fred’s number. FoGG currently has 2,775 subscribers. These are people from all over the city. Some are members, but many are simply concerned businesses or residents.
    I happen to be a member of the Club and also a resident of neighboring The Gateway residential complex. It’s stripped down urban living here. There are no churches, libraries, playgrounds, meeting rooms for miles. What we have is plenty of expensive restaurants and plenty of homeless.
    If you want to give an outdoor birthday for your child, read a newspaper without having to buy a cup of coffee, exercise outdoors and be able to take a shower, hit a few baskets, have your children walk to their summer camp or just cook on a barbecue (forbidden in the apartments) there’s only one place in the 94111 zip code for doing so and that is at our club.
    Close my club down and I’m outta here.
    Am I missing something? Would tearing down my club make living in the area any better?
    **
    2. Thinking about it another way.
    Did any of you read this article in the NY Times today?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/us/22bchomes.html
    The title is “Conversion of Apartments to Rentals for Tourists Is Surging”
    This sort of activity is certainly going on around here. If our club is taken down, the new condos will certainly be almost all “Rentals for Tourists”.
    If this continues then does the slogan of this part ofthe city become “Welcome to the Wild West Friscoland”?
    Maybe this is what is wanted: The entire north-east portion of the city is turned over to vacation rentals all owned by property developers who live in East Bay, North Bay or wherever and rent out apartments to vacationers. No need to build schools or libraries.
    It’s already well underway. The 94111 zip code (the land east of Sansome and north of Market) has only 2,500 residents left.
    Is the entire north-east of the city devoted to vacation rentals the right-way to go?
    **
    3. What would happen if the area loses a few hundred more residents because of the lack of amenities? Would this in turn cause the Safeway on Jackson and Davis to close down. If that one change happened, would the entire area becomes unlivable for normal residents?
    **
    4. So many of the comments here are saying “build, build, build.” The Millennium is still half empty. Most of the shops in the area are half empty. If you read this web site you see that property prices are stagnant at best. So somebody please explain to me why there is this urge to add to what seems to be a problem?
    **
    5. When I look at the drawings for the new development, it seems to me that about half the condos will have views that would totally suck – facing away from the water and even towards blank walls.
    What is the purpose of even considering building such condos?
    **
    6. The America’s Cup is coming. I hope the Cup is not about people sitting in stands getting fat on French Fries. I do hope it’s part of the city smart enough to build the Internet and smart enough to take time off from sitting at the computer to go outdoors and be healthy.
    We have a city of some of the smartest, most good-looking, hard-working, hard-playing people in the country. I’d like that to continue. The club is instrumental in keeping FiDi workers and residents in good shape at just over $100 or so per month.
    Is my vision naive?
    **
    6. I would be delighted to see the fence around the tennis courts taken down or made with transparent or translucent wind barriers. The Embarcadero is all about people being healthy – all day, every day, you can see the runners, walkers, bladers and boaters.
    Wouldn’t it be beautiful to see the tennis players, campers and swimmers as well?

  22. Posted by anonanon

    @Brahma:
    Are you kidding me? Had this been a playground for the ultra-rich, there wouldn’t be an issue. The Gettys or whomever would have bought the space. The fact that this issue is going through the legal and political process the way the downtrodden and their advocates try to redress grievances is proof positive that the club isn’t run by the local elite.

  23. Posted by anonfedup

    Bravo Theo!
    I also cannot help but laugh at comments posted by some other people who claim such neighborhoods as Noe Valley as their residence. Telling people who live in other parts of town that have far greater density (such as this) how they can or cannot enjoy what remains of open space is part of the typical San Francisco habit of telling others what to do, but NOT doing it yourself. I say, build these condos on a residential street in Noe Valley. How dare they take up so much space with backyards, garages and rose gardens!

  24. Posted by Guest666

    Just to add a more utilitarian view, but won’t this development allow SF to receive a significant amount of new property tax revenues? It’s not as if SF is flush at the moment.

  25. Posted by anon

    So Theo’s thesis is that tearing down the club is going to lead to the area losing population. What kind of sense does that make? Can you show me ANY neighborhood in SF that has lost population in the last 20 years? There are probably a few where very little housing was built and household sizes shrunk, but that’s what you’re arguing for here – don’t build new housing, it will cause the population to shrink!

