By Steven T. Jones
So, Mayor Gavin Newsom tells the dailies that San Francisco is going to pull out all the stops to snag the 2016 Olympics, using Hunter's Point to house the athletes and staging the games at a delux Candlestick Park (ie public subsidies for the 49ers new stadium). No wonder so many people worried that the new Bayview Hunter's Point Redevelopment Area might be used to line the pockets of big corporations and developers instead of benefitting the people of the southeast. But Newsom tries some win-win spin by offering to let poor folks have the 4,000 apartments he wants to build when the athletes are all done -- 10 years from now. A question: if we have the resources to build a bunch of publicly subsidized apartments, why don't we do so now? Make no mistake, this is about our mayor's ego and political ambitions more than the interests of city residents, particularly those of the southeast, which have already endured more than their share of capitalism's hidden costs.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
One position that I personally pride the guadian on usually having is that of long term concern of the citizens of the San Francisco Bay Area above and beyond the instant gratification of short term gains. Be these gains for private corporations or those who are in a less advantageous situation. I find this column to particularly fly in the face of this usual privilaged stance, and find it hopefully disengenuous. I cannot see how the city of San Francisco receiving a bid for the 2016 olympic games ( which would instigate an influx of both state and federal funding into the city ) could be bad in any way shape or form for any socioeconomic sector of the city; especially when the housing is originally intended to become absorbed by the low-income populous of the area. An area, migh I add, which is currently being displaced by rapid gentrification that is much more appauling than what i can imagine would be put in place to describe to the world what contemporary life in San Francisco really consists of. An olympic village in hunters Point: a bad thing. Hardly. It is quite a stretch to make any sort of coherent argument that the area would be better off through some sort of contorted governmental effort to assemble funding simply to benefit the area. I know Gavin is a politician, and that he does have a decent sized ego, but give the guy some credit here and there, he's better than what most other cities have got to work with.
Posted by Justin Glover | July 11, 2006 08:01 PM
Justin, most Olympic host cities have actually lost money on the effort and suffered negative environmental impacts. They do it to get the international attention, something that a city like San Francisco already has.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | July 12, 2006 05:55 PM
A question: if we have the resources to build a bunch of publicly subsidized apartments, why don't we do so now?
Because the Olympic games won't pay for it?
Posted by cedichou | July 12, 2006 10:17 PM
Justin, what have you been smoking ?
Third St light rail was constructed to benefit the community
..right !
The Bayview is "blighted
..right !
The RDA is acting in the interest of the community
..right !
Newsom is not in the pocket of Lennar
..right !
There will be no removal of residents
..right !
Maxwell will preserve and protect the neighborhood
..right !
Housing "affordable" to most residents will be built
..right !
The Shipyard will be inhabitable and non-toxic
..right !
Wanna buy a bridge ?
More info at
sfbayview.com
beyondchron.org
defendbayviewhunterspoint
sfbg.com
Posted by Patrick Monk.RN | July 13, 2006 05:35 PM