I don’t know what’s behind this:
(Yeah, but even so, you just do a “no endorsement” deal, right?)
And this is Chuck Reed’s daughter, the 39-year-old the Air Force Lt. Col? Hatchi matchi!
All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:
SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco. The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees. In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission. The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.
In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:
“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions. It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide. San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively. With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid. That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere. While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”
But they sure didn’t look it back in 2012.
They looked so, so sad.
Click to expand
I hadn’t realized the intensity of their movement until this night at the San Francisco Public Library on Page Street in the Upper Haight area.
And then, in 2013, they won, big-time.
So what’s next for 8 Washington – what’ll happen with the parcel?
I know not.
Oh, so here’s what the national media doesn’t know about the sainted San Francisco Planning Commission:
It’s a political organization run by the Mayor of San Francisco.
So, is it really”thoughtful,” “considered,” and “professional?”
Here’s an example for you, national MSM.
The SFMTA is similar to Planning Commission except the SFMTA takes care of transit in SF.
The SFMTA recently had a big push to turn on parking meters on Sundays instead of having them flash “FREE PARKING” from Saturday night to Monday morning every week. (They had studies and everything.) So then people had to pay for parking meters on Sundays. Fine.
But then the Mayor of San Francisco said he didn’t like having meters charge for parking on Sundays. And then the SFMTA voted, unanimously, to make Sunday parking free again less than a year after deciding to charge for Sunday parking.
So similar things happen with the Planning Commish? Yes – it;s the same dynamic.
So, IRL, the SFMTA and the Planning Commission are captives of the Mayor of San Francisco. So that’s why builders donate money to and say nice things about the Mayor of San Francisco.
If you aren’t aware of this, national MSM, then you don’t understand what happened with the 8 Washington proposal, just saying.
|WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2014, 7:30 PM|
|Texas Governor Rick Perry: Energy Independence In America|
|InterContinental Mark Hopkins Hotel, San Francisco
|Rick Perry, Governor, Texas|
Greg Dalton, Founder and Host, Climate One, The Commonwealth Club – Moderator
Texas Governor Rick Perry believes his state is leading the way for America in creating energy independence by producing crude oil and electricity in many forms, including natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuel and hydroelectric generation. In a recent letter to President Obama, Governor Perry wrote that the current federal policies will “incapacitate – and possibly eliminate – critical sources of energy while stifling job creation and threatening American energy policy.” Governor Perry has been in public office for over two decades, including 14 years as governor. He served in the US. Air Force and is a graduate of Texas A&M University. He will discuss energy and his ideas on other political issues of the day, including his experiences as a Republican candidate on the 2012 presidential campaign trail and his view of the road ahead.
Location: InterContinental Mark Hopkins Hotel, One Nob Hill, at California and Mason Streets, San Francisco
Snoop Youth Football League? News to me.
Plus, an “auction of Snoop Dogg’s paintings?”
Tonight’s soiree should be quite an event.
All the deets:
“MEDIA ADVISORY: SNOOP DOGG, JOE MONTANA, RON CONWAY, DR. ROBERT “BIKO” BAKER & MORE COME TOGETHER TO DISCUSS GUN VIOLENCE
Leaders from Tech, Music, Sports, and Politics Support “No Guns Allowed”
Program at SF Press Conference on May 29
Special Guests Include Mayor Willie Brown, MC Hammer, Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott, Swimmer Diana Nyad and more
San Francisco, CA - May 28, 2014 - Entertainment icon Snoop Dogg, NFL Hall-of-Famer Joe Montana, sf.citi founder Ron Conway and Executive Director, League of Young Voters Education Fund, Dr. Robert “Biko” Baker, will be the featured hosts at a May 29th benefit to raise money and awareness of the “No Guns Allowed” campaign. Other special guests to attend include former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, recording artist MC Hammer, Hall-of-Famer Ronnie Lott, swimmer Diana Nyad, and more.
The evening will be kicked off by a press conference discussing gun violence solutions, followed by a live auction of Snoop Dogg’s paintings and other exclusive items to benefit both the “No Guns Allowed” initiative and the Snoop Youth Football League.”
Ever more deets, after the jump
CW Nevius, “a sportswriter from the United States” “known for his breezy writing style” has gone bonkers over Prop B, which will require Mayor Ed Lee and his appointees to disallow building height violations on the waterfront, you know, without voter approval.
I don’t know why he cares so much about this issue. Mayor Ed Lee, who embarrassingly campaigned for 8 Washington with Gavin Newsom, has learned his lesson and, in fact, isn’t even opposing Prop B, you know, officially. But Neve, well, I’m guessing he might do one or two more Prop B columns afore the election, and then he’ll do more about the forthcoming lawsuit against Prop B, oh well. You’d think Neve would come out and support simply having no height limits at all, if he’s so concerned about this issue.
“Richard and Barbara Stewart, the wealthy neighborhood NIMBYs who donated over $440,000 to stop the 8 Washington condominiums, are at it again. Official election contribution filings from this week show that the Stewarts have chipped in $143,750 in support of Proposition B, the ballot measure that would require a public vote on any potential structure on port land that exceeds current height limits.
OR, IN OTBER WORDS, THE BALLOT MEASURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE POLITICIANS AND THEIR APPOINTEES TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE ALREADY-EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE VOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO.
With the Stewarts’ help, the Yes on Prop. B alliance has raised nearly $230,000. Compare that to Prop. B opponents, whose total is a $47,633, according to documents filed at the San Francisco Ethics Commission on Thursday. So much for the lofty talk from Prop. B supporters about listening to the voice of the people.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, CW NEVIUS? ED LEE DIDN’T “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE” ABOUT 8 WASHINGTON AND NOW HE’S GETTING SPANKED BY THE VOTERS.
It sounds more like the voice of two people who live on the waterfront and want to protect their turf.
WELL, THAT’S THE SYSTEM, RIGHT NEVIUS?
So forget city government, the Port, the Planning Commission and elected officials.
WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE VOTERS MEANT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR HEIGHT LIMITS, NEVIUS?
If you want to build something along the San Francisco waterfront, it seems you’d better pay a visit to the Stewarts.
OR, WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS?
And here’s the kicker. A recent poll shows that Prop. B is in trouble.
WHAT’S THAT, IS THAT THE SOUND OF ANOTHER FLIP FROM THE EAST BAY’S #1 FLIP-FLOPPER? LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.” DIDN’T YOU WRITE THAT JUST LAST MONTH, NEVE?
Still, a case can be made that this is either going to be a lot closer than a many deep thinkers expected or – and this would be a wonderful and surprising turn of events – it might actually lose.
ARE YOU CALLING YOURSELF A “DEEP THINKER,” NEVE? SURE SEEMS THAT WAY. LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.”
Begin with the structure that started the whole controversy – the Warriors new arena.
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE OUR MAYOR AND FORMER MAYORS STARTED THIS “CONTROVERSY” BY GOING AROUND THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE VOTERS ONE TIME TOO MANY – IS THAT A POSSIBILITY, NEVE?
“At first blush, if you say, “Should we vote on everything?’ people are in favor,” said Eric Jaye, an adviser to the No on B group. “Then they think about it and say, How’s that going to work?’”
WELL MAYBE THE MAYOR SHOULDN’T HAVE THE BACKERS OF 8 WASHINGTON FUND HIS PET PROJECTS. TO REPEAT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? WHY NOT HAVE THE BUILDERS RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS, WHY IS THAT SUCH A HARD THING TO DO? RESPECT THE LIMITS AND THEN THERE’S NO NEED FOR ANY VOTE, RIGHT?
Well, I can give you the worst case scenario. If Prop. B wins it will be the second huge victory for the Art Agnos-Aaron Peskin-Golinger crowd. Developers aren’t stupid. If they really want to build something on the waterfront, they will have to recognize that that waterfront alliance has the political juice. Rather than put a potential development up for election and hope for the best, they will want to get the blessing of that faction, particularly the Stewarts. The result could be a series of backroom meetings where Agnos and others meet with the builders, work out an arrangement – with concessions to the alliance of course – and then put the brokered deal on the ballot with the group’s endorsement.
SO NEVIUS IS NOW AGAINST “BACKROOM MEETINGS?” REALLY? DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO ALL THE POLS ON THE RIGHT-SIDE-OF-THE-AISLE POLITICAL FACTION CW NEVIUS IS ALWAYS CHEERLEADING FOR?
Which sounds like you’re setting up a little back room protection racket to me. And yet there is a feeling that Prop. B is taking on water.
LEAVE US REVIEW: “Prop. B will win easily, and that’s a shame.”
If Prop. B loses it will be a bombshell – especially for Richard and Barbara Stewart.
ALL RIGHT, NEVIUS, WHATEVER YOU SAY…
This trial of shutting down Lombard Street to tourists looks unstoppable now.
Some rich property owners in Russian Hill have had their aesthetic sensibilities offended by those, those people known as tourists. So these richers want to gate off Lombard Street and make part of it a private.
Except they don’t want to pay for making it a private road. Oh. And the purpose of roads in California is so that people can use them – it’s like burned into the vehicle code or someplace.
So the next best thing for these white millionaires is this trial to cut down on tourism. And the way to get that is to turn an aesthetic issue into a safety issue.
For example here’s how this works when rich white property owners decide they don’t want telephone poles and MUNI wires lousing up their enclaves. Here we go, from “Report of Meeting with Supervisors Farrell and Chiu”
“Supervisor Farrell is also looking for ways to pitch it beyond aesthetics.”
So then the people who don’t want to see telephone poles and MUNI poles starting talking up the “safety issue.”
You see, ’cause if you tell the truth about your motives, then you give the rabble, the masses, the Proles a chance to undo your self-described “improvements.”
OTOH, if you say your concerns are about safety, then your biases will be given more deference if and when it comes time for higher authorities to give a stamp of approval. Of course, sometimes this safety argument works, sometimes it doesn’t:
1880: “There are too many Chinese working in San Francisco” – let’s do something about it.
2014: “There are too many Chinese* visiting Hyde and Lombard” – let’s do something about it.
One problem with district Supervisor elections is that a handful of property owners can have an outsized influence over matters that should be decided on a citywide basis. If tourists, all those millions past, present and future, threw house parties for Mark Farrell to raise money in, then maybe he’d consider what they want.
But they don’t, so he doesn’t.
*And Euros and upper-middle-class-and-lower domestic tourists as well, but just look at the worst case scenario photo here.
All right, c’mon, “Apply to be a Poll Worker!“
“Attend one training class that will clearly explain Poll Worker duties.”
“All Poll Workers must arrive at the polling place no later than 6:00 a.m. on Election Day. Although the polls officially close at 8:00 p.m., Election Day does not end until all materials have been picked up (usually around 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m.). There will be meal breaks during the day.
So let’s do the math:
Training in Civic Center before the election: 3 hours or so.
Game Day: 15.5 hours, less breaks = 8 hours straight time and let’s say 6.5 hours of OT at time-and-a-half
So what’s that, 3+8+6.5+3.25 = 20.75 effective hours of work?
And what is appointed Mayor Ed Lee offering these poor souls? Well apparently no pay at all for the mandatory training, and then:
“Depending on your assignment, Poll Workers are paid between $142 and $195 for working on Election Day.”
Is this a joke, you ask?
No, Gentle Reader, it’s not. They’re srsly.
I cry foul.
In any event, if you’re an inspector you can make a bit more, but then you gotta deal with high school seniors with their Katy Perry and cell phones and whathaveyou. They’re intelligent, you know, but lazy. And if their work doesn’t add up the way it should shortly after 8 PM, well that’s tough cookies – you’ll hear the beep beeps from the waiting cars and then the kids are gone and you, the vaunted elections inspector, will be left to fix things up.
Anyway, you get something like this for your troubles …
…but you won’t get minimum wage.
Now why is that?