  26. Posted by anon

    I’m really more interested in getting rid of that absurdly ugly parking lot than anything involving the club. Come up with something that just builds on the parking lot and I might support it.

  27. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    My response to Theo and anonanon’s comment @3:48 AM would be simply to restate what I wrote @5:20 PM, which is that if the club facilities per se is what’s important, then building the project and moving the courts and pools off of the surface but keeping them, and assuring club members access to it/them would address those concerns. I strongly suspect, however, that if that were proposed, most if not all the groups previously mentioned would still be fighting against it.
    Like Milkshake says, it would be an illuminating exercise.

  28. Posted by anonanon

    @Brahma
    Ever played tennis on a roof-top court in SF? I have (SFTC and SBMA). They tend to suck because of the wind, so tennis players won’t be enthusiastic about your proposal. Don’t think the developer would be thrilled about the idea, either, given that it would take away potential deck space and require some way to provide roof access for people that don’t live in the building.

  29. Posted by anon

    ^The developer would be fine with it if you gave them more land to develop – in other words, the land that is now set to be kept as tennis courts/pool.
    I say keep the club as is and allow the developer to build ~15 stories on the parking lot there. I wonder how many of the folks opposed to this would accept that? Certainly not the THD, who only cares about their views and couldn’t give a bleepity-bleep about the club.

  30. Posted by anon

    “playing tennis where I grew up was a good way to get your ass kicked.”
    That’s pretty funny. Where I grew up you’d get your ass kicked if you played an soccer. Everyone played tennis just for the hell of it…from jocks to nerds. I had many a match against a long-haired metallica shirt wearing headbanger.

  31. Posted by sfrenegade

    “I had many a match against a long-haired metallica shirt wearing headbanger.”
    Was it Beavis?
    I’m assuming whatever THD wants, we should do the opposite. That’s usually the right answer whenever those NIMBYs get involved.

  32. Posted by anon

    ^That’s the lesson to folks like Theo – you join with the devil, and no one is going to take you seriously, even if your ideas have merit. You’ve already sold your soul.

  33. Posted by [anon.ed]

    That parking lot is fine, as parking lots go, and much needed too.

  34. Posted by anon

    ^If it’s so needed, it would be better to build MORE parking below the housing. City gains tax revenue, port gains money from selling the land, port gains money from renting out more parking spots.

  35. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Sure but the housing’s residents are going to take up all the spots most likely. That particular lot is really convenient for the Ferry Building.

  36. Posted by Fishchum

    There are god knows how many public transit options to the Ferry Building. Why do you need parking?

  37. Posted by anon

    @[anon.ed] – I’m saying that if the proposed problem is that the loss of parking is going to be devastating, then the proposed solution should be to add more parking to the development, rather than simply canceling the development.

  38. Posted by jamie

    Psst! Don’t tell anyone, but there are hundreds of parking spots available under Embarcadero Center 1, 2, 3, and 4 … not to mention several more parking garages within a 5-10 minute walk of the Ferry Building. At most, this development should be allowed 0.5 parking spots per 1 condo unit …. 80 spots maybe? Definitely not 400+ … how many more senior citizens need to get their brains splattered in the crosswalk by drivers to get people to stop wanting to invite even more cars to our already overcongested downtown streets? Is that the new Republican strategy to cut debt .. more parking spots = more dead senior citizens = lower social security and medicare payments? sickos

  39. Posted by MM2

    Psst. Those spots under the Embarcadero are $12/hour weekdays, $32/day weekends, so not really an option for those of us who must drive because walking and taking the reliably unreliable public transit, especially outside of commute hours, is not a realistic option.
    Most of the readers and commentors seem, in some way, to be invested in development. Therefore preservation is always bad, open space is always wasteful, history is meaningless and anyone who disagrees is anti-modernist, anti-progess, and (eegad) a NIMBY! Because heaven forfend, those who live in an area really don’t know what’s best for themselves. Even if they do, well, it’s usually not good for The City/The Skyline/The Future.

  40. Posted by anon

    ^Ah, so we should preserve a parking lot because it is currently underpriced! Got it! That is a precious commodity.
    Parking lots are NOT open space.

