With the opposing ballot measures over the development of 8 Washington Street having been designated propositions B and C, it’s time for the dueling ballot measures double feature:

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by TJ

    Governance by hyperbole and sensationalism.
    Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the referendum process…
    The greatest thing that could ever happen to SF, and California in general, would be to abolish the referendum system once and for all. All it does is create the most easily lobbied constituency of all: idiot voters like me. I have absolutely no business setting financing policy for genetic research, or figuring out how roads should be funded, or really doing anything other than picking a few representatives who will hopefully act in my best interest.

  2. Posted by anon

    I agree with TJ. Perhaps we should eliminate voting altogether. Politicians, businesses and developers will always act in ways that reflect the will of the people. What could possibly go wrong?

  3. Posted by Mike

    Very interesting that the image of 8 Washington in tne “NO” video manipulates the image to show clouds and sky behind the building to the west – as if the building were a new wall blocking the waterfront views from the west – when in fact there are buildings much taller immediately to the west.

  4. Posted by TJ

    I’d prefer an oligarchy made of warrior poets, imbued with the wisdom of ages. Unfortunately I have no idea where we’d find a Jedi Council…
    Anyway, obviously I’m not saying we should eliminate voting. Just that the referendum system is ridiculous and doesn’t work. If you disagree, I’d love to read a reasoned response.
    It sounds like your main concern is that the referendum system somehow acts as a protection against the will of businesses and developers. I don’t think that’s true at all. On the contrary, the referendum system is constantly exploited by all kinds of different special interests. It’s actually the most ruthlessly capitalistic governance form of all in that ad dollars => votes, which means that it’s governance by the deepest advertising budget.

  5. Posted by i eat bicyclists

    may the vote no people rot. that campaign is so misleading. it needs to be clear in the ballet measurethat the multimillionaires behind C are oppossed to their view being blocked. nothing more. this is good for the city and the neighborhood.

  6. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Oh man, how I WISH our waterfront looked like Miami! Where do I sign up for that? Does the beach and tropical weather come with it? Not that I don’t enjoy 55 degree days in August, with the sky grey as concrete all day…
    On a serious note, this is a fair amount of hyperbole from both sides. The reality is that a private club for well-off locals will be replaced with pied-a-tierres for well-off outsiders. The waterfront is largely a tourist/B&T weekend destination anyway. But even 1/3 of a park and some new housing is better than a parking lot and tennis courts. At least it’s not a stadium.
    I personally hope this gets built solely for the purpose of serving a defeat to the NIMBYs.

  7. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    ugh … it’s not a “wall” it’s housing.

  8. Posted by i eat bicyclists

    does anyone really think the currently walled off tennis courts for yuppies and board of supervisor members is great for the city?

  9. Posted by cfb

    The size of 8 Washington is totally exaggerated in that video, in the comparison to the embarcadero freeway. The non-stop lies from these NIMBYs is sickening. And of course the SF Chronicle is giving them attention. As if that “newspaper” wasn’t useless already.
    I’m worried the NIMBYs might be able to sucker enough people onto their side to win. Hopefully the opposing anti-NIMBY ballot measure can get as much or more publicity.

  10. Posted by Joel V

    Stupid. They’re wasting their time and money.

  11. Posted by lyqwyd

    Both sides stretching the truth, but only the “no wall” side is actively trying to deceive people.
    The ONLY thing the no wall side will do is protect the views of a few million dollar condos.

  12. Posted by anon

    i eat bicylyists,
    Personally I don’t think the existing use or the proposed use is ideal. Certainly there are better possible options, but developers want you to believe in false dichotomies.
    Anyway, in Fall 2014 I’m getting behind a ballot measure that will permanently exile anyone who ever says the word NIMBY again. It is a sad and worn-out crutch that people use instead of having intelligent dialog.

  13. Posted by Steve

    Gotta agree with TJ: the referendum process makes a mess of legislation. It makes politicians even more cowardly than they naturally are (“This issue is too important for me to decide so I leave it up to the voters”).

  14. Posted by jlasf

    Just out of curiosity, I wonder what the total pro/con expenses have been. Lawyers, lobbyists, PR consultants, media buys, etc. Millions that could have been spent more productively to help people.

  15. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    @jlasf – I actually submitted a rather profane post pointing out that same thing, the willingness of the wealthy to spend obscene amounts of money to prevent the their neighbors/city from making improvements because of perceived negative impact and how much good the money could have done as donations to food banks, vaccination programs, etc.
    Probably because I had just been reading something about Sheldon Adelson spending tens of millions of dollars trying to get Newt elected so that we wouldn’t ‘waste’ money on affordable health care, public schools, or whatever it is that motivates people like that.
    The editors, wisely, decided not to post it.

  16. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    The NO video make a composite picture with wrong perspective to mislead people. The observation point is from the East side of Embarcadero. It is some distance away from the condos so it appears larger than it should. The freeway on the other hand is next to the observer. It should dominate the view if the perspective is correct.
    Guys, please be more professional and use perspective correctly.

  17. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    If neither existing use or the proposed use is ideal, what is the alternative vision to 8 Washington? From what I understand, the site is entitled to develop a 8 story condo. They only controversy is the 12 floor condo on Drumm. If the developer is beaten in the ballot and build a 8 floor building instead, every complaint the opposition raise still stands. It is no less a “wall” and still evolve the evil freeway just the same. The only thing to gain a number of Gateway apartment owner will have they view preserved. For a pedestrian I don’t see what’s difference 4 story on Drumm St can make. Look at Hotel Vitale, it is a wall? It is also taller than the hated freeway. So what’s opposition’s vision? No construction on either side of the Embarcadero?
    Unless the opposition is proposal to buy oppose to all construction along either side of Embarcadero.

