Warriors Mission Bay Arena West Side Aerial

Jack Davis, the spokesperson for the Mission Bay Alliance which opposes the Warriors proposed Mission Bay Arena, has vowed his group will wage an outright war against the Warriors’ development and is planning an extensive legal challenge of the development’s environmental impact report and the arena’s fit with the approved Master Plan for South Mission Bay, a plan which didn’t include a sports complex.

While Davis’ stated concerns about arena traffic, parking and congestion were echoed by members of the Mission Bay Citizens Advisory Committee last night, the Alliance’s “no middle ground” stance wasn’t nearly as popular.

62 thoughts on “Warriors Arena Opponents Won’t Compromise, Seek Capitulation”
    1. This guy, Jack seems like a real dickhead. Honestly, our city is full of fucking morons who don’t want to allow any upscale recreation while all the art is on its way east.

      Build the stadium as it looks great, will generate massive revenues for the city and will make good use of the space.

      And in the event that Jack reads socketsite.. Jack, stop being such a dick!

  1. San Francisco is simply getting lame with all these objections to build anything anywhere. The way things are going it would probably take 2 years of permits and community hearings for a kid to set up a lemonade stand

    1. as usual, whoever moves in first wants to stop the development *after* they already had theirs built.

    2. But what about all the increased foot traffic!? Think of all the native lemonade stands she’ll replace by setting up a stand here. And what about local businesses?? How will lemonade sales here affect the local (not chain) retail? Their juice sales could be affected significantly. Does this child plan to franchise? Will the lemons be locally sourced or shipped from Guatemala, only increasing our city’s wasteful and greedy carbon footprint. Will she be non-union because I only buy from unionized lemonade stands. What about food safety standards? Will she have a permit? Will this be Cal/OSHA compliant? There are lots of unanswered questions here and we need to do a THOROUGH review first before illegally selling any lemonade.

      1. Most importantly, will she be selling $6 cups of lemonade to those evil gentrifying techies? Which Politburo member is responsible for this district?

      2. Even worse, if she sets up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk, that takes away a place for a homeless person to sleep and/or defecate.

        This little girl needs an education is social justice!

  2. Sad! Having lived in SF all my life and having seen what AT&T stadium did to create a new neighborhood in that area, I don’t understand the need to object this arena. Mission Bay was a wasteland of parking lots and unused plots not so long ago. Now it’s a thriving community full of life. What’s not to like about that?

    1. Be careful, BTW. Too many on this site dismiss Mission Bay as an utter failure because it does not meet their demands for unique and “special” architecture that provides affordable housing while respecting the unique heritage of the surrounding SOMA neighborhood! I mean, Mission Bay does not look like Singapore or Vancouver, and it is all new construction, so it must be a failure!

  3. Jack Davis and Sam Singer (ex PG&E spokesman)…..they prostitute themselves to any cause as long as it brings them attention and money. Hold on to your seats, with these two running the effort it is going to get slimey. Now all we need is Aaron and Agnos and sister Sue Hestor chiming in….
    And people wonder why SF is difficult/expensive to build in.
    Sad these two hired guns are allowed to have any voice in San Francisco…
    Looks like the Warriors Arena (and concerts) are going to stay in Oakland. So tired of going to Oakland or San Jose or Concord to see large events. But hey SF Nimbys are happy

    1. This is one of the more bizarre opposition. To me these people are out of the loop individual who do not represent UCSF, posture as “big buck donor” to sound influential. The first thing they should do is to come out. All these posturing is just a sign that they are bluffing.

      1. The three who have surfaced as the face of MBA are all definition heavy-hitters no matter what might be thought of their mouthpieces.

  4. INSANITY…Yes, this is one of the worlds major cities and there will be congestion and there will be LOTS of traffic. If you want slow roads and way of life there are many places for that people. Pull it together SF and stop placating to just anyone’s opinion. ‪I’ve lived in Mission Bay for the last few years and in the city now for 10 years and can’t even with this…..

    1. it’s not one of the world’s major cities, btw. it’s a large american city (under a million people) with a lot of tech companies in and around the area. punches above its weight on gdp though, that’s for sure.

  5. Talk me off the ledge, folks – I’m getting tired of jousting at all these numbnuts and NIMBYs. I’m starting to wonder why I even put mental energy towards these issues… in a dozen years or so, I’ll be thinking about retirement and moving away from S.F. anyway (who can afford to live here after retirement?!).

