Democrats reject 8 Washington

|
(51)
Ummm, maybe not

The San Francisco Democratic Party has voted to oppose the 8 Washington project and to endorse the ballot measure that would halt it.

By a 15-4 margin, the Democratic County Central Commitee, which makes policy for the local party, endorsed a No vote on the fall referendum that would negate the height limit increase developer Simon Snellgrove says he needs to build the ultra-luxury condos. The units would be the most expensive in San Francisco history.

The supervisors approved the height limit last fall. The referendum puts the issue directly before the voters, and foes of the project need a "no" vote to reject it.

"This was a huge victory," Jon Golinger, who is running the campaign against the condos, told me. "The Democratic Party is a huge endorsement in San Francisco."

That's particularly true in a low-turnout election -- and since there aren't any high-profile races on this November's ballot, I would guess only the most serious voters will make it to the polls.

The Sierra Club -- another group that carries a lot of clout -- has already come out against the project.

Snellgrove's forces first tried to delay the vote until late summer, arguing that the committee needed more time to get all the facts. But Sup. David Chiu, a DCCC member, noted that this project has been discussed and analyzed and fought over for so long already that there's nothing new anyone could possibly learn by delaying.

The motion to delay failed. Only Bevan Dufty, Sup. Scott Wiener, Sup. Malia Cohen and Kat Anderson voted in favor of the project. Voting against were Bill Fazio, Trevor McNeil, Kelly Dwyer, Leah Pimentel, Hene Kelly, Alix Rosenthal, Carole Migden, Rafael Mandelman, Matt Dorsey, Petra DeJesus, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, State Senator Leland Yee, Chiu, Sup. David Campos, and Sup. John Avalos.

 

Comments

housing, just so that we can make an empty gesture opposing people who are successful.

No wonder the voters routinely ignore the DCCC slate at elections.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

Fact - the 8 Washington plan would take over public land and not build a single unit of affordable housing on-site. All 134 units would be sold for $3.5 million to $7.5 million each, according to the developer. That is only "affordable" for the Mitt Romneys and Larry Ellisons of the world. Sure, billionaires need housing too, just not on public land that belongs to all of us.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 4:27 pm

since they will not be built on premises, those funds will go to the city to build them. Even the project's opponents acknowledge that.

And it's not public land. It is privately owned land, as of course are most buildings in SF. You might think that tennis courts, swimming pools and car parking for downtown business folks is the best use of that land, but not many agree with that.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

Wrong, the triangle lot at the corner of Washington & The Embarcadero (also known as Seawall Lot 351) is public land owned by the People of California and held in trust by the Port of San Francisco for public use. Nobody thinks the temporary parking lot there currently is the best use of that land, but building a permanent high-rise condo tower for a select few is even worse.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

Homes get built on both public and private land. That's not the key issue here.

And in case you hadn't noticed, there are high-rise condo's being built all over this city. You already lost that battle. and if this project doesn't get built, another will.

Your hatred based on class will not abide.

Posted by anon on May. 23, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

Well, if "there are high-rise condo's being built all over this city", then we certainly can live without this one.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 6:09 pm

We need housing at all levels and, as it happens, this is housing for people with more money than God.

Problem for you?

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

But, the referendum would simply overturn the modest height increase. This building is a maximum of 10 stories at its highest point, even in low-rise Paris or DC this would not be considered a "high rise."

So, the developer will just build larger and more expensive units in a shorter building. Is this the real intent of the referendum? Just make sure the waterfront is even more exclusive and no one from the existing expensive units has their view slightly impaired?

Posted by Chris on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:37 am

end up rebounding on them. With all these complex and onerous land use and rent regulations, this city is still being yuppified and gentrified at a massive rate.

Control freakery doesn't work, and never did.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:49 am
Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 11:05 am

You don't seriously think that everyone who signs off as "Guest" is one and the same person, surely?

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 11:24 am

by changing the topic and rules when someone points out your wrong information?

Sure seems like it.

Problem?

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

Whenever it's clear that anon has completely lost a debate (which is almost always), the main defense tactic is to change the subject, which he's almost always wrong about as well.

Anon must be incredibly lonely to post here all the time on a website that's obviously contrary to his viewpoints. Maybe he's following lilli's strategy of using this forum to sharpen debating skills for when they move into the real world one day and actually try to make a difference rather than engage in the pointless mental mastrabation debates here.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

Your point is well taken, but I wouldn't assume it's mental masturbation at all but rather the real thing.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 8:38 pm

and Matlocky

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 24, 2013 @ 4:17 am

From 8Washington to personal attacks on other posters.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 5:58 am

That's the majority of what you do.

Bestemor.

Posted by Eddie on May. 24, 2013 @ 6:41 am

Or are you someone pretending to be Eddie to try and refute the claim that we drove him out of here, along with Marcos?

Something fishy here.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 7:17 am
Posted by Eddie on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:39 am
Posted by Adelaida on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 5:50 pm

The building is 10 stories at its highest point--it is not a high rise even under the most expansive definition of the word "high rise." Also, the project can still be built at a lower height.

The referendum has no effect on whether the project gets built--just how high it will be. The vote simply deals with the height increase.

Do you really think the developer will drop the project if the height has to be lower?

No, they will just build larger and more expensive units. But, I suspect that is the true goal of the people backing the referendum. So, long as their views are not even slightly impaired, they are fine with having ultra-wealthy neighbors.

Posted by Chris on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:41 am
Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:50 am

What would happen is that they would have fewer stories but a larger footprint. Right now the plan is for about 50% open space, including a children's sculpture garden and things like that.

They would recover the square footage by building homes in those open areas.

As long as the people from THD don't have their views affected -- that is the only thing that matters.

Posted by Troll on May. 24, 2013 @ 11:10 am

It's a simple land use choice: Should we preserve a surface parking lot on valuable public property or put it to a use that brings HUGE financial and design benefits to the City??

The project would generate 2 or 3 times the $11M project contribution for MOH thru matching public grants for deeply affordable (0-60% AMI) housing. In accordance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, this affordable housing must be built within 1 mile of the 8 Washington site. Do the project opponents also oppose THIS kind of housing?

The total value of financial benefits to the Port and the City, that is, the people of SF, are over $140M (NPV). Those are NOT the developer's numbers, those are the City's numbers, per the negotiated Term Sheet, a public document.

The opponents say the project should not be built because rich people will live there and that's a bad thing. That's odd because, preserving this parking lot is economically equivalent to having the people of SF subsidize the members of a private swimming and tennis club. Who knew they needed the help??

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 8:38 am

All this back and forth is well and good, but the 11 million in affordable housing benefits to the city was never addressed. Why is that ignored?

Posted by Guest2 on May. 23, 2013 @ 9:02 pm

homes at all. They just want a small victory in their losing class war.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 5:59 am

Compared to the $400-$500 million in profit the developer stands to make, $11 million for affordable housing was a woefully inadequate amount for the City and the Board of Supervisors to ask for and accept. That's why!

In addition, alternative uses for Seawall Lot 351, the Port's parking lot, will also generate funding for affordable housing.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 8:22 am

It's over, developer trolls. This thing is DOA. Even the conservative rats are jumping ship.

Posted by Greg on May. 24, 2013 @ 12:09 am

As long as our government is run by a strong mayor and weak supervisors who work under the cloud of term limits, the city will continue to be at risk for these sorts of schemes.

I'd like to see San Francisco once again lead the nation by rejecting the deeply flawed concept which for half of the time has our local representatives making decisions based on what a wider future constituency might think instead of the actual citizens who they are supposed to be representatives of.

We need to reestablish the conditions which allowed long-term San Francisco partisans like Sue Bierman and Quentin Kopp to hold sway.

After all, while it does us good to chortle over this victory -- and good on you for celebrating it! -- we remain saddled with other debacles-in-the-making such as the Central Subway.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 24, 2013 @ 4:15 am

meanwhile his city is being built over permanently changing the demographic.

In fact, 8Wash has diverted all the progressive energy, leaving dozens of other high-rise projects to proceed without a word of dissent.

As usual, Greg and his ilk get outflanked and outplayed.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 6:01 am

With six years of construction left, it has already eaten through most of its contingency- in time and dollars.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 8:25 am

of high-density neighborhoods and popular destinations , and it adds a third dimension to the current east-west concentration of transit along Market.

It also feeds the massive drift of downtown to the south, eventually as far as Mission Bay.

It's the Third Street "streetcar to nowhere", built purely as racial pandering, that is the outrage.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:38 am

to the city's transit system is like forgetting that the Third Streel light rail line displaced and existing bus line; and the racial pandering is your racist implication that there any sort of "racial" mono-culture in the south-east quadrant of the city.

What is painfully obvious from your patently false sentiment is that probably *anytime* you see some less than lilly-white skin tones, you have the urge to reach for your pointy white hood.

Bestemor.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 26, 2013 @ 9:15 am

I'm just saying that the economic rationale for the central subway greatly exceeds that for the third street "add on".

