Supes worry about 8 Wash shit show

|
(47)

The Chronicle seems to have entirely missed the latest installation in the 8 Washington shit show, but the Ex has the story, and, even if it doesn't mean the project is in the toilet, it's given opponents another reason to flush it.

Could I possibly use any worse metaphors?

Sups. David Campos and David Chiu are unhappy that city agencies -- possibly fast-tracking a project that the mayor's pal Rose Pak really loves -- may not have been fully forthcoming about the fact that there's a chance the construction (or the shifting of ground after the project is complete) could crack a sewage line that serves about a quarter of the city.

Here's what makes me nervous:

During construction, liability to pay for damage after a pipe rupture would be on the developer. Simon Snellgrove of the Pacific Waterfront Partners has long fought to build the 134-unit condo development, even hitting the streets himself to try to hamper the signature-gathering effort by the development’s opponents to place the referendum on the November ballot.
Once all the units are sold, damage liability would shift to the homeowners.

What does that mean? It means if there's a catastrophic sewage rupture after construction is complete, there will be lawsuits aplenty over who is at fault and who pays -- and in the meantime, the taxpayers will fork over the money to keep the effluvium out of the streets. Which could be (I'm sorry, can't help it) a shitload of money.

That, and the fact that the city is willing to let some very serious concerns slide in the name of building condos for the richest of the rich who won't even really live here most of the time.

Comments

But

what if there's not a catastrophic sewage rupture? Would that shut you up for an appreciable amount of time?

Posted by Chromefields on May. 10, 2013 @ 11:17 am

Because this piece of shit will be defeated at the ballot box.

Posted by Greg on May. 10, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

And this would not either but for a couple of one-percenters wanting to keep their view.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:05 am

We call it democracy. Don't like it? Move to Singapore.

Posted by Greg on May. 11, 2013 @ 8:35 am

new building? Or just the ones that you personally cannot afford to live in?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 8:30 am

Not a ballot initiative on every new residential building, just on those where we don't like the type of people who might be living there. In this case they will be rich people, which is a class that we don't like.

And in this particular case, even OTHER rich people don't like the rich people who might move in here, which is how we paid for the signature gatherers to get a ballot measure to keep rich people moving next to other rich people.

Ballot measures are a good way for us to maintain our optimal class allocations.

Posted by Troll on May. 12, 2013 @ 9:18 am

Asians, cops, republicans, rich people - his list seems endless.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:19 pm

you're a troll hating on progressives. hypocrite

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:44 pm

I do not understand hatred, especially based on stereotypes.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

has far too much a deficit in self-awareness to make it literally true; it's like saying a cloud of sewer gas hates.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:33 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 2:14 pm

There was a HIGHLY unusual hearing on 8 Washington yesterday.

Basically, after a protracted interrogation worthy of a criminal court or the Benghazi hearing in the GOP-controlled House, Sups. Chiu and Campos accused the Planning Department and SFPUC of malfeasance and conspiracy. It was astonishing to watch City agencies thrown under the bus for purely political considerations, i.e., a November ballot initiative on 8 Washington.

Thru innuendo, two supervisors implied that these City agencies have not followed standard and customary practice nor were best practices followed in the design of this project. Those are serious allegations, though of a technical nature.

It's therefore puzzling that no hearings have been called regarding the recent catastrophic failures of water and sewer lines in West Portal and the Richmond, where real people and property were harmed. The Transit Center and Central Subway, both enormous civic engineering projects that dwarf 8 Washington, are underway without a peep from our supervisors. No mention about the "imminent threats" they pose to SF's citizens and property. Do the people living near these projects deserve not deserve a hearing too?

Since the 8 Washington project would actually excavate and renovate an outdated sewer line, one must conclude yesterday’s hearing was strictly political in intent.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 11:35 am

the alleged supposed "harm" done by having a few extra successful people living in SF.

It's institutionalized envy and class warfare, plain and simple.

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 11:41 am

"It's institutionalized envy and class warfare, plain and simple."

That plus a government land give away to someone planning to make half a billion dollars on a residential condo building which is absurd on its face.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:58 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:30 pm

And yet for all that risk non of these projects are budgeted to make half a billion dollars profit for the developer?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 11:20 am

not just the risks taken, but also the time. If half a billion is a 40% profit margin and takes 10 years to materialize, then that's just 4% per year. I could get that with a bond and take no risk and make no effort.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

Know what. I think half a billion referred to the total revenue for the project.

A half billion dollar profit for this project really would be a lot....

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:54 pm

annualized percentage return on risk capital. I suspect it is lower than 10% on a project like this.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:09 pm

But yes, when we put in foundations, sometimes there are pipes down there. Ask the Central subway folks

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 11:36 am

you're just not wanted here, so...

there's that!

