Putting 8 Washington on the ballot


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?



When subject matter experts appointed by elected officials approve a project, based on complex arguments that the average shlub cannot understand, then allowing the great unwashed to vote on it is sub-optimal.

What you're really saying is that your envy means that you hate this project and so you will "try anything" to stall it.

Sorry, but not persuasive.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 1:50 pm

If it's not persuasive then lets vote on it.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 3:27 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

Not all. Lets just vote on the project. Let the silent majority tear your head off.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:28 am

I agree, what a waste of time, when there are real problems we could be working on.

Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 6:19 pm

worse. Government is not the solution - it's the problem.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 6:35 pm
Posted by GlenParkDaddy on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 10:29 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 5:38 am

Completely wrong one.

Posted by example-essays.com on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 4:57 am

The city will benefit tremendously from this development. Some examples: create construction jobs, increase the tax base, add needed housing units (sf needs more housing across the board), developer payment of tons of fees to the city, etc.

Equally important to note is that this should not go up for a ballot initiative. This project has gone through countless rounds of public review, neighborhood outreach, government review at numerous levels, dozens of paid for studies, and ultimately the long gauntlet that is the SF permitting process. It has been approved and should be able to finally move on.

This project is a great alternative for that ridiculous use of the space currently.

Posted by calabrese68 on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

Redmond/Welch/Hestor nimby negativism would always reject extra affordable housing that projects like this make possible if instead they can stop this city ever changing, developing or progressing.

The "progressives" are scared stupid of progress. Ironic, huh?

But then, they already own RE in SF and so less supply boosts the value of their own investments.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

This project is unbelievably bad and should be voted out of existence at the soonest opportunity.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:29 am

I'm afraid that a vote to scupper it will be taken as a vote against ALL residential construction, including construction of more-modest housing, and as a vote for preserving the views and exclusivity of the existing, super-high-income housing stock.

Posted by Alai on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

This project is too connected with election politics. There has to be something really really wrong somewhere just for that reason alone.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 7:31 am

11 milk for affordable housing. Jobs for workers. Tax revenue. Finish west side of embarcadero. No surface parking lot for eternity. Private club replaced by another, no big deal. Sorry tennis fans, but higher density recreation is better. Public playground for free. Sorry for construction hassle and those who want no neighbors.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 5:54 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 6:06 pm