  18. Posted by Art is Art

    Agnos…ahhh Art….he has not changed a bit from his days as a social worker for the Housing Authority. Did he get paid for his time on this or is he making enough from his city retirement?

  19. Posted by lyqwyd

    as I mentioned above, the only thing the measure does is protect the views of a few multi-million dollar condos. It does absolutely nothing else.

  20. Posted by grumpy

    I don’t know the lies from the truth but if the park has any portion of it private, I’m against it. By the many posts on this site crying for better use of space, I’m surprised this is not an issue. Build another hi-rise instead.

  21. Posted by anon94123

    Art Agnos has been fighting the Warriors arena also. Who is funding or driving his agenda, and why? I may be mistaken, but I don’t think he even lives on this side of the city.

  22. Posted by lyqwyd

    No portion of the park is private. There is a private sports club that will replace the existing private sports club, but it is not part of the park.

  23. Posted by taco taco

    It’s an effin’ building. Cities have buildings. A parking lot is supposed to be somehow better than urban infill?
    And common. Hating on housing for rich people? Who do you think is funding this campaign? Give me a break.

  24. Posted by jamie

    If not for Art Agnos, the waterfront would be pretty sad. Thank you Art! ANd I agree … I’m voting NO ON B and NO ON C. The Embarcadero is clogged up enough with traffic, and that is murdering us. If you think its NIMBY to have concerns over air pollution, go to hell.

  25. Posted by Jack

    “If you thinks its (sic) NIMBY to have concerns over air pollution go to hell.” Really? This is the uneducated view of so many of the old-school 1960’s NIMBY’s who oppose this and other increased-density projects in SF.
    By opposing density, they enable sprawl and REAL increases in air pollution. All these people do is think locally and act locally (and I include, sadly, Art Agnos in this group). The only environment they care about is their own little world. As a progressive I find their selfishness appalling.

  26. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Jamie, the traffic on the Embarcadero comes from people OUTSIDE of San Francisco driving in, not from San Franciscans driving around (like 90% of traffic/congestion in this city, especially in Soma). How clogged is the Embarcadero after 8PM on a weeknight?
    People from the peninsula, east bay, and Marin will continue to drive to work every day. And they’ll continue to come to the waterfront/wharf every weekend. Let’s be rational. Building or not building a handful of condos in this location will have minimal impact on traffic. Building another stadium will indeed make it worse, though.
    But if you want to reduce traffic in the city, charge the B&Ts $20 a day to bring a car into the city, like some towns in Europe do. Restricting new construction in the city will not help.

  27. Posted by spencer

    “But if you want to reduce traffic in the city, charge the B&Ts $20 a day to bring a car into the city, like some towns in Europe do. Restricting new construction in the city will not help.”
    agree with this. Charge $10 bridge toll and add another toll booth near Candlestick on 101 and John Daly Blvd on 280 and charge $10 at those.
    as far as building, build more and transit will follow. this is a great development imho. the current use of the site is terrible.

  28. Posted by 4Oceans

    What are public appointed planning officials and BCDC regulators doing stumping for private development? That is the worst most blatant conflict of interest on video I’ve seen in a long time.

  29. Posted by sparky*b

    Great original point, you should put it in Guardian yesterday.

  30. Posted by healthygal

    I started out ambivalent regarding B & C that will be on this November’s San Francisco ballot. However, after watching the video that the 8 Washington Project produced and the robocall I received inviting me to join a conference call about Ordinance B and adding more parks to SF, I’ve changed my mind. Their lies have made me care.
    The 8 Washington Project (aka Ordinance B) goes under the guise of “Open up the waterfront.” However, the only public space will be the northern-most corner of the property. That space will house a cafe and a few other retail stores. There won’t be much space left for a public park. One of their renderings shows a lot of green space in the center of the property. That will actually be a swim and fitness club with no grassy area.
    The project’s proponents don’t point out all of the open public space that already exists. There are three green park spaces that surround the property; the large park just off of Justin Herman Plaza (that includes a new children’s park) and two parks just one block west of the property. Plus, there is the large public walkway on the east side of the Embarcadero with no stop lights or cross walks. In addition, there is the lovely waterfront promenade that was created when the piers were renovated. There are park benches and hanging potted plants along this promenade.
    Their video also states that it will add “needed” restaurants. I guess they don’t consider La Mar, Coquette, Plant, The Waterfront, Slanted Door, One Market, Boulevard, the Americano and all of the other restaurants and bars in the Ferry Building and that surround the Embarcadero 4 area enough restaurants for people to choose from.
    Certainly a parking lot can be an eye sore. But it a necessity in this part of the city. Street parking is limited to an hour and you have to move your car to a new area once the hour is up or get a large sum on a parking ticket. Why not focus on getting the owners of the lot and the tennis and swim club to add a great deal of greenery/trees/shrubs around the land they occupy? This seems like a better option to me. Instead they are going to build two large and tall (they will higher than the freeway that ran above the same area) condominium buildings to “beautify” the area.
    If the proponents of Ordinance B did not take the sneaky, lie-filled approach to getting public approval for the fairly large height limit increase they received from SF Planning, then I may not have noticed. But I noticed.

  31. Posted by Dan

    Just got a robocall from David Campos:
    “On election day, send a clear message: No housing for the rich until everyone can afford to live in San Francisco. No on B.”

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles