Putting 8 Washington on the ballot

|
(116)

The fall ballot's going to be crowded -- and one of the issues that may face a vote is the future of the 8 Washington condo complex, the waterfront multi-zillionaire housing that the city doesn't need.

Opponents of the project have filed for a referendum on the Board of Supervisors approval, and they're meeing Satruday June 23 at 15 Columbus at 10am to start the process of gathering signatures. It's not easy -- they need 28,000 signatures in 28 days, and this, I suspect, isn't going to be one of those money-heavy deals with a lot of paid gatherers.

Former City Attorney Louise Renne will be there to lead off the festivities.

Me, I'd love to see this on the ballot in a high-turnout year when six supervisorial seats are up. Because it's a great issue to discuss: Who is San Francisco building housing for, and why?

Is it ok that more than 80 percent of the people who work in San Francisco can't afford to buy or rent a median-priced home? Is it ok that virtually all of the new housing getting constructed is out of reach to virtually all of the people who work here?

Is that in any way sustainable?

 

Comments

If you moderates think your sons and daughters will someday be dating the sons and daughters of these rich vultures, think again. Know what happens to farm animals? Same principle applies to YOU but you are too stupid to see it. (stupid I guess like a farm animal?).

http://www.vice.com/read/the-vice-guide-to-dating-rich-girls

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

>" leave them with nothing but security guards to shoo them away from the front gate."

No...you're confused. That's the way it is NOW. There are big ugly fences around the tennis club. Yes, you are currently free to stroll through the parking lot, I'll give you that.

In fact there will be more open space and you'll be able to walk to the Embarcadero via Jackson Street and there will be a kid's playground on the northern end.

You have to realize, not all of us have an irrational and paralyzing fear of wealthy people.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

I guess they are rich to begin with because of their ability to make you fight for their right to live unimaginably lavish lifestyles while they raise their privileged children to treat your children like door mats.

They laugh at you. They shun you. They avoid you whenever possible. They are constantly amazed you put up with it.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 8:57 pm

"They laugh at you. They shun you. They avoid you whenever possible. They are constantly amazed you put up with it."

No, they don't...really.

This is exactly the type of stuff that you guys need to work out with your therapists.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 9:19 pm

"Unless you're a horrible, horrible human being, dating a girl with a maid is gonna make you feel like the worst person on Earth; like the conscientious son of a plantation owner. Every ounce of your being is going to want to take your own plate over to the sink or say things like, "Don't worry, I'll get it."

But you know when a lion rips apart a gazelle in a nature documentary and the announcer says something like, "although horrifying to us, this is just par for the course in the wild"? Think about it like that. And if you're still upset about it, just remember that the Filipino maid you feel so sorry for lives in a bigger house than you (the outhouse at your girlfriend's)."

http://www.vice.com/read/the-vice-guide-to-dating-rich-girls

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 9:28 pm

>"Know what happens to farm animals? Same principle applies to YOU but you are too stupid to see it. (stupid I guess like a farm animal?)."

Let's take a deep breath. Rich people ARE NOT going to eat us. That is just a silly fear.

In the history of San Francisco I can't think of a single incident where a rich person ate a poor person for dinner, so lets all calm down and try to work through these fears together.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

The super rich buy government for the purposes of rent seeking and then rig the game so that we farm animals are forced to pay tribute via the permanent cash flow streams of interest and insurance as well as retirement accounts that are regularly culled when asset bubbles the Fed creates crash.

Actually, like the movie Coma, the rich are keeping us alive so that they can continue to gorge themselves on our succulent economic fluids.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 7:52 am

keep the little man down. Yawn.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 8:57 am

on us. The Jeffrey Dahmer analogy is far more accurate. The rich are out of their minds and cannot fathom how to act even in their own best interests.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:01 am

aside from the Telegraph Hill One Percenters, it's mostly poor people whining here, and mostly out of envy.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:09 am

If you don't understand how much money 200 million dollars is and how absurd it is to make that much building some condos you are as dumb as a farm animal and you deserve to lose your pension, your health care, your life in a first world country.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

They don't care what you make.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:10 am

"Why do you care what somebody else makes?"

Why should I care when someone robs a bank?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:43 am

"Why do you care what somebody else makes?"

I guess I'm just wondering out loud whether the profit margin would be so obscenely high if this project were competitively bid rather than politically awarded payback with interest.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 10:24 am

It's not the developer's fault if no other developers bidded.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 11:32 am

Hahaha that's just what Rose Pak said.

Because who wants to build a condo building unless they can make 40 percent on borrowed money?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 2:00 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

"Tax is paid on any profit."

Who's deluded now? So strange when I find myself agreeing with Fox News....

" corporations like Bank of America and General Electric --- despite extensive profit-making operations here in the United States --- paid zero taxes last year. That’s an actual tax rate of zero. Zilch. Nada.

In fact, given the existence of loopholes, off-shore banking and all kinds of accounting trickery, the real corporate tax rate in the United States is among the lowest in the industrial world, second only to Turkey."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/28/dont-need-to-cut-corporate-tax...

-- We Don't Need to Cut Corporate Taxes, We Need to Raise Them - -

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 6:48 am

Accountancy 101. But the point here is that profits are taxed now or eventually and, if the velocity of money is higher, taxes are higher.

That's a big part of why socialist economies fail - they depress the very profits they were hoping to tax. Visit Detroit with it's 3% city income tax.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 8:28 am

making an honest buck isn't.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 6:34 pm

I don't even think the project promotors would call 8 Washington "an honest buck."