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 11:17 am

not playing the race card?: "It's the Third Street "streetcar to nowhere", built purely as racial pandering, that is the outrage."

Yet you remain undefeated in debates on this website.

Bestemor.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 11:27 am

Just because everyone there is white?

Of course not. I didn't saying anything about the 3rd Street corridor being mostly black (if it even is mostly black - I don't know).

But rather that few people appear to feel a need to go to that part of town, if they don't live there. Hence the "to nowhere" designation.

Nobody could say that about ChinaTown or North Beach, which CS will serve.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 12:01 pm

The words "racial pandering" have nothing to do with race, and somehow Alaska (not all white, by the way) is relevant.

I'm relieved. You are still undefeated here.

Are you an actual person, or a computer algorithm designed to post the least intelligent reply? Like the opposite of Deep Blue.

Anon aka Superficial Orange.

Bestemor.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 12:32 pm

SF is required to take race into account when planning new transit.

That's why the T got built.

Whether it makes economic sense was the issue I was addressing.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 12:51 pm

David Chiu is basically on the payroll of the no wall on the waterfront crew. How is he not demonstrating a conflict of interest in this?

And the DEMOCRATIC county central committee is a total joke made up of the most serious of malcontents that still view this paper as a viable form of political expression.
Honestly, when is the last time this paper and the people who practice its religion have offered something new and innovative in response to a problem?
Dont like something ? ban it. Vote it down! The best way to combat all the things we rail against? make them illegal.

Posted by Maldita fondada on May. 24, 2013 @ 6:33 am

It's chaired by Mary Jung, a far-right PG&E shill. The fact that even this committee rejected it should tell you something.

Posted by Greg on May. 24, 2013 @ 8:43 am

So, say the height increase is overturned? What will happen? The developer will just move forward with a shorter building with lager, and most likely even more expensive units to make up for the loss of density.

I guess this is the point I would like to see discussed in this whole debate. A "No" vote would not halt the project--it would merely overturn the fairly modest height increase that was approved.

I think there are a lot of extraneous issues being brought up, especially with respect to the price of the units, etc. The referendum ultimately just deals with the height increase, and overturning the height increase would NOT stop the project--and would likely just result in bigger and even more expensive units being built.

Posted by Chris on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:34 am

will be built there. As you say, there is nothing stopping the developers coming back with a slightly shorter building, and so on, At some point the opponent will realize they can't call an election for every building they don't like.

Even you hate the successful, and it seems that many here do, it's hard to get too worked up about a few dozen wealthy people living here. This fight has been too much about envy and not enough about architecture.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 10:47 am

Why do the "successful" hate everybody else?

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 11:04 am

everyone else. For instance, I'm probably rich by the standards of most here (net worth 3 million; income 300K a year) but I don't hate anyone, nor have I trodden on anyone to get to this point.

The class war that is being fought is conceived only by the left. And many of us are baffled by how you can hate someone who offers you a home or a job or a product or a service. Unless it's just plain old envy of course.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 11:23 am

Inquiring readers would like to know.

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

Why? Because women can't be successful too?

Posted by Guest on May. 24, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

A male is much more likely to brag about his wealth and net worth. The superiority of women extends to internet commentary, Lucretia Snapples excluded.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 6:20 am
No.

You are wrong.

Again.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 6:39 am

Ms. Guest - You are wrong. You are not rich. In this town, you're doing fine, at best. If you had a family to support you'd be getting by. If you had a family to support and you did not already own a home, you'd be worrying about whether you would ever be able to buy one in this town. The rich may not hate everyone else, but they certainly do not notice anyone but themselves. This battle is not really about the rich vs. everyone else. The rich will win that fight, even in this town. This issue is about temporary preservation of the City we came here (or stayed here) for. Do we want a wall of high rises north of Market Street on the waterfront? What do we want to see when we come in on the Bay Bridge? What do we want to see when we stroll through the financial district toward the water? 8 Washington is just the current battle. There are always more. Once the battles stop, the waterfront north of Market will look just like the waterfront south of Market. You either think that's a bad thing or you don't. Either way, the poor get driven out of most of the City and the rich control the politicians.

Posted by Guest No. 2 on May. 28, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

does not mean that the rest of us are somehow disenfranchised, simply because your "dream" must be fulfilled.

The niceties you seek cost money and, if you're not willing to pay the price of admission, then you're presumably expecting someone else to.

Rich? Who knows? It depends how you define it. Top 2% to 3% nationally, so not wealthy but comfortable. I don't hate anyone but there are some I pity - not so much the poor; rather those who hate others because of their success.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

Post new comment

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