(who?)

capitalist white males, their private property (leveraged, and highly inflated in intrinsic value), their spouses, their spawn, their ersatz communities, their unrestrained anti intellectual ethos.

Posted by capitalismthedecay on May. 10, 2013 @ 4:54 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

Communists want to tell everyone else where to live, what to eat, how to transport themselves. When the government provides all of the food, housing and medical for everyone, no one will have any freedom of choice. Then we will have nothing but capitalismthedecay. You are the anti-iintellectual.

Posted by Richmondman on May. 11, 2013 @ 5:43 am

I asked a developer friend how he could support a return of 40% on this sure thing home run SF waterfront condo project considering average returns for developers are usually much less and he became angry and said it was because of the risk.

I didn't know wtf he was talking about and attributed it to the usually Republican election year doublespeak until I read about this.

Heads up. There may be more unusual risk lurking. I still don't think 40% justifies sewer risk....

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:32 pm

If it takes 10 years to get that, then that is only 4% per year - far less than I can get with far less risk elsewhere.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

I guess over ten years but I'd be shocked if this project isn't well presold.

Tishman is have no problem whatsoever with sales on Folsom from what I read.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

The developer is still massively on the hook until completion and closings.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 6:30 pm

But if its presold I don't think the developer would be on the hook for ten years.

Also very likely this project is insured?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 11:19 am

the developer is still on the hook if they later take their option to walk away.

While an insurance premium, even if such a thing is possible, would be verye xpensive if the perceived risk is high.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:15 pm

" For a project that, according to available figures, will net the developer $200 million in profit -- according to Sup. David Chiu’s analysis, a 72 percent rate of return"

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/06/14/8-washington-embarrassment

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:37 pm

Over 10 or more years, it's nothing special, especially given the risks.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

The people of San Francisco are going to vote this down. Hopefully the developer will spend some cash on the ballot proposition, only to lose. That'll be a negative return.

Posted by Greg on May. 13, 2013 @ 7:41 am

You just don't like rich people, the same way you don't like Asians and cops.

Posted by Guest on May. 13, 2013 @ 10:15 am

Takes effing testicles to make half a billion dollars on a condo building.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:35 pm

construction, and how long it takes to realize that.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

It really would....

"Snellgrove’s lawyer, Mary Murphy, tried to duck the financial issues, talking around in circles. Evenutally Chiu got Snellgrove to respond, and he said the costs would be higher and his profit would only be about $80 million. “The capital markets require a high return on these projects,” he said.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

risky projects like these. After all, they could build in many places, so SF has to offer them something special to get them to invest here.

Anyway, why do you care what profit they make? What business is it of yours?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:08 pm

Just curious.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

Because if developers are making 72% for 12 story residential buildings I'm going back to school.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:39 pm

Say the entire project, soup to nuts, takes 7.2 years. Then that is !0% per year.

Take off tax, and that's maybe 7% per year.

Inflation takes away half of that in real terms, so 3.5% a year.

3.5% a year for all that risk and hassle? Heck, I'd want twice that return.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

You have to wonder how much it cost to buy the support of Rose Pak and Willie Brown and Ed Lee.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 8:55 pm

It already smells like broken sewer pipes near the embarcadero!

Posted by Guestsf24hr on May. 12, 2013 @ 6:04 am

It's not just the embarcadero...

"Last year, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted, 10 to 1, to quash a condominium project planned for 555 Washington Street, in the shadow of the Transamerica Pyramid. The vote stunned the developers, who were backed by former Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. and Rose Pak, the Chinatown power broker.

Now, eight months after Mr. Brown and Ms. Pak engineered the appointment of Edwin M. Lee as interim mayor, another controversial condo project — 8 Washington Street — is moving quickly through the planning department, according to city officials.

The contrasting fortunes of the two developments — just 16 months and five blocks apart — show how a dramatic shift in political power is playing out on the streets of San Francisco..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/us/a-high-rise-condo-project-signals-a...

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 1:32 pm

about these two projects that are similar?

I'm not seeing it.

And wasn't Lee mayor then as well as now?

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

But Gavin supported 555 Washington. I didn't read the Times' story but the implication that Lee represents a shift from Newsom on these projects seems misguided.

Posted by Troll on May. 12, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

I don't see how it could have been Gavin, since Lee has now been Mayor for nearly two and a half years.

Either way, I find it highly entertaining of Progressives are yearning to have Gavin back.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 5:35 pm
Duh

There is a sewage pumping station near Bay street, FOOL!

Posted by Richmondman on May. 13, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

Post new comment

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