The Lennar-financed "Yes on G" fliers jammed into mailboxes all across San Francisco this month depict a dark-skinned family strolling along a shoreline trail against a backdrop of blue sky, grassy parkland, a smattering of low-rise buildings, and the vague hint of a nearly transparent high-rise condo tower in the corner.
"After 34 years of neglect, it's time to clean up the Shipyard for tomorrow," states one flier, which promises to create up to 10,000 new homes, "with as many as 25 percent being entry-level affordable units"; 300 acres of new parks; and 8,000 permanent jobs in the city's sun-soaked southeast sector.
Add to that the green tech research park, a new 49ers stadium, a permanent home for shipyard artists, and a total rebuild of the dilapidated Alice Griffith public housing project, and the whole project looks and sounds simply idyllic. But as with many big-money political campaigns, the reality is quite different from the sales pitch.
What Proposition G's glossy fliers don't tell you is that this initiative would make it possible for a controversial Florida-based megadeveloper to build luxury condos on a California state park, take over federal responsibility for the cleanup of toxic sites, construct a bridge over a slough restoration project, and build a new road so Candlestick Point residents won't have to venture into the Bayview District.
Nor do these shiny images reveal that Prop. G is actually vaguely-worded, open-ended legislation whose final terms won't be driven by the jobs, housing, or open-space needs of the low-income and predominantly African American Bayview-Hunters Point community, but by the bottom line of the financially troubled Lennar.
And nowhere does it mention that Lennar already broke trust with the BVHP, failing to control asbestos at its Parcel A shipyard development and reneging on promises to build needed rental units at its Parcel A 1,500-unit condo complex (see "Question of intent," 11/28/07).
The campaign is supported by Mayor Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and District 10 Sup. Sophie Maxwell, as well as the Republican and the Democratic parties of San Francisco. But it is funded almost exclusively by Lennar Homes, a statewide independent expenditure committee that typically pours cash into conservative causes like fighting tax hikes and environmental regulations.
In the past six months, Lennar Homes has thrown down more than $1 million to hire Newsom's chief political strategist, Eric Jaye, and a full spectrum of top lawyers and consultants, from generally progressive campaign manager Jim Stearns to high-powered spinmeister Sam Singer, who recently ran the smear campaign blaming the victims of a fatal Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo.
Together, this political dream team cooked up what it hopes will be an unstoppable campaign full of catchy slogans and irresistible images, distributed by a deep-pocketed corporation that stands to make many millions of dollars off the deal.
But the question for voters is whether this project is good for San Francisco — particularly for residents of the southeast who have been subjected to generations worth of broken promises — or whether it amounts to a risky giveaway of the city's final frontier ...
Patrick Monk.RN.Noe Valley.
PS. No Mo CoCoMo, can't you please put that damn ad on Seconal.
Chris Daly has publicly admitted that 50% affordable will kill the project. And he's said he "doesn't care". Why is this guy a progressive leader in this town?
"The amount of investment Lennar and its equity and development partners are proposing to pump in the city's southeast sector is staggering. The initial investment of $1.5 billion would pay for new roads as well as sewer, water and gas systems. It would build 300 acres of parks, a "vast and effective transit system," and pay for the demolition of buildings, Cohen said. Some $5 billion would pay for 10,000 housing units and vast amount of commercial space."
"Supervisor Daly said city voters who care about affordable housing should support his initiative. He said he believes Lennar when it says it can't make 50 percent affordable work economically -- but he doesn't care. He said he would rather the city take the lead as developer and look for public funding "rather than handing the reins over to Lennar, which will net us a project that will fall short of meeting the needs of San Francisco."
link [link]
Comment on: Promises and reality
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
