SF Democratic Party opposes developers’ 8 Washington initiative

|
(81)
Bienvenidos a Miami.

On Wed/14, members of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee voted 14-6 to oppose Proposition B, a San Francisco ballot measure backed by the developers of a luxury waterfront development project, 8 Washington. Ten DCCC members abstained, while two voted “no endorsement.” Prop. B seeks voter approval for the waterfront development, which has become a flashpoint in San Francisco politics.

The 134-unit condominium complex, which will offer units in the $5 million range, already won approval from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors last June. But 8 Washington developers launched the Prop. B initiative in response to Prop. C, a referendum backed by oppositional campaign “No Wall on the Waterfront.” In May, the DCCC made an early endorsement against Prop. C, essentially siding with project opponents in declaring opposition to 8 Washington.

It’s easy to get Props. B and C confused. The campaign against 8 Washington is called “No Wall on the Waterfront,” while the developer-backed campaign favoring construction has been dubbed “Open up the Waterfront.” From opponents’ perspective, it almost doesn’t matter if voters bother to sort out which is which. Now with the support of the DCCC, they are urging a “no” vote on each.

Last week we told you about a campaign video produced by 8 Washington developers that had attracted some controversy. Here’s a campaign video produced by 8 Washington opponents, featuring former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos. The pitch makes sound like the San Francisco waterfront will morph into Miami Beach if 8 Washington moves forward. You have to admit it’s a stretch.

Comments

If voters can get past the opposition’s overheated rhetoric, the 8 Washington project presents a pretty simple land use choice: Should valuable public waterfront land be preserved as a surface parking lot that benefits only a few, or should it be used to deliver enormous design and financial benefits for all San Franciscans?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 11:45 am

How many of these 'All San Franciscans' are gonna live in those $5 million condos. They're gonna get mighty crowded! See this for what it is. Politically-connected developer sees huge opportunity to make gobs of money. Oh, and the financial benefits? If you can afford a $5 million condo you can afford a very, very good tax lawyer. SF will not see a bean from this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2013 @ 7:50 pm

And how many of us 'All San Franciscans' are gonna live in those $5 million condos. They're gonna get mighty crowded! See this for what it is. Politically-connected developer sees huge opportunity to make gobs of money. Oh, and the financial benefits? If you can afford a $5 million condo you can afford a very, very good tax lawyer. SF will not see a bean from this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2013 @ 7:52 pm

And how many of us 'All San Franciscans' are gonna live in those $5 million condos. They're gonna get mighty crowded! See this for what it is. Politically-connected developer sees huge opportunity to make gobs of money. Oh, and the financial benefits? If you can afford a $5 million condo you can afford a very, very good tax lawyer. SF will not see a bean from this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

the choice is not limited to a parking lot or this massive building. come on. the choice between these two is neither.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 10:16 am

people can only choose between those two.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 10:36 am

Neither are great choices. But it's a lot easier to go with a better third choice at some point in the future if all we currently have is a parking lot.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 10:04 am

am voting YES on B and C because I do not think we should be doing ballot box planning anyway.

But whatever gets built there will be homes for the wealthy because nobody else can afford waterfront homes. We are merely quibbling about how many.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 10:15 am
Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 10:54 am

Otherwise why, given that planning was approved?

Anyway, if you do not like these things being on the ballot, then simply vote YES on B and C, and things get put back to how they were before.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:02 am

So hypocrites like you do like ballot box planning, so long as it is you who is doing the planning.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:13 am

someone else doing it.

If DPW had rejected 8-Wash then I would have opposed it being put on the ballot to overrule DPW.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:21 am

Why do you hate the California Constitution's right to referendum?

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:35 am

I certainly understand those who do.

Elections are rigged, didn't you tell us?

Posted by anon on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:55 am

Money buys elections, in this case money is against development and that scares the shit out of the boosters!

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

the prospect of possibly stopping one development. If that is what happens, you can have your day in the sun.

Meanwhile, I can see at least a dozen cranes across SF building condo towers, so even if you win the battle, you are losing the war.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:13 pm

that these idiot rolls are railing against "ballot box planning" when they are supporting a ballot box planning measure

but they will of course convince themselves in their pea brains that when we tell them that this is utterly stupid and hypocritical it is simply because we have somehow "lost" the "debate"

;)

Posted by upmnjxh on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:29 am

should not be on the ballot, you vote NO on it. I vote NO on the vast majority of Props for that exact reason.

This time it's weird because if you think 8-Wash shouldn't be on the ballot, you should vote YES, to restore the situation to what it was before.

I am worried that a sufficiently large number of voters will be confused by this that the result may be skewed.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:35 am

They don't get paid to think through their posts, do they?

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:37 am

it must not be very much ;)

one wonders why their paymasters would bother

but i have to admit that the sheer volume of this stuff seems to indicate that it is not just happening out of the joy of trolling

Posted by upmnjx on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:51 am

So I guess by your argument, you must be paid to post as well.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:02 pm

you've both been at this for years (whereas i have only been doing it intensely for a few weeks)

and you respond to nearly everything i (and everyone else) posts

so it is absurdly impossible for me to have posted more than yourself

which gets us back to what a horse's ass you are

Posted by upmnjx on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

only because of the bumps and barriers you use whenever you realized you have been humiliated in the debate.