  41. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    So what did the Planning Commission decide.

  42. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    8 Washington will include some actual public open space, which the current location does not provide:
    http://8washington.com/resources/8_Washington_Recreation_Existing_vs_Proposed.pdf
    At least the truth comes out: the people who live nearby just want the subsidized parking, they don’t care what is really best for The City. Leaving this bit of prime real estate undeveloped is a crying shame.

  43. Posted by anonanon

    “8 Washington will include some actual public open space, which the current location does not provide”
    There is not exactly a shortage of public open space in that part of town. Just look south of Washington, literary across the street from the proposed development.
    “At least the truth comes out: the people who live nearby just want the subsidized parking, they don’t care what is really best for The City.”
    NVJ, maybe it would help your credibility if you had a clue about what you are talking about. That lot charges $6.50/h with a daily maximum of $50. Two short blocks away, you can park indoors at the Golden Gateway Garage for $7/h with a $36 daily max. (The Embarcadero Center’s daily max is even better at $32.) Or if you live in the Gateway apartment complex, you can have your own space in its garage for a monthly fee. Even if locals could park in this lot for free, it wouldn’t have much of an impact given that it has around 70 spaces and there are 1200 apartments at the Gateway or the 150 condos at the Commons.
    “Leaving this bit of prime real estate undeveloped is a crying shame.”
    There are plenty of parking lots near the Embarcadero north of Broadway that can be developed without destroying a sports club with maybe 1500 members.

  44. Posted by anon

    ^So put forth a proposal just to develop the parking lot, only with a building 2-3 times as tall to make up for the lost revenue that you would be forcing on the port.

  45. Posted by anon

    Or the friend of the tennis club can put up a similar amount of money to buy the club and do what they want with it.

  46. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Band together and buy the space.

  47. Posted by sfrenegade

    1) Parking lots are not “open space”, NIMBY.
    2) Requiring this to be permanently a tennis club for the elite is bad policy. As if we need more entitlements in this city.
    Shame when people don’t want to improve the city. The current use is a waste of prime land.

  48. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Subsidized doesn’t mean “free” parking. It is still lower than it would be if THD and the rest of the anti-growth crowd hadn’t shot down plans to develop this and many of the other old freeway plots along the waterfront. They should all be built on. This is some of the most attractive real estate anywhere and a big part of San Francisco’s charm to visitors is our water front. They don’t come here to look at parking lots.
    I am writing a letter in support of the EIR and I encourage other Socketsite readers to do the same:
    Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer
    SF Planning Dept
    1650 Mission St, Suite 400
    SF, CA 94103

  49. Posted by anonanon

    NVJ, why do you assume that rates are lower now than if this project were built? The proposal includes 250 underground public parking spaces compared to 70 in the current lot. If supply increases and there is competition, wouldn’t you think that it would lead to lower prices (but more cars and traffic)?
    The reality is that the opposition to the project is based on concern about a sports club and recreational space, not some silly parking lot. (Well, maybe the owners of the Embarcadero Center opposes it because they don’t want more competing parking.) But like I’ve said, the developers, who stand to make megabucks, have done a good job of convincing the truly gullible that the club is some sort of country club for the elite (although the club doesn’t even have a cafeteria) and that replacing a very much middle-class sports club that has maybe 1500 members with luxury condos for the rich constitutes progress.

  50. Posted by anon

    ^No one here has referred to the club being for the “elite” other than folks cheering for it. I think it’s a wasteful use of land, and the elite in the THD are using the club as a reason to keep their views, with no regard for the actual club. In other words, the “elite” benefiting from the status quo is the THD, not the club folks.

  51. Posted by anon

    And yes, for me, who has no interest in the club itself, I would much prefer to look at luxury condos when strolling along the Embarcadero, rather than ugly parking lots and fences. It feels like I’m walking through a decrepit industrial zone there.
    I (and hundreds of thousands of other San Franciscans) would benefit from looking at nice luxury condos and some floor retail there, in addition to the condos adding millions in property tax income for the city.

  52. Posted by anonanon

    “No one here has referred to the club being for the “elite” other than folks cheering for it.”
    How about
    J.K.R. at July 21, 2011 2:32 PM
    Brahma (incensed renter) at July 21, 2011 11:45 PM
    sfrenegade at July 25, 2011 12:09 PM
    “I would much prefer to look at luxury condos when strolling along the Embarcadero, rather than ugly parking lots and fences.”
    I get it, you want remove a recreational facility used by thousands because its fence isn’t to your taste. Well, maybe it would be easier to improve the looks of the fence.

  53. Posted by anon

    ^Pretty sure the Embarcadero is used by many thousands more than some tennis club. Any fence is going to be terrible looking and belongs in an industrial area. How about building a new tennis club in the Hunter’s Point area? Or on Treasure Island?

  54. Posted by anon

    Another alternative to the drastically underused aspect now could be to build a massive tennis club of some type – 8-10 stories, with raquetball and other things inside, as well as tennis.
    One thing is for sure though – the current use is wasting prime land and needs to be developed further. The amount of subsidization by the rest of the city is just ridiculous, as this land could be earning loads of property tax revenue one way or another.

  55. Posted by anonanon

    “Pretty sure the Embarcadero is used by many thousands more than some tennis club. Any fence is going to be terrible looking and belongs in an industrial area. How about building a new tennis club in the Hunter’s Point area? Or on Treasure Island?”
    There are gazillions of outdoor recreational facilities in San Francisco that are surrounded by fences that are far less attractive than the ones at this particular club. Does it always happen when you walk by one of those that you go “Hmm, this fence is not in line with my aesthetic sensibilities, so the facility should be relocated to Hunters Point and replaced with luxury condos that are easier on the eye”?

  56. Posted by [anon.ed]

    There’s caring about things, and then there’s talking to people on the internet. Good luck anonanon. I like the parking lot and the tennis club doesn’t bother me one iota.

  57. Posted by anon

    There are gazillions of outdoor recreational facilities in San Francisco that are surrounded by fences that are far less attractive than the ones at this particular club. Does it always happen when you walk by one of those that you go “Hmm, this fence is not in line with my aesthetic sensibilities, so the facility should be relocated to Hunters Point and replaced with luxury condos that are easier on the eye”?
    Any that are in places where luxury condos would sell for millions and contribute millions more in property tax and not a part of a national/state/city park or preservation area, yes. Those places are pretty rare.

  58. Posted by anonanon

    “Any that are in places where luxury condos would sell for millions and contribute millions more in property tax and not a part of a national/state/city park or preservation area, yes. Those places are pretty rare.”
    Given that this deal would include publicly owned land, why would you take anything off the table in term of publicly owned areas if the fences offend your aesthetic sensibilities? A city park? Clearly, there would be tax revenue to be had by building luxury condos as opposed to a current money loser. And since there is such a shortage of luxury condos in San Francisco and absolutely nowhere to build new ones other than on recreational facilities, this project is all about benefitting the public as opposed to lining the pockets of the developer, right?

  59. Posted by anon

    ^Anything that is publicly accessible to all would be off the table. The current use here is only accessible to a ridiculously tiny proportion of folks in the city, and is mostly just used to protect the views of some absurdly wealthy folks up the hill.
    As I mentioned above, I’d be fine with building a MASSIVE sports club here, say 8-10 stories. You don’t like that idea? You keep your sports club and the city gets to actually use the land for something valuable instead of just protecting some views for a few private homeowners.

  60. Posted by sfrenegade

    As I mentioned above, I’d be fine with building a MASSIVE sports club here, say 8-10 stories. You don’t like that idea? You keep your sports club and the city gets to actually use the land for something valuable instead of just protecting some views for a few private homeowners.
    That’s a far better idea than what’s there now.
    sfrenegade at July 25, 2011 12:09 PM
    Sorry, that comment wasn’t very precise. If you look at my prior comment about THD, I meant to specify that THD is the elite group that is being given an entitlement here, as others have said, not necessarily the tennis club users. THD and the other NIMBY groups involved here are the elite groups who consistently oppose anything and everything like this.
    I might add that tennis club users are typically quite well off as well, so let’s not pretend that this tennis club is designed for underprivileged kids from Hunter’s Point.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles