Click to expand
Ask these people where they got the sign and they’ll tell you all about France and where their kids are going to college.
Our National Park Service is thinking about moving the Alcatraz ferry landing from Fisherman’s Wharf to Fort Mason. And maybe they’d go to other places like the Marin Headlands or Sausalito.
Sounds all right to me, but the Marina Community Association is not pleased with the idea of all those non-white people messing things up in the Great White North of San Francisco.
Now, let’s hear from the King of the NIMBYs, District Two Supervisor Mark Farrell:
“Adding the potential of 5,000 visitors per day or 35,000 visitors per week will more than double the population of the Marina…”
Except that adding the potential of 5,000 visitors per day or 35,000 visitors per week would not more than double the population of the Marina.
So there’s that.
Anyway, go for it, Feds, go for Fort Mason, why not?
All the deets:
In accordance with § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-08), the National Park Service (NPS) is initiating the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process for the proposed establishment of a long-term ferry embarkation site for passenger ferry service between the northern San Francisco waterfront and Alcatraz Island. In addition to considering the Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation site, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will also evaluate potential for a secondary ferry transit service offering a cross-bay connection from the San Francisco embarkation site to Sausalito and/or Fort Baker. NPS is the lead federal agency for the environmental review under NEPA, and is developing the project in coordination with the Port of San Francisco (Port) and City and County of San Francisco (City) planning and transportation agencies.Show citation box
As set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NPS is also using the NEPA process to fulfill certain provisions of § 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act related to consultation and public involvement. In addition, the NPS has requested that the Port and the City be cooperating agencies for the EIS. In the event that a site on Port property is identified as the preferred alternative, environmental review of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required, and would be initiated at a later date.Show citation box
All scoping comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than July 31, 2012.Show citation box
Background: Alcatraz Island, the site of pre-Civil War fortifications, was the nation’s first military prison. It later became the most notorious maximum security penitentiary in the United States, and subsequently was the site of the occupation that helped ignite the movement for American Indian self-determination. Over 1.4 million people visit Alcatraz Island annually from the existing ferry embarkation site at Pier 311/2in San Francisco, managed by Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). The Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation EIS will build upon several studies completed by NPS, the Port, the City, the State of California, and the California Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA; formerly the Water Transit Authority).Show citation box
A 2011 draft feasibility study identified potential sites for consideration located among GGNRA, Fisherman’s Wharf, and the northern Embarcadero. The sites studied included Port piers 191/2, 291/2, 311/2, 41, and 45, and GGNRA piers 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Fort Mason. If suggested during scoping, other sites that meet the project purpose and need could also be considered. The draft feasibility study and subsequent investigations also analyzed the surrounding area, identified the programs and facilities needed to operate the sites, existing conditions at the sites, and criteria to evaluate the sites.Show citation box
The NPS seeks to secure a site on the northern San Francisco waterfront that provides for a long-term (50 years or more) orientation and ferry embarkation facility for visitors to Alcatraz Island. NPS desires an identifiable, adequate, and quality visitor welcome and support area that begins to connect visitors to Alcatraz history, GGNRA, and the national park system. The NPS also seeks to establish ferry connections between the embarkation site and existing piers at Sausalito and/or at Fort Baker, which is managed by GGNRA.Show citation box
The need for the project is driven by the following factors:Show citation box
The objectives for this project include creating a ferry embarkation site that:Show citation box
Public Scoping Comments and Further Information: This notice serves to formally open the agency and public scoping comment phase for this EIS. Key impact topics which are expected to be addressed in the EIS include transportation, visitor experience, aesthetics, economics, cultural resources, natural resources, and air quality—however, agencies, members of the public, and interested organizations are encouraged to provide any comments on the spectrum of issues and concerns that should be addressed. Respondents will also assist with defining a suitable range of alternatives; advise on the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts, including natural, cultural, socioeconomic and other topics; and suggest possible mitigation strategies that would reduce potential impacts from project development.Show citation box
Several public scoping meetings will be scheduled in San Francisco and Marin Counties. Meeting dates, times, and locations will be publicized through local and regional news media, by email to the park mailing list (to be included on the EIS email list, please visit: www.nps.gov/goga and click the “Join the Mailing List” link), and via the project Web site http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ALCAembarkation. This Web site will also provide relevant information, including the project description, planning process updates, meeting notices, reports and documents, and useful links associated with the project. You may also contact theGGNRA Planning Division at firstname.lastname@example.org or (415) 561-4700 for further information.Show citation box
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to the following address: Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Attn: Alcatraz Ferry Embarkation EIS, Fort Mason, Bldg. 201, San Francisco, CA 94123. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.Show citation box
Decision Process: At this time, it is anticipated that the Draft EIS will be available for public review in mid-2013. Availability of the document for review will be announced by the publication of a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, through local and regional news media, via the project Web site, and by email to project email recipients. Additional public meetings will be held after the Draft EIS is distributed to provide further opportunities to comment on the proposed project. Following due consideration of all comments received on the Draft EIS, preparation of the Final EIS is anticipated to be completed in 2014. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision regarding the proposed ferry embarkation site is the NPS Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently, the official responsible for implementation will be the GGNRA Superintendent.Show citation box
Dated: April 6, 2012.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
Here’s the question: Is Chris Rillo, ERISA attorney and part-time Richmond District resident, a NIMBY? Let’s look at the evidence:
“Mr. Rillo and his wife are both long-term residents and homeowners in the Richmond district who have worked hard advocating for the safety of our neighborhood.”
(Signs point to YES.)
Anyway, NIMBY Chris Rillo et ux are going to have a harder time NIMBYing against beloved local institutions such as our late-night J-in-the-B. See?
Apparently, Chris Rillo tried to “intimate” District One Supervisor Eric Mar:
“When the captain called to tell me he was relieving me from the board, I asked whether it was for a cause,” Rillo said. “He simply stated he had the right to constitute members of the board and assured me there was no cause. I was startled when he reported a cause that night, that I supposedly intimated Supervisor Mar.”
Uh, I think that’s spelled intimidated, Counselor.
No matter, this incident will serve to keep our local millionaire NIMBYs down, so that’s good.
Here’s what showed up in the email, below.
Is this like preaching to the converted or something? I mean, why on Earth would we want more historic districts in San Francisco? Aren’t they, and their boosters, part of the problem?
Anyway, here’s the spiel, choose or lose:
“SPEAK UP NOW FOR PRESERVATION IN SAN FRANCISCO!
On Thursday, December 8, the Planning Commission will consider comprehensive revisions to Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, in addition to a series of controversial amendments introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener.
Attend the Planning Commission hearing:
When: Thursday, December 8, 12:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #9)
Where: City Hall, Commission Chambers, Room 400
Why: To voice concern over Supervisor Wiener’s proposed amendments that would roll back protections for historic resources in San Francisco.
Email the Planning Commission: If you are unable to attend the hearing, please email the Commissioners (with a copy to Desiree Smith at email@example.com):
Christina Olague firstname.lastname@example.org
Ron Miguel email@example.com
Michael J. Antonini Wordweaver21@aol.com
Gwyneth Borden firstname.lastname@example.org
Kathrin Moore email@example.com
Hisashi Sugaya firstname.lastname@example.org
Rodney Fong email@example.com
OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendments that would impose unique procedural hurdles on the designation of historic districts:
Although only 11 local historic districts have been created in 45 years, Supervisor Wiener would require 66% owner support before community groups can nominate a historic district.
The intent of Proposition J was to update Articles 10 and 11 to reflect best practices nationwide; the 66% owner consent threshold is a relic of the original ordinance adopted in 1967 and is out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice today.
Other procedural hoops proposed by Supervisor Wiener, including a mandatory written vote or survey of all property owners, would make the process more costly and time-consuming.
No other zoning changes in San Francisco are subject to similar owner consent requirements; historic districts should be treated the same as other neighborhood planning initiatives. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to make compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards optional:
The proposed language would effectively eliminate any minimum standards for the treatment of historic buildings in San Francisco. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to exempt large classes of projects from historic review altogether, including downtown housing development projects:
The proposed language is a misguided attempt to exempt an entire class of projects from historic review, clearing the path for demolition, insensitive alterations and new construction regardless of the significance of the structure or the surrounding historic district.
For further backgroud and to read Heritage’s past comment letters, go to sfheritage.org”
I’ve never used the Verizon – I’m not sure what makes it so great, you know, the way people say it’s so great.
Or some people, anyway:
No matter. We all win when more cell towers go up, right? Hurray!
As here, with the news of a new cellie in the southern part of Marin County.
Of course it’s somewhat absurd to consider each installation a victory over the NIMBYs, but that’s what it’s come to. (When you’re participating in trench warfare, even moving the battle line forward 100 yards is cause for celebration.)
Here it is, a full-fledged press release for just one (1) tower going up.
“New Cell Site Helps Sausalito, California, Residents and Visitors Make More Calls, Download More Apps and Stay Connected
WALNUT CREEK, Calif., July 28, 2011 – Calling, downloading apps and surfing the web on the Verizon Wireless 3G network is now easier and faster for residents and travelers in the San Francisco Bay Area thanks to a new cell site, Sausalito, California. The site expands 3G wireless coverage and capacity along Highway 101, Highway 1 and Tennessee Valley Road.
Verizon Wireless has invested more than $5.7 billion in its California network since being founded in 2000. Nationally, the company has invested more than $65 billion over that same period to increase the coverage and capacity of its network, and to add new services.
In Northern California, the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network covers more than five million people. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 4G LTE coverage extends south to San Jose and east to Oakland. In addition, Verizon’s 4G LTE footprint recently expanded in the Bay Area to include parts of Marin and Solano Counties, as well as Fresno and Sacramento. For more information, please visit: www.verizonwireless.com/4G.
Verizon Wireless on Twitter
To stay up-to-date on Verizon Wireless news in Northern California, Northern Nevada and Hawai’i, follow @VZWheidi on Twitter at http://twitter.com/VZWheidi.
For the latest network-related news, information and upgrades follow @VZWNetwork on Twitter at http://twitter.com/VZWNetwork.
About Verizon Wireless
Verizon Wireless operates the nation’s fastest, most advanced 4G network and largest, most reliable 3G network. The company serves 106.3 million total wireless connections, including 89.7 million retail customers. Headquartered in Basking Ridge, N.J., with 83,000 employees nationwide, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications (NYSE, NASDAQ: VZ) and Vodafone (LSE, NASDAQ: VOD). For more information, visit www.verizonwireless.com. To preview and request broadcast-quality video footage and high-resolution stills of Verizon Wireless operations, log on to the Verizon Wireless Multimedia Library at www.verizonwireless.com/
So, after it’s all final, will a handful of damnable NIMBYs in the Western Addition actually sue us over the new and improved Booker T. Washington Community Service Center at 800 Presidio?
What do you have, something in your deeds from King George III about how nothing can ever change in San Francisco without your approval?
We’ll just have to wait and see how your lawsuit works out and how much it’s going to cost the City and County.
Go to Hell, NIMBYs.
Go to Hell, you fucking NIMBYs.
Here’s my crude rendering of what the new Booker T should look like:
Was having eight stories a bluff? I don’t know. We’ll never know now.
Anyway, Bon courage, Booker T. Washington Community Service Center!
(And Gaia Bless You, Western Addition non-NIMBY Lauren Spurchise.)
Well, here’s the other viewpoint, from that blog what doesn’t allow The People to make comments, what gets five-figures a year of taxpayer money to express its leader’s political views, what’s run by the King of the Tenderloin, the NIMBY King, who lives in a six-bedroom, four-bath mansion somewhere in the East Bay, fair ‘nough.
Hey, NIMBYs, infrastructure isn’t beautiful.
Click to expand
Is this what the NIMBYs want more of, laughable infrastructure?
Via Sunglint: “‘What is this, Mumbai?” Said by a visiting Canadian engineer while looking out my study window in the Mission”
How about this, NIMBY’s? Why don’t you get together and deal with AT&T on a more local basis, the way your elected and appointed officials have already worked out. Frankly, I don’t care if you want to shake down T for money in my hood, if you all want to hold connectivity hostage to your demands, cause I don’t want the U-Verse.
But other people do. Try to not be so selfish, you NIMBYs.
Try to think of something besides your precious real estate, you fucking NIMBYs.