The Sierra Club will pen the official argument opposing the ballot measure which would allow the Giants’ massive Mission Rock development to move forward, while Senator Dianne Feinstein will pen the argument in favor of the measure to further restrict short-term residential rentals in San Francisco, the so-called Airbnb Measure F.

A few other official proponents and opponents for the ballot measures we’re following:

Mayor Lee will pen the proponents’ argument for Measure A, the Affordable Housing Bond, while Terrence Faulkner will pen the argument against. Mayor Lee will also sign the argument in favor of Mission Rock (Measure D) and the argument against the Airbnb measure.

The “Committee to Save the Mission” will pen the argument in favor of Measure I, the Suspension of Market-Rate Development in the Mission (a.k.a. the Mission Moratorium), while Supervisor Scott Weiner will pen the argument against the moratorium.

And Supervisor Jane Kim will pen the official argument in favor of the Surplus Public Lands Measure K while the SF Taxpayers Association will draft the argument against.

37 thoughts on “Sierra Club To Oppose Mission Rock, Feinstein Pro Limiting Airbnb”
  1. DiFi and Lee squaring off in the official arguments for and against the AirBNB measure.

    I’d pay good money to see those two settle it in a boxing ring.

    I’ll bet DiFi has a wicked left hook.

  2. If Lee likes being the Mayor or has any political aspirations there won’t be much squaring off. He’s already pissed off Rose Pak; can’t afford to make another powerful enemy.

    1. The three of them look like a group of geriatrics fighting for the last piece of jello in a nursing home. Safe to say none of them will be advancing toward any higher office.

  3. Oh, no. Measure A to be argued against by Terrence Faulkner? Aren’t there any non-kooks out there that could pen a cogent argument against this rather than a blathering CAPS LADEN screed?

  4. Why is the Sierra Club have a position about Mission Rock at all? It’s a parking lot on landfill. It might have buildings on it. It has nothing to do with the preservation or protection of the natural environment.

    1. Sierra club is bigger than just wilderness – but still, seems like the environmental position would support infill development, no?

    2. Sierra Club national says all the right things on infill. Yet local Sierra Club chapters are often the biggest NIMBY’s on the block

    3. apparently sierra club is in favor of sprawl and would rather have buildings in less dense areas with longer commutes

    1. SF’s housing problems can be traced back to deciding to build a major city at the end of a sandy peninsula.

      1. Nobody decided that. Somebody decided to build a military fortress and a mission, and the rest just happened because people who came by also liked the place.

        1. I seem to recall some event concerning a somewhat valuable mineral. What did they call it? A “rush” maybe?

  5. The San Francisco chapter of the Sierra Club cares a LOT more about knee-jerk far-left “progressive” politics on non-environmental issues than it does on real environmental issues. I quit the Sierra Club a long time over their local chapter’s doctrinaire positions.

    1. Totally agree, I’m thoroughly embarrassed to say I used to support the Sierra Club as well, NEVER AGAIN. Their stances on actual environmental issues are stupid enough, the fact that they even take a stance on something like this shows them for the scam organization they truly are.

    2. Some pro-housing folks at SFBARF are encouraging people to join the Sierra Club in order to vote out the NIMBY leadership of the local chapter. Members need to attend three Conservation Committee meetings to get voting rights. The next one is on Tuesday, the 18th.

      It wouldn’t take very many people to turn this around.

  6. I also quit the SF Chapter of the Sierra Club because of their many stances on infill development in Bay Area….now give to Save the Redwoods.

    But I think this development being proposed by the Giants is much too much development for this site. 11 buildings from 9-24 stories is just too much. Really wish the Giants and Warriors would get together and build an arena for the Warriors and a sports/restuarants/entertainment complex like Staples Center/LA Live in Los Angeles. (I know this is a constant rant from me, but really would love to see something like this developed at this site) and something like the Giants are currently proposing at this site, placed in the current site for the proposed arena @ 16th & 3rd Sts.

      1. Sure, I just feel that an arena across McCovey Cove along with restaurants, exhibition halls at Pier 48 sheds (now planned) open green space and a plaza with restaurants, sports bars and even a possible movie complex like LA Live/Staples Center would be a great fit. Caltrain a block away, ferry landing across McCovey Cove, N Judah and T Muni Lines already at this location.

        Yes, there would be potential scheduling conflicts that both organizations would have to work out, but in the end, this would be a great destination complex for the City and greater Bay Area…much like the proposal that Oakland hopes to develop @ Jack London Sq.