    1. I really think you’re doing them a disservice and likely underestimating the members of this Mission Bay Alliance by equating them with NIMBYS. As much as you might disagree with their position, they seem sincere and well-intentioned in their concerns about what is undeniably a major and important institution.

      Hell, they may even be right as to UCSF deserving pre-eminence to the land. I’m becoming increasingly of a mind that the Warriors and Giants should collaborate on a joint effort at Lot A/Pier 48.

        1. Yes, and I think it could be really cool, but in the grander scheme of things. ….

          Besides, when considering these matters, you have to factor in the even larger Pier 50 which is currently devoted primarily to private uses with the US Navy docking a couple of stores ships there. Still, I think a solution to the UCSF complication lies there and, in fact, promises a much better development compared to the problematic proposed Salesforce location and the totally “meh” designs to date.

  6. I don’t even give a […] about basketball, but all these asinine NIMBY shenanigans have turned me into a strong supporter of this project. I’m on Pot Hill and will undoubtedly by inconvenienced by the traffic and noise, but it’s all worth it to watch the pathetic reactionaries who live around here bite the dust.

    1. I think the arena benefits the city for conferences as well. Isn’t that said to be lacking? Then you can see Prince shows here and Disney on Ice maybe some Monster Trucks or WWE. Something for everyone

  7. So unless some backroom deal is struck and palms are greased it’s looking like the EIR will be challenged out of the gate by MBA since it doesn’t seem that they have enough support to reasonably expect the citizens of SF to do their dirty work in a city-wide referendum. Meanwhile, UCSF is playing the role of a coy Switzerland…

  8. The arena would be a much welcomed addition to the neighborhood if the city implements street/transportation solutions to mitigate the critical traffic concerns. The reality is, a traffic jam could literally mean life or death for a child at UCSF and severely impacts the response time of the police HQ.

    1. Is UCSF a trauma center? When I look at a map it seems like there could be some sort of access to the hospital from the west on 16th st with the transit only lane they are planning.

      This arena at full capacity is only like 30-40% the crowds at AT&T and even with AT&T there is not gridlock to the extent that an emergency vehicle can not get by a few blocks away. This seems much to do about nothing

      What solutions do the opponents envision?

      1. And there are already transit-only lanes on third street that can be used by emergency vehicles. While additional transit to this section of Mission BAy would be beneficial, there are few better places better suited to mitigate the impact that traffic would have on first responders.

  9. This project seems pretty DOA at this point. Loved the pier 32 location and design. This is less than thrilling, and located in a hospital office park. Where are the brains at in city hall?

    1. This project is DOA because of a few rabid NIMBYs who don’t have majority support? Where have you been? This location was chosen precisely because Pier 30-32 was too “thrilling”.

  10. is this too simple a solution? just close 16th St. to traffic (allow hospital access only) after arena events. the crowd leaving can use any other streets to get out of there. Ambulances can zip right in. Case solved.

    1. Or even just build the transit only lane as planned keep people out of it. There is no freeway access on 16th

  11. I am trying to stay focused on the development and land use issues here — and not on the ideological drama. This is different from PacBell Park which jump started a very dormant area. The arena is proposed to fill in the last parcel of undeveloped land (more of less) in mIssion bay. If it does not happen, there is no doubt — none — that it will be soon be developed for housing, biotech and UCSF related uses.

    So, yes the process is a mess, and the City of SF has managed this process weakly, “hoping” opposition would not materialize as a strategy, and “hoping” that community meetings with supporters would somehow innoculate them. It is still hard to believe The Mayors staff who manage this stuff just “dont get it”. I don’t know where the disconnect is. San Singer and Jack Davis, or Aaron Peskin and Art Agnos didn’t exactly just show up out of the blue. They’re non D-league players, and they are not exactly unaligned with known, influential people. So complain all you want about opposition, how about its time for the City to raise its game to a big league level.

    Back to the larger point I would much rather see housing, biotech, mixed use development here, providing durable “24/7” uses that contributed to the sustainable life and economy of this community — than a large entertainment facility that is completely dark on non-game, non-concert days, and builds little community, or ongoing investment or above min wage job base . I’m not against development, I would just rather see better development uses than this. We have bigger needs as a City.

    When the 49ers went to Santa Clara – or were sent to Santa Clara – it was clear SF is no longer a sports town, and doesn’t really care at all.

    1. A muti-use arena and a football stadium are really totally different in purpose and scale. SF needs an arena for any number of uses and it will be well used from conferences to sports to concerts.

      Baseball parks and arenas=downtown

      Football stadiums=suburban areas with cheaper land

    2. The biotech experiment totally failed here already. Hardly an biotech a came while south city, Marin and peninsula biotech grew a lot over last 10 yrs. and Boston/Cambridge kicked butt and surpasses Bay Area in biotech jobs, iPod and investments

      1. No biotech companies want to set up shop in SF when they can be one exit away in SSF and get what they need from a responsive city government. That ship has sailed. There is large tech space under construction now in SSF

  12. My only complaint about Jack Davis is that every time I see a bottle of his near namesake, Jack Daniels, I can’t stop thinking about his notorious 50th Birthday…
    Google is your friend.

  13. What transportation improvements do you opponents envision?

    The T Line/central subway is the generational transit investment and it stops right in front of the proposed arena. There is a plan for a transit only lane on 16th from BART. I believe it has been discussed that CalTrain should stop on event days at a stop at 16th which makes sense

    Is it about parking or street capacity? One should not be increased because we don’t have the other.

    1. The 16th & 7th intersection is the biggest concern in terms of congestion. It’s already at a point where it takes multiple light changes to get through it during peak commute hours. In a year or so there’s going to be 500 new residential units + retail right on the corner which will add a lot of foot, bicycle and vehicle traffic, and the Cor-O-Van building could be redeveloped too before the Arena opens. Adding another Caltrain stop on top of all that… yikes.

      I’m in favor of the Arena, just to be clear. But considering it will take a decade or more before we see Caltrain electrified and undergrounded, somebody has to come up with a good mitigation plan very soon.

  14. Well one of the lead opponents is a CEO of a company (Chiron) that “almost came to Mission Bay at some point” but went to Emeryville instead. So we have an “almost Mission Bay” guy clamoring to kill an arena most people want for more biotech when he did the exact opposite of walk the walk years ago by never setting up Chiron as a Mission Bay company in the first place.

    How ironic!

    1. Chiron’s been in Emeryville for 20 years. I seriously doubt they ever considered moving to SF.

  15. Yeah, I remember when the original purpose of Mission Bay was to be the biotech hub but it never materialized. It languished for a while until UCSF decided to move in and then we saw commitments to building new housing in the area. A hotbed of retail and/or other activities it is not. I believe South San Francisco is shaping up to be a biotech space but biotechs seemingly move too slowly to take advantage of deals but are quick to close up shop.

    1. Biotech is, in fact, a growing presence in Mission Bay; South San Francisco has been the center of Bay Area biotech since Genentech was founded.

    1. Thanks for the link to the Davis profile. Great read. Should be required for any new comers after 2000 if only for the entertainment value.

  16. Jack Davis has quite a history in this town. One would think he’d mellow out after having a near death experience that wiped out most of his contemporaries. Maybe his money is running out.

    1. biotech has been an abysmal failure in MB , at least if you look at what the original goal was. they wanted to lure away companies from South SF. DIdn’t happen. Wanted to become central biotech space in Bay area. didnt happen. In the 10 yrs since this was suppossed to take off, the # of biotechs in East Bay, SSF and peninsula have greatly outpaced MB. And in the same timeframe, Boston has outpaced Bay Area as a whole. The original core tenant was suppossed to be Pfizer innovation hub and they pulled out very early, causing a mass pullout by other decent sized partied.

        1. You can always lure somebody with enough incentives. Just a face saving booby prize. Better than zero isn’t success.

          1. you said, “better than zero” not I. I said it was zero before, and posted a link to a story that rattles off quite a lot of biomed/biotech investiture in the area.

        2. if your definition of success is >0, then you have low standards. For people in the industry, MB is considered as a failure as a biotech hub

    2. there are about 5-6 biotech firms in MB, and about 50-60 in the much smaller East Side of SOuth San Francisco

      1. The East Side is an office park with close access to the airport and no housing. Not really the “same thing” as Mission Bay at all.

        I can’t think of a worse fate than to be stuck in some sterile landscaped “office park”. People complain about Mission Bay-tain’t nothing compared to the glories of Big Glass Box By The Bay.

        1. i dont disagree with you, but the original stated plan of MB was to become a biotech hub, which it is not.

  17. There has to be a win-win in this for everybody.

    Can’t UCSF and the Warriors strike a “biotech synergy $” deal where UCSF genetically engineers the Warriors players to be 10’+ tall? You know its coming…

Leave a Reply

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