We can stop 8 Washington


There's a week left to stop the sale of San Francisco's waterfront to the 1 percent.

The Board of Supervisors approved the 8 Washington project, and a coalition that (for various reasons) opposes this giant pile of housing for the very, very rich is trying to put the issue on the ballot. That takes a lot of signatures, and there's only one week left to collect them.

I could tell you the story of why this project sucks, or you could just read it here. In my mind, it's simple: If we are using public land to build housing for the richest people in the country, allowing a developer to clear a couple hundred million dollars while offering the city only $11 million for affordable housing -- nowhere near enought to equalize the housing imbalance inherent in this deal -- then we're losing the city's future.

But there's still time. If you want to help, go here. Stop by 15 Columbus Ave or call 415-894-7008.

Hell, I'm willing to have a discussion this fall about the really, really dumb idea of tearing down the Hetch Hetchy dam. Let's at least give the voters a chance to look at the future of the city's housing policy.



Rich people are boring, ans SF cannot afford to be more boring

Posted by Greg on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

loath boring neo-hippies like greg and Tim.

Greg, Redmond, Brugman, Daly, Mirkarimi, Avalos, etc... represent the gentrification of SF by out of town hipsters, while they claim to represent SF values.

So comical. The neo-hippies move some place, by up housing, then try and pull the rope ladder up behind themselves.

The real Greg is the perfect example of the American neo hippy progressive.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 5:59 am

That will really help the under-housed in this city.

Nobody cares about this except for you, Welch, Hestor and a few other dried up middle-aged NIMBY's. Give it up and be grateful that successful, prosperous, happy people actually want to pay to live here.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 7:23 am

It's boggling that the SFBG is supporting a slick campaign to protect both an ugly surface parking lot AND the interests of a private swimming and tennis club which is being funded by 2 of the largest commercial real estate firms in the country AND call this fighting the One Percent. That takes some astonishing mental and political gymnastics.

Does Mr. Redmond suggest that killing this project would be a big victory for SF? What the City would get is an ugly waterfront parking lot for another few decades and it would forego many tens of millions in rental payments and property taxes.

Oh yeah, one of the real estate firms funding the campaign to kill the project owns the parking business on the lot in question. You cannot make this stuff up!!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 8:07 am

There's not a lot of intellectual honesty in what he's doing these days.

But if you look at the larger picture, he's working for a dying publication that has essentially sold itself out to the highest degree and is struggling to have any relevance. And it's Tim job to push out 4-5 articles a week, and it this point he'll take any and all response - good or bad.

I don't think he deeply believes in the majority of crap he writes. But he knows if it's outlandish and fringy enough it will at least get some response. And the SFBG website will get more hits, and more user "sticky time", and they can feel good about the 27 responses they got to their article. Even though 24 of those responses are telling Tim and the rest of the staff how bad they suck.

Posted by Me on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 8:43 am

You said "slick."

Posted by proggy boy on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

is the Aesop's fable that best illustrates Tim's outlook on this particular issue.

Posted by Chromefields on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 8:41 am

"The Wall" as it is called is only for the rich as it will be at the Beach Chalet when the environment is destroyed by astro turf/tire crumb, removal of 65 trees and the installation of 60' banked stadium lights (150,000 watts) and a 6' high fence goes up around it and are most valuable public lands become private and you "pay to play".

Posted by Guest Shawna McGrew on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 9:00 am

Right, because the rich will be playing soccer on these fields.
Give it up, you LOST - NIMBY.

10-1. you LOST.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 7:18 am

I do not think it means what you think it means.

When the referendum qualifies, it goes to the voters. They'll decide who loses.

Posted by proggy boy on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 3:04 pm
Posted by Orlando Chavez Jr. on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 8:52 pm

>"Just sign the damn thing."


Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 7:35 am

Has anyone seen the anti-anti-8 folks? Yesterday at Safeway I saw groups of sweet-looking kids with signs around their necks surrounding No On 8 Washington signature gatherers. The signs said something like: Yes To Jobs, Yes To Housing, No To The Petition. A real Run Ed Run vibe.

Someone must be worried. I suppose we will see much more of this as we lurch towards November. Some tricks/jokes are only good the first time.

Posted by gust on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:02 am

Were these kids by any chance recent immigrants from an undisclosed Asian nation that holds almost trillion dollars in US government debt?

Posted by marcos on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:25 am

>"Were these kids by any chance recent immigrants from an undisclosed Asian nation that holds almost trillion dollars in US government debt?"

No offense Marcos but we probably don't know because this isn't Arizona so we can't stop and demand the papers of someone because of their physical appearance.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:34 am

The CCDC has been known to pay cash money to recent youthful Chinese immigrants to do their political bidding.

I believe that Walter Wong has historically been associated with such activities.

Not that all recent youthful Chinese immigrants are on the under the table payroll of the CCDC by any means. They're too cheap to be spreading that much money around.

But the presence of recent youthful Chinese immigrants on the streets supporting an issue that is important to Rose Pak and Ed Lee is significant.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:50 am

Good point!

So it is absolutely fine if the pro 8 Washington people stand outside the Safeway but if the other side does it only indicates fear and trickery.

FYI, I was outside the Safeway and politely told the petitioner that 8 Washington didn't bother me.

So she told me that the petition wasn't going to stop 8 Washington, just lower the height of the project.

Not technically trickery because it was done in support of a Progressive goal but it was untrue nonetheless.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:26 am

But when a prog lies, it's judicious and justifiable tactics designed to "level the playing field".

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 10:08 am

Depending on the Safeway in question, I was one of those "sweet kids".

during my time working, I saw many unethical practices used by the signature gathers. Every petitioner working near me had no political interest in the campaign. They were indeed paid for every signature they brought back. They broke down the pay scale to me as:

$2 for every signature collected
$100 bonus for getting 100 signatures in a day.
$300 dollar bonus for getting over 300 signatures in a week.
only 70% of their signatures had to be vaild for them to be paid for every signature.

Many times I heard them tell admitted felons that it was okay for them to sign the petition.

Many times they told non San Francisco voters that it was okay for them to sign the petition.

I was paid for my work as well, but I think it is essential for people to understand that these petitioners really were just there for the money.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 3:33 pm