        Just wish there was more visionary thinking about this site than what is currently being proposed.

        Not to mention a ballot measure to develop Mission Rock with an arena will probably align a lot of voters who would want to see something at this site other than a parking lot.

  7. Can anyone comment on what this means for Mission Rock? How often does Sierra club get their ways?

    There’s already plenty of space dedicated to parks in Mission Bay. As a resident here, the area would be a lot better if that giant parking lot was filled in with housing, shops, restaurants; basically what the giants are trying to build there. But I’m guessing Sierra club doesn’t care about Mission Bay.

      1. Kind of sad that as a Sf voter who would be impacted by this development, quality of life in the area will be restricted by some ultra political group with no stake in the matter. We’re talking about taking a parking lot and making it a community. Totally shameful SF politics.

        1. I live in the area and my quality of life is far more negatively impacted by homeless, crimes and visiting central valley rednecks than it would be improved by further development in Mission Bay. My neighbors and I would not feel the slightest bit sad if Mission Bay was much less dense.

  8. I have never been a member of The Sierra Club. Aren’t they supposed to be concerned about some endangered snow owl somewhere? I am allergic to nuts (the people kind.)

    This makes voting much easier. I will vote against propositions supported by people I don’t like. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  9. It would be nice if the Warriors Stadium went on the Mission Rock site – but I bet the Sierra Club just wants to leave both sites as surface parking lots.

  10. I don’t know how the vote will go. It will be very close is my guess.

    The fact the Giants upped the BMR to 50% tells me their internal polls at the time were not good.

    If this is defeated then forget any chance of a Warriors Arena in the City IMO.

    It may come down to the progressive turnout – with AirBtoB and the Mission moratorium there should be a bigger than normal progressive turnout. Even so it will be close IMO.

    1. how do we get more moderates to the polls? any ideas out there? im more than willing to volunteer the little time i have to get more moderate people to vote. I dont have to do it for any particular initiative. we just need to get more educated working people to the polls.

  11. The Sierra Club doesn’t deserve to call themselves environmentalists.
    I can understand why an organization with their mission might want to oppose green-field development out in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, but they shouldn’t even have an opinion on infill development.

    1. Given their supposedly being for the environment, the Sierra Club absolutely should have an opinion on infill (urban) development — they should strongly support it!

      Basically there are three options:

      (1) Build more housing in the cities
      (2) Build more housing out in the suburbs where it will often take the form of sprawl and loss of open/wilderness space
      (3) Don’t build housing — watch prices rise, homes become unaffordable, and more people homeless

      Guess which option San Francisco and other Bay Area cities have been choosing?

      1. I wish Sierra Club national had more power over their chapters. By refusing to allow them to campaign against infill development, for instance, unless there was a very clear set of negative environmental impacts. As it is, National says all the right things about infill, local chapter is full of NIMBY’s, and local voters are confused because the “Sierra Club” has such an imprimateur of environmental correctness that they sway elections. It’s totally F3$%ed up.

  12. Interesting that the national office is based in SF, but the SF chapter of SC is doing things that doesn’t seem very environmental. High-density infill is definitely the way to go, living in a city is way more energy-efficient that in the suburbs. It’s a no-brainer. I wonder what kind of clout the national office has over local chapters, if they find them operating outside of national guidelines.

    1. The law gives the Mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors first dibs on being the official opponent on any measure they wish (as if they need even more of a soapbox at the expense of ordinary residents and grassroots groups having a chance). Those responsible for putting a measure on the ballot are automatically the official proponents.

      For any ballot measures that the mayor or a board member has not claimed the opposition argument for themselves, there is a random drawing among the arguments submitted to see who will be the official opponent. Usually there aren’t that many submissions, and Terence Faulkner typically submits arguments against lots of different measures which is why he wound up being the official opponent on several.

      The Libertarian Party of San Francisco also often submits arguments against several measures. We submitted five this year (against A, B, F, J, and K), but our argument against F was pre-empted by the mayor, and none of the others happened to be selected.

  13. Thank you Starchild for providing more information and clarity about the process and the Libertarian Party. I hope you continue to be an active voice on Socketsite.

  14. Remember 1906 and what happened to the Mission Rock area. Put 10 pounds into a five pound bag and see what happens. All those new cars coming into the city. Or leaving the city for their owners jobs outside the city, and coming home making it hard to park in mission rock when a game starts like now

Leave a Reply

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