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

in this project, then you are not in a position to assess the likely profit that would justify taking that risk.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

Assessing the risks for a project on the SF waterfront? Not hard.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

1) Predict the state of the Re market in 5 years, and
2) accurately predict how successful the most negative NIMBY activists in Sf will be

I'd need 200 million to even think about dealing with turds like that. Maybe more.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

Yeah for all those half billion dollar condo projects you build?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:24 am

You'll get eaten. And your children. Because you are dumb as farm animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLhqjOzoyE&feature=player_embedded#!

- Dr. Michael J. Burry at UCLA Economics Commencement 2012 -

Posted by Guest on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

If this goes to an election, it will be a new low in so-called democracy. Why would every new building have to be approved by voters? We might as well disband the planning commission if we're going to let the rabble say yes or no.

The process this project went through was extreely long and very public. Everything has been said and done. This "initiative" really is pathetic. I don't expect it to get on the ballot and I don't expect it to pass, as people will be angry about the waste of money.

And of course we want that 11 million of affordable houisng, which Tim clearly does not.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 6:23 am

Let's ask Eric Mar and Christina Olague if they think that this project would be unpopular with voters.

I can see a vote on an eyesore like Rincon Tower (which I believe that the SFBG supported, probably under direct order from Daly). But 99% of the city can't even see 8 Washington. But 'the 1%' in this case is Telegraph Hill.

Most people realize that a site like that is never going to be used for affordable housing.

This whole argument reminds me of the anti-same sex marriage people who seem to feel that Gays getting married somehow hurts their own marriage. Like building expensive housing where appropriate hurts affordable housing.

Neither case makes any sense.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 6:45 am

Some straights oppose gay marriage even though it clearly won't affect them for gays can marry.

Some liberals oppose 8-Wash even though it clearly won't affect them if it gets built.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:02 am

feel it affects their own marriage. That's a canard and plain stupid - a thought of a supporter of gay marriage...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

they believes it undermines and devalues the institution of marriage in general.

People who oppose a building just because they couldn't afford to live there and are consumed with envy are acting equally irrationally.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

It may never be used for affordable housing, but it could be more affordable than what this plan results in. Massive underground garages aren't really compatible with affordable housing.

Posted by Alai on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

The politics of America are so peculiar, with every newly elected politician beholden to some real estate developer and obligated to ram through some ridiculous project.

Good thing all 12 supervisors aren't elected at the same time or we'd be fighting 12 projects like 8 washington.

OF COURSE it is all going to collapse. How could it not?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 7:56 am

credible alternative to them, maybe we would vote for them. But if the laternative is a dinosaur like Avalos, then that will never happen.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:03 am

OF COURSE its all going to collapse. Farm animals can't run a county.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:46 am

Two legs good, four legs baaaad.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

I think it is an improvement to our political system.

Let the politicians take the developer money to get elected but then put the pay back projects up for referendum.

The system screeches to a halt.

That's probably somebody's definition of terrorism.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 9:50 am

LOL.....man, are you delusional!!!

I'll answer your question: is it sustainable that most of the people who work in SF can't afford to live here??

YES!!!!!!

I imagine it might start to resemble dull areas like London's west end, NYC's Tribeca, the northside of Chicago.

God knows the aforementioned areas are in deep trouble!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 10:45 am

afford:

Monaco, Aspen, La Jolla, most of Hawaii, central London, the southern half of Manhattan, and so on.

Somehow it all still works.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 11:33 am

Off the places you mention only Aspen and Manhattan have a federally subsidized mortgage market.

Get the US government out of the mortgage market then come back and throw the so called free market in my face.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 6:50 am

expensive places that many people can't afford to live. Luckily there are far more other places where thay can afford to live.

Ambitions beyond a person's station and economic value can lead to angst. Know your place.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 8:30 am

You missed the point that people have every legitimate right to fight back against welfare for the rich that will displace them into overpriced bubble housing in the suburbs.

Ambitions beyond a person's station, meaning the moaning and hand wringing by the millionaires who think rental regulations are so unfair?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

Desirable places will always cost more than undesirable places, and if you're expecting the "gubberment" to fix that for you then you're in for a long, frustrating and futile wait.

If you cannot afford SF, then there's always Oakland. Lucky for you it's just 10 minutes away.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

Have you checked the prices in Pacific Heights? Government mortgage intervention trickles up.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:27 am

SF govt human resources did a study to see where their employees were living vs. their salary and they found the > 100k per year, which is almost half of them, tend to live outside SF BY CHOICE. They simply get more home for their money, better schools, overall better quality of life. SF govt is the paycheck but heck, they don't want to actually live here!!!

Hmmmmmmm......urine-stain-homeless shelter motif, lousy schools, poor streets.
The city workers should know because they are in charge fo most of this.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

bay, or the penincula.

And Oakland is just a few minutes and miles away and had masses of cheap housing.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 12:26 pm

and live elsewhere. Streets will never get fixed.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

Progressives put out mad time and energy in promoting these NIMBY-esque initiatives and they keep losing - draining their movement of energy and atomizing their agenda. You'd think after they lost the last one big one (Hunters Point redevelopment) they'd pull back and reconsider their tactics and focus - but they just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again.

Hey Tim - how'd the SFBG's opposition to the building of BART end up working out?

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

Activists are people who don't care about the silent majority and want to impose their own minority agenda on others.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

You have forgotten that this is about giving people the opportunity to vote on this project?

The silent majority speak loud and clear when given the opportunity.

Lets vote on 8 Washington.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 1:26 pm