But if my excuse is that I get paid, what is yours?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

"In terms of posts per day, your output exceeds anyone here"

Probably close to half, if you count the real name he posts under, along with all the nics.

Posted by racer さ on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

(whereas i have only been doing it intensely for a few weeks)

LOL. Yeah right, lilli, racer x, upmnjx, etc., etc. etc.

How many years ago were you banned from sfgate?

Posted by racer さ on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 12:57 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 1:04 pm

I have been posting a few weeks!

I can take it or leave it alone!

Posted by Zargon The Magnificent! on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 1:20 pm
Posted by Lilli's lying eyes on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

posting frenzy just by cussing at and insulting them

it's like little kids on a play ground ;)

Posted by upmnjx on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 2:16 pm

for those "few" weeks that you've been here?

I've caused you hours of effort here, and for what?

Posted by Lilli's lying eyes on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

Marcos, you admit that you have been outplayed in city politics. Why do you feel that your luck has suddenly changed?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2013 @ 11:59 am

Over the long run, the 8 Washington project will generate $140 million in today’s dollars for the Port and the City – that is, to the people of San Francisco. Those are the City’s numbers identified in a public contract. This includes huge contributions to the Port’s crumbling infrastructure as well as for other public benefits like new parks, wider sidewalks and underground parking.

Of particular importance is an $11 million payment by the developer to the City to fund low-income housing. It’s actually much more valuable than that since the City can leverage it with matching public grants. The City’s own calculations show the project would fund 50-55 low-income homes in a neighborhood conspicuously lacking them. Shouldn’t all neighborhoods offer affordable housing opportunities?

Why do the opponents never mention how little revenue the current parking lot generates for the City??

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 11:56 am

Just what we need. More cars on the Embarcadero! Has anyone noticed that the Ferry Building is doing very nicely without the additional parking this project proposes?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2013 @ 7:55 pm

will only be used for a small fraction of the time. Far more traffic is created by any number of attractions on the waterfront.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2013 @ 6:48 am

of these homes means that the residents can walk to work and many other downtown locations. Or take Muni or the ferries.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:07 am

The low-income matching housing funds don't disappear. Any other avaialb matching housing funds will be used on dozens of other projects that are always looking for financing sources.

And the port should be considering tearing down some of theses piers anyway, rather than rebuilding them. The joy of the waterfront is the open vistas, not more real estate devoted to paying $5.99 a pound for peaches, $18.05 for a dry chicken sandwich and $5 million for an apartment.

The SF Port has become a ruthless real estate speculator, stopping at nothing to transform beautiful water views with real estate developement that caters mainly to the very wealthy. They current staff should be fired for "excessive catering to the 1%ers."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

It's set back from it and, right now, you cannot see the water from anyone in that area because of all the other tall buildings there.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2013 @ 6:49 am

And the 8 Washington project could make a buck -- with the developers playing by the rules and listening to stakeholders who want to have meaningful influence on the project. That's before Props. B and C.

Props. B and C say we should let the developers make a thicker buck while circumventing the rules and the stakeholders.

No thanks.

Posted by Rocket on Oct. 07, 2013 @ 10:52 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2013 @ 6:50 am

It's about whether or not the City should raise the height limits to enable this particular project.

If the developers had come up with a legal project under current planning code, they wouldn't have had nearly this much resistance. So, why do they have to change the rules? Is there nothing else that can be built on this site but 136 feet high buildings of really expensive condos?

Posted by Tony Kelly on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 1:23 pm

and the easiest way to build more homes is to build higher.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 9:00 am

The only problem with this project is the waiver on the height limitations. Say no to Stackem and packem housing. Move back to New York City or Hong Kong if you like living that way

Posted by Richmondman on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 3:09 pm

residential buildings outside of downtown that are high.

You wouldn't build a 50-floor tower out at the ocean, but you can do so in much of the east of the city without it mattering. And in fact 8-Wash will be surrounded by much taller buildings.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2013 @ 7:24 am

Why not do it at the ocean, and all along the Geary corridor? I think the Richmond District is a prime prospect for high-rise residential development.

Posted by Hortencia on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 9:33 am

That's what every other city does but, for some weird reason, SF ignores it's oceanfront.

Likewise the major transit corridors, and in fact we are seeing many taller buildings going up along Market right now.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 10:15 am

Mr. Richmondman has a finely developed sense of humor! The 8 Washington project is nestled among the tallest buildings on the City's skyline. Many of the NIMBY opponents live in the adjacent Golden Gateway, which at 240 feet high, is almost double the height.

Better to keep it a parking lot, no?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2013 @ 8:28 pm

Build it! Just don't give a waiver to the existing height limitations. Simple.

Posted by Richmondman on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 9:21 am

What is really weird is that it's the same people complaining that homes aren't affordable that also oppose the construction of new homes.

Insanity.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 11:16 am

Building "up" is much more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than spreading out via urban and suburban sprawl.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 10:58 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.