CFAH

Having approved the Environmental Impact Report and Conditional Use Authorization necessary for the 8 Washington Street development to rise last month, yesterday San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved the land sale and zoning amendment for the development by a vote of 8-3 with Supervisors Avalos, Campos and Chiu opposing.

According to Supervisor Chiu, however, in addition to lawsuits, opponents of the project are planning to pursue a ballot measure to block the development.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by oa

    Chiu is a cancer.

  2. Posted by gellan

    ^^^So are Avalos and Campos.

  3. Posted by lyqwyd

    yes, it will be a good day when they are out of office.

  4. Posted by 48yo hipster

    F’ing losers.

  5. Posted by Dan

    After all of the review of this project, taking it to the ballot would be a tremendous waste of everyone’s time.

  6. Posted by Joe

    Because all of San Francisco should vote against something which is essentially a problem for the elite in Telegraph hill and their paid operatives (Sue Hestor and David Chiu)

  7. Posted by sf

    So now a few people’s views are being put to a citywide vote. What a disgusting abuse of the political system, which will cost us all. I am so sick of these disgusting rich snobs enforcing their lifestyles on everybody else and masking it as “freedom.” Yet, when anything happens to affect their delicate lifestyles, they turn to everybody else to subsidize their egos.
    Need moar guillotines.

  8. Posted by kg

    Wording on the measure will likely be kept broad to avoid association with the project, having a crippling effect beyond the scope of original intent like the “no shadows on parks” fail. Progressive is the new Conservative.

  9. Posted by Jim

    Chiu looked like a real idiot. Three years, and the only other votes he could muster were Avalos and Campos. He put his fellow Supes through a number of votes on deal-killing amendments and lost on every one. Time to move on, David. Why keep falling on your sword? Aaron and Nancy have abandoned you anyway. The Telegraph Hill Dwellers aren’t going to elect you Mayor. Your fellow Supes aren’t going to elect you President again.
    Jane Kim and Christina Olague were the real heroes on this. They are two Progressives who studied the plans, read the reports, and they reported to all the others why this is such a good deal for the public.

  10. Posted by Big V

    Really? A Ballot Measure? This is stupid. Can they be shamed into abandoning their folly? Ridiculed and Mocked until they hide in shame?

  11. Posted by wc1

    So what? They’ll ask some judge to stall the development while they try to get signatures for a Prop?

  12. Posted by Rob

    San Francisco is apparently being run by idealists… and quasi Luddites. But then again, one could only imagine how this kind of constant struggle to improve the city, will only make it stronger and more diligent in the long run—I hope.

  13. Posted by kddid

    How would this get on the ballot? It would need 4 supervisors (only has 3 for now), or signatures. How many signatures would they need, and who is going to pay for the signature-gatherers? Somehow I can’t see this winning at the ballot box unless it is worded really broadly, and even then, it will likely be opposed by the big-money establishment (realtors, Chamber, etc.). The proponents (of the initiative, not the project) probably won’t have deep pockets. Stupid, however, to waste valuable time and money on such a dumb issue.

  14. Posted by guest

    wow No room for dissent on this decision. Would you all believe there are segments of the general society who do not want to see luxury units ringing the bay. Doesn’t matter how many scraps are thrown to us, the plain, everyday common folk who are not blessed with the insight and daring of the SS group..
    [Editor’s Note: There’s plenty of room for differences of opinion or dissent, if you will, simply present your case and be prepared to defend it.]

  15. Posted by kddid

    Guest – while I agree the SS readers are generally pro-development, I wouldn’t equate lack of dissent on this outcome with some 1% conspiracy to stick it to the little guy. This project has been studied to death and has taken a VERY tortuous route to approval. As a frequent defender of the 99% here, even I’m sick of the time and effort focused on preserving an ugly tennis club and a parking lot. As for “luxury units ringing the bay” – look around, most of the real estate on the water is more expensive – not a big shock at all. No one has proposed putting in BMR housing here – it makes sense to maximize the revenue from this prime real estate, especially if it allows the port and the city to have more money to put into public amenities and services.

  16. Posted by lyqwyd

    @guest
    The common man would be pretty much entirely unaffected by the development. The only people affected are those with Telegraph Hill views, or who use the tennis courts, and tennis is generally a sport that skews towards the top end of society.

  17. Posted by anon

    “The only people affected are those with Telegraph Hill views…”
    But it’s all about precedents, isn’t it.
    I would not be surprised to see this on the ballot at all. Getting enough signatures from north beach / telegraph hill would be realatively easy. I’m sure south beach / rincon hill residents would be happy to help the cause too since many are concerened about the pier 30-32 arena development and might want a quid pro quo down the road.
    Once on the ballot it is a question of height limits and best uses of the city’s waterfront (and next to waterfront) land, which is a very important topic since it has bearing not just to this parcel but the entire coastline of SF. Bring it on!

  18. Posted by lyqwyd

    Oh, I suspect it has a decent chance of getting on the ballot, and I’m sure it will be a broad scoped bill, not just a “protect Telegraph Hill Dwellers Views” bill, but a “protect our waterfront” or something like that, similar to the shadows in parks bill.
    My comment was in response to guest’s which makes it seem as if this issue is about protecting the common man, when it’s really about protecting the upper echelons.
    I will certainly vote against it if it gets on the ballot. We already have a bad system of getting development done, it doesn’t need to be made worse. I believe it will fail as things have changed a lot in SF since the last batch of anti-development measures were passed.

  19. Posted by guest

    My comment was meant to address the perceived knee jerk response by the SS community to “not developing” a bit of flat space.

  20. Posted by Joe

    Give me a break! Flat space?
    A private country club with walled off tennis courts and swimming pools – immediately adjacent to highrises? This is some of the most expensive land in SF, and its what you would be voting to protect.

  21. Posted by lyqwyd

    @guest
    Your comment referred to “common folk”, which has nothing to do with this topic.
    And there are quite frequently strong differences of opinion regarding issues of development here on SS. There’s nothing knee jerk about this, the topic has been covered many times here and to most people it seems like a perfectly reasonable place for new development.
    The knee jerk reaction seems to be from the opponents who are upset over the fact that these properties will not be cheap, or are upset that their view might be impacted.

  22. Posted by guest

    @ various and ED — Did you read the first several comments? “cancer, f’ing losers, operatives, guillotine, stupid, folly, real idiot” I’m sure there are more. I could not believe the hate in those first several posts. Since I am not really a troll I will go back to lurk mode.

  23. Posted by sf

    In defense of my guillotine comment, it was in reference to the rich ****** that are leading the charge against this development. The segment of society that does not want luxury high rises lining the bay are those that live in luxury high rises and condos. How is that difficult for you to understand?

  24. Posted by Lance

    Like I’ve said before, I’m a member of that club and have been for years. It is a great facility, but frankly – developing it makes more financial sense for everyone involved. A ballot measure makes a waste of resources and it is time to move on. A loss is a loss…not that different than tennis really.

  25. Posted by Jim

    What the opponents are about is a “referendum”, a provision in the City Charter which allows a law passed by the BOS and signed by the Mayor to be repealed by the voters. The process requires the necessary signature to be collected within 30 days from the day the BOS refused to repeal the aw itself. It could trigger a special election. It will take a lot of effort and money to accomplish this task in this short time period.

  26. Posted by Patrick

    If the project opponents hand me a ballot initiative to sign, I will write “this is the stupidest f*cking proposal I have ever seen in my life” and hand back the petition to the signature gatherer…

  27. Posted by BayGuy

    “In defense of my guillotine comment,…”, Perhaps a compromise would be a new set of stocks filled with naked people?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles