Warriors Mission Bay Arena Rendering: 11/3/15

The Mission Bay Alliance and the mother of a six-year-old with a congenital heart condition have just filed suit in Alameda Superior Court, “arguing that the University of California at San Francisco (“UCSF”) illegally signed an agreement with the Golden State Warriors that would give away state property to private parties and pose potentially grave health and safety dangers to Bay Area residents.”

The lawsuit, which aims to upend San Francisco’s recent approval for the Warriors’ proposed Mission Bay Arena, alleges inappropriate behavior from a number of public officials including Mayor Ed Lee, whom, according to the complaint, “threatened to retaliate against UCSF if it continued its opposition to the proposed Warrior’s stadium.”

And at the heart of the suit, which is likely to be the first of many, the plaintiffs argue that UCSF’s agreement with the Warriors, which paved the way for the arena development to move forward, “violates state law, because UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood lacked authority to negotiate or sign the agreement without the approval of the UC Board of Regents, who have not expressed support for the project.”

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Notcom

    Go Darth, GO !!!

    Probably won’t accomplish much, but at least assures ownership will have to keep the team viable for a few extra weeks beyond 20XX (whatever the construction timeline is) to assure enough seat license sales.

    • Posted by alberto rossi

      Don’t forget naming rights and luxury boxes.

      • Posted by Ohlone Californio

        and someone actually agreed with that bizarre take. wow. This town.

    • Posted by Ohlone Californio

      “keep the team viable”

      Do you know how laughable that is? The team is historically good. You are cynical in a very silly way. How funny.

      • Posted by James

        In the last 20 years they’ve been in playoffs 4 times (and 3 of those times were in the Curry era). So, yeah, not that great historically.

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          but have consistently sold out, and the current team is very young so should have at least 5 more good years

        • Posted by Ohlone Californio

          Why would you reference the former ownership group? The post I replied to called out this ownership group, specifically. In terms of this ownership group, the very group taking them to SF, they are historically great. So, you’re wrong.

          • Posted by James

            “Historically” means “in the past”.

            In the past they weren’t very good. Hey, I followed them in the Mullin, Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, Manute Bol years. I think they’ll be good for a number of years but in the past they weren’t – that’s a fact.

          • Posted by Fishchum

            @James – I’ve been following them for years, and even when they weren’t very good, they were still selling out Oracle. The Dubs’ fan base is considered one of the most loyal and passionate in the NBA. Anyone who knows anything about basketball knows this, which makes the OP’s statement even more absurd.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Oh I see. You parsed my usage of historically. Kind of a reach there James, given the historic win streak or the fact that their 2014-2015 championship run is a top 10 all time season. They’re already historically significant and it’s really not debatable. Come on now.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Calm down…nobody died; the point of lead posts is to say provocative things that attract other posts, and hence readers – remember back in Jr. High when you learned how writing a check allowed other people to write checks and eventually support the whole national economy ?? this works the same way – and with (already) a half-dozen responses I think it’s been successful.

        As for the concept (of cash-out-and fold) itself, I don’t think I’d call it cynical; I’d call it something that frequently happens…you’ve been seeing it most every Sunday. Maybe it’s intentional; maybe it’s not; but it happens. Will it happen here?? I don’t know. Perhaps ownership has only the best of intentions and that happy state of affairs will always stay that way. But given that they plan to move to a facility that costs +/- $50K/seat to build – the interest alone which would run to $30+/game – you can be sure paying for it will be a big concern. I don’t think that’s cynical, i think it’s not being gullible

        • Posted by alberto rossi

          People who think Steph Curry, et al, will be winning NBA championships in their shiny new arena probably also expected the 49ers to win Super Bowl 50 in their shiny new stadium.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            the 49ers sold their soul when they picked kaepernick over alex smith, and the team fell apart. no one expected niners to win championships this year or last. their ownership is horrible and they will enver be great under current ownership. they also moved their stadium from the center of the bay area to a suburb most people ahve never been to.

            Warriors have probably 2nd or 3rd best coach in basketball, reigning MVP, best defensive player, 1st and 2nd best 3 point shooter, best defensive unit, and great ownership. they are moving from an outpost to the center of the action. Very different story

        • Posted by Ohlone Californio

          don’t tell me what the point of something is or isn’t. what you said was silly, as clearly this ownership group has quickly proven they’re about winning. So you like to flame message boards. Awesome bro.

  2. Posted by Dave II

    How mellow dramatic. This was expected and I would expect no less than five more lawsuits to be filed. This is a sound plan and the few millionaires who belong to the alliance are upset. No different than the progressive liberals in the Mission wanting their rent to be $500.

  3. Posted by Rainer Wilke

    I cant wait until the people behind this alliance come out into the light of day

    • Posted by MrTibbs

      Roaches — they will just scurry away….

    • Posted by anon

      Do you really think the alliance backers are ashamed about their position? Ridiculous. I live nearby and 80% or 90% of my neighbors and co-workers oppose the proposed location.

      • Posted by HousingWonk

        80% – 90% of anybody living near any proposed big project is opposed. The point isn’t that most people aren’t NIMBYs about their backyard. Most people probably ARE NIMBY’s about their backyard – and the bigger the project, the more people are NIMBY’s.

        The point is that when planning a city – or region for that matter – we really should NOT give a squat what the NIMBYs think.

  4. Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

    “…give away state property to private parties and pose potentially grave health and safety dangers to Bay Area residents.”

    Not an attorney, but isn’t it on these folks now to quantify the above statement?

  5. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Can we sue the plaintiffs? I mean, I don’t care a whit about basketball myself, and don’t even really care about the Arena – but I want to see the decisions of professionals respected and development move forward in an efficient and timely manner, not be bogged down in countless stonewalling lawsuits.

  6. Posted by Orland

    Let’s see… these guys are on record as wishing to preserve the land for ultimate biomedical purposes of UCSF, with questionable standing have seized upon a pretense issue in order to secure that remedy and promises to “litigate, litigate, litigate until the cows come home.”

    I can’t imagine a court being very receptive to their cause.

    • Posted by MrTibbs

      And it begs the question — why did UCSF sell if to SFDC for their new campus in the first place if that was the intent?

  7. Posted by Jackson

    Way to go Mom, play the sympathy card for your kid with a heart condition as a flimsy cheap shot to block the stadium.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      They filed suit in Oakland. Is this a San Francisco mother or an Oakland mother . . . That is, is the kid even a patient at SF Children’s or Oakland Children’s? And what’s in it for her to be used in this way?

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Might be forum shopping, looking for a court that’s less sympathetic (beholden?) to S.F. interests and Mayor Lee… Dumb / pointless strategy, if so.

      • Posted by Amewsed

        I would move to change venue to San Francisco where juries aren’t so sympathetic to moms in general. Alameda County is pro-plaintiff with crazy liberal juries to boot.

        Like the SF residents would necessarily want to go to UCSF for treatment when there are a bunch of hospital options from which to choose. Why doesn’t the current UCSF administration just announce who the former UCSF leaders comprising the Mission Bay Alliance is? It is looking like a barrel of snakes.

        • Posted by Orland

          I doubt their cause of action will ever get to a jury but will be dismissed as in the case of the lawsuit brought against 706 Mission.

  8. Posted by MrTibbs

    “violates state law, because UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood lacked authority to negotiate or sign the agreement without the approval of the UC Board of Regents, who have not expressed support for the project.”

    Ummm yeah – let’s see, UCSF sold it to Salesforce who then sold it to the Warriors – private property now. You would have to argue that Salesforce had no right to the property in the first place when they bought it to build their campus and NOT a biomedical facility. Seriously?

    • Posted by phil

      FWIW the Mission Bay Plan allowed for general office use but not a sports arena.

      • Posted by Ohlone Californio

        Yes, but it was subsequently brought before the board of supervisors, and they unanimously passed it.

        • Posted by SocketSite

          Which leaves the Board’s action open to a legal challenge, especially as the Mission Bay Plan doesn’t allow for the arena height as proposed. And of course, the Board approved the development of 8 Washington as well.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Why is it open to a legal challenge? In as much as anything is open to a legal challenge?

          • Posted by SocketSite

            The difference lies in the Board’s approval of a non-conforming, versus conforming, planned use.

          • Posted by BTinSF

            The BOS ought to be able to change (or create exception to) law that they made. They created the height limits and should be able to override them, both as a matter of law and of common sense.

            As for 8 Washington, it took a ballot challenge to change what they did there and a ballot challenge could undo the Warriors plans though I doubt it would pass as 8 Washington did. Actually, the need to take that one to the ballot goes against your argument because it wouldn’t have been necessary if the BOS had no power to make exception to its own zoning decisions.

    • Posted by Oh Dear

      I dont believe UCSF ever owned the Salesforce property

      • Posted by timbad

        that is my impression as well. in the article in my namelink, it says Salesforce bought the site from Alexandria. this lawsuit is confusing to me for that reason.

        • Posted by alberto rossi

          A fellow on skyscraperpage did some digging and found out the answer to that question. Apparently what UCSF sold to the Warriors was a view easement.

  9. Posted by Oh Dear

    I view this as no different than the “Wall” people, with one major exception…no matter what traffic mitigation measures are take circulation will be a *itch during games and events. That is my prediction and you don’t have to be a transportation planner to figure that out.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      As a matter of law, that hardly matters. The relative priority of land uses should be a political decision and political leaders should have the power to give professional sports priority over health care if they want to (I am not necessarily endorsing such a decision). I’ve been a doctor for over 40 years and I understand the value of health care, but San Francisco politicians quite legally make many decisions I don’t agree with. They have that right and power. I really don’t see a legitimate legal case here . . . or standing.

  10. Posted by Just the facts

    The land was part of the Catellus. Privately held. Warriors will have 500K of Life Science space as part of the project. UCSF had every chance to buy this property, and actually did buy two lots just across the street and the same time this transaction happened. BTW, do you know how much property tax UCSF pays? Zero vs. Warriors which will pay a lot when its all done.

  11. Posted by Dewayne

    Does anyone know how long it usually takes for lawsuits of this type to be heard by a judge and ruled on?

  12. Posted by eddy

    At the heart of the issue…. I see what you did there.

    I wouldn’t underestimate the potential damage these stall tactics have on these plans. The team needs a new stadium one way or another and a continue delay of these issues will create problems.

  13. Posted by Bayview_dweller

    I have literally had it with these arguments about traffic and this arena. This is a major city, and along with that is going to be congestion, accept and move on if not I hear Brentwood and Tracy are nice and quiet well except having to deal with the traffic of the 580/680 interchange…there goes that traffic problem again. People are up in arms about how difficult it will be to navigate the area come event times and access to UCSF and it is a pointless futile argument. With no arena to deal with if i needed to get to CPMC (either campus), i’d have to deal with traffic no matter what way i go, same goes with SFGeneral, St. Luke’s, St. Mary’s, etc. and none of them has some guaranteed means or provisions for access. They are currently building the new CPMC (Cathedral Hill Campus) on Van Ness and there are no provisions that CPMC develop a traffic plan other than the 14 million they gave to SFMTA to waste for bus rapid transit. So why then can this Alliance presume to exert concerns about traffic in a much less congested area, along with every other frivolous complaint including ambient noise from an indoor arena over development.

    Does this stand to reason that the Mission Bay Alliance is then also going to block the Pier 70 development and much of the central waterfront plan because that certainly will not ease congestion and will have a much greater impact upon the area than a single arena ever could given that buildout will consist of daily impacts of residents, commercial and retail conglomeration.

    The Mission Bay Alliance along with the Potrero Hill detractors are up in arms because they all feel they aren’t being served first and foremost from this development (nor should they). Period. As a lifelong resident of San Francisco if you live in Potrero Hill and somehow believe this arena is going to destroy your commute/access then you clearly have not explored Potrero Hill and i implore you to discover this thing called a map (hardcopy or digital). I fail to see how Salesforce’s multi-use campus proposal that was to include retail, commercial and potentially a conference venue is all that far away from the the arena proposal, aside from views to which you are not entitled. Amazing how quickly Potrero Hill has gone NIMBY!

    • Posted by louiemondot

      Nicely said!

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      agree 100%

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      whoa, settle down, you’re verging on reason and common sense there…

    • Posted by HousingWonk

      Probably a function of how much the socioeconomic demographics of Potrero Hill has changed over last 20 years.

    • Posted by sassySFboy

      Absolutely right on! These rich folks only care about themselves–no one else includes the exploited mother in this lawsuit, probably paid for consultant. Names of those in the Alliance need to be exposed as these are very wealthy people who will want box seats/game privileges, and Warriors management should try to deny these same people of access to games…if you are that opposed to it, then you should not be part of it.

    • Posted by D. Umfog

      Pot Hill NIMBYs are insufferable reactionaries.

      I moved here 6 years ago, and AS a homeowner and parent in the neighborhood I found it important to get involved, particularly as the physical safety concerns are higher than in my previous neighborhood.

      I went to a Booster meeting, a GPR meeting, as well as a community hearing on 1601 Mariposa, and while I expected a fair bit of narrow-mindedness I was shocked by the level of angry obstructionism and incredibly bad manners. And don’t get me started on the Nextdoor community.

  14. Posted by Elitist Pig

    WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

  15. Posted by jamesjr

    The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. The arena will be built.

  16. Posted by Pablito

    By the time the City take down I- 280 – dumping all the traffic on 7th Street, narrows 16th Street to 2 lanes – bus priority, and tears up 3rd Street to build the HSR/ Calrain extension to the new Transbay terminal, the whole area will pretty much be walking only. Everyone down there will be much much healthier …. The City will need neither sportsball palaces or hospitals….

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles