Insert “sliver” building here, right in the middle, just to the left of Geary:
1481 Post is like 8 Washington, and yet not like 8 Washington…
Insert “sliver” building here, right in the middle, just to the left of Geary:
1481 Post is like 8 Washington, and yet not like 8 Washington…
Take a close look at this motorcyclist’s helmet on Geary – in between the two tall buildings, you can see the coming construction site of 1481 Post.
Dude gives off a Hank Schrader vibe:
Some people who opposed the 8 Washington Wall on the Waterfront project just might support a tall spire on the top of Cathedral Heights, right?
I think so.
Anyway, all moto helmets should be chromed, huh?
Well, here it is, the proposed 1481 Post Street, from the ADCO Group.
And here’s your welcome:
“Welcome to 1481 Post Street: An Iconic Residence Reflecting Years of Neighborhood Input and an Innovative Approach to Urban Growth.”
And here’s one possible future for Geary and Gough, as “seen” from our Chinese Consulate on Laguna:
Click to expand
And here comes the backlash, here’s the concomitant anti-1481 Post Street group, SOS Cathedral Hill, or SAVE CATHEDRAL HILL, or something like that.
That’s what you call a dramaturgical dyad, redolent of 8 Washington, IMO.
BTW, this group is claiming “No Community Outreach,” but what they really mean is no community outreach this month or no community outreach right now.
If anybody has a non-maudlin argument or anecdote or something against this building, I’d like to hear it. ‘Cause, so far, I haven’t heard it yet.
It seems to me that 1481 Post would slot right in with all the others in this part of the Western Addition, in this part of town betwixt the Tenderloin and J-Town…
Remember Oskar Schindler and the Third Reich? Would you consider that whole deal a successful “public-private partnership?” I mean, was it “world-class?” Did it address “government pain points?” IDK.
Anyway, here’s the latest – I didn’t see this one coming. (Perhaps Con Ronway did. IDK.)
“SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR ANNOUNCES PROGRAM TO INTRODUCE WORLD-CLASS ENTREPRENEURS TO THE $142 BILLION PUBLIC SECTOR MARKET
Mayor Ed Lee invites entrepreneurs to develop technology-enabled products and services for government, the largest consumer of products and services in the nation
SAN FRANCISCO – September 6th, 2013 – Mayor Edwin M. Lee, in collaboration with the White House and other strategic partners, today announced San Francisco’s Entrepreneurship-in-Residence (EIR) program. “We need the top entrepreneurs to work with us on opportunities that are actual pain points and needs of government. San Francisco’s EIR program advances our role and vision as the Innovation Capital of the World,” said Mayor Ed Lee.
The program is inspired by President Obama’s call, “We’ve got to have the brightest minds to help solve our biggest challenges.” San Francisco’s EIR program will select talented entrepreneurial teams and help them develop technology-enabled products and services that can capitalize on the $142 billion public sector market.
“San Francisco’s program is one of the first EIR programs within government, who is by far, the largest customer of products and services in the nation,” commented Jay Nath, San Francisco’s Chief Innovation Officer. “The entrepreneurial products and services developed through San Francisco’s EIR program should drive significant impact such as increased revenue, enhanced productivity or meaningful cost savings.”
The program plans to attract world-class entrepreneurs and technologists by providing them with direct access to government needs and opportunities, staff and their expertise, in addition to product development, ramp-up support, and insights into a gold mine of government problems and opportunities through the City and County of San Francisco.
“Products and services that successfully solve issues faced by San Francisco can easily expand to addressing similar needs of other cities and states across the nation in addition to the private sector,” said Rahul Mewawalla, a senior executive with leadership experiences across Fortune 500 and high growth companies who is leading the program. “We expect to drive significant innovation and growth in areas of pressing importance such as data, mobile and cloud services, healthcare, education, transportation, energy and infrastructure.”
San Francisco’s EIR program will offer selected teams mentorship from senior public leaders across the Mayor’s office and San Francisco departments and from private sector leaders with experience at companies such as McKinsey & Company, Nokia, NBC Universal, General Electric, Yahoo!, and Goldman Sachs. The program expects to select 3 to 5 teams and announce the selected teams in early October, during San Francisco’s Innovation Month. The program will run 16 weeks from mid-October, 2013 through mid-February, 2014.
Entrepreneurial teams are invited to learn more and apply at http://entrepreneur.sfgov.org http://entrepreneur.sfgov.org
The following are just examples of problems facing government. Applicants do not have to solve these particular problems. It is most important to clearly demonstrate how your product could benefit from this program and that it can solve a real challenge.
The selection process will be through an open and competitive application process. Applications will be used to assess the qualifications, fit and likelihood of success of the applicants.
Selection will be made by SF EIR selection group composed of public and private sector leaders with innovation, Fortune 500, startup and venture capital experience.
We will be reviewing applications on a rolling basis. It is in the applicant’s best interest to apply early. We will announce selected teams in early October, with the program beginning in mid-October and wrapping up in mid-February.
Entrepreneurs can expect to have access to a range of experts and advisors in the private and public sectors. These industry and government leaders will help your team define and achieve success in the civic innovation space with San Francisco agencies and departments as your key focus group and customers over the four month program. Below are just a handful of currently committed mentors.
The hard-core NIMBYs at San Francisco Beautiful (our Comcast monopoly’s L’il Buddy) ended up going two for two yesterday in their crusade ensure that dial-up internet service is the best that some San Franciscans can get. That is, they won a stay from Superior Court Judge Harold Khan temporarily blocking the installation of AT&T sidewalk boxes and they’ll have no requirement to post a bond to keep their stay.
This is, of course, despite the fact that the Board of Supervisors recently approved the installation.
Let’s hear the reaction from AT&T Regional Vice President, Marc Blakeman:
“Residents across the City, as well as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, have voiced support for competition and choice when it comes to TV, high speed internet and digital phone service.
Despite today’s decision to issue a temporary stay, AT&T believes it ultimately will prevail in the litigation and it remains committed to bringing San Francisco a next generation IP network.”
Which, you know, sounds good to me, but I’m not a NIMBY.
So, when you see these existing boxes, which Judge Khan has no control over, what’s your reaction? Do you say, well there’s graffiti on a telephone box or an electricity box or a mail box so we shouldn’t have telephones and we shouldn’t have electricity and we shouldn’t have mail service? I don’t know.
Click to expand
Let’s hear from the NIMBY side of things after the jump, but I warn you, it’s barely legible.
On It Goes…
Well, here it is, via Noe Valley SF, a Hyper-Local Guide to Noe Valley … With Attitude, it’s Supervisor Scott Wiener’s address to the NIMBY associations of District 8 regarding his approval of U-Verse Internet/TV/Phone service for San Francisco after all those years of delay.
See below – it goes on and on.
I myself don’t recall seeing too many AT&T boxes in the 415 with graffiti. The shots produced by the NIMBYs generally are from out of town / out of state. Anyway, here’s one of the genuine AT&T utility boxes already in town. It sort of has graffiti:
Via Eric Fischer – click to expand
Leave us begin:
From: Date: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM
Subject: My vote on the AT&T issue
I’m sending this email to a number of neighborhood association leaders and other involved folks in District 8, in order to explain my vote yesterday on the AT&T environmental appeal. I would appreciate it if you would forward this email to your boards, memberships, and neighbors who have an interest in this issue. The voters are entitled to an explanation of all of my votes (and I cast many each week), including votes as controversial as this one. People can agree or disagree, but they deserve an explanation.
I will start by saying that I struggled mightily with this issue. Like many of you, I do not like these boxes, or any of the utility boxes that are already on our streets. Part of me very much wanted to vote against AT&T and for an EIR simply because I dislike the boxes. But one of the commitments that I made to myself, and to the voters, was that I’m not just going to be a reactive elected official. I committed that I was going to be the kind of elected official who tried to find solutions to hard issues. I also committed to myself early on that I would not abuse CEQA by ordering EIRs where the law doesn’t support it simply because I have policy issues with the underlying project. As described below, ordering an EIR here probably would have been illegal and certainly would have fed into our City and State’s addiction to environmental review, with the effect that good projects (including public projects) are delayed, killed, or made much more expensive than they need to be.
The issue here was very hard — pretty much everyone agrees that Comcast is in desperate need of competition while also agreeing that these boxes stink. There were also incredibly strong views on both sides of this issue. I received many emails from opponents, passionately and articulately describing the issues with the boxes, and from proponents, passionately and articulately describing why we need the service and competition. This was a no-win vote for me in terms of popularity contests. Either way I voted was going to make one group or the other upset with me. But, for better or for worse, casting controversial votes is what we do at the Board. If I wanted to be loved by everyone all the time, I wouldn’t have run for office.
And, this issue pointed to a major problem we have in San Francisco. We do a bad job managing our sidewalks. Our departments don’t coordinate well. We don’t have a strong master plan. We haven’t fully implemented the Better Streets Plan. That plan is how we should be managing our sidewalks and deciding what to put on them and where. Not through CEQA, which is a blunt instrument that doesn’t get you much other than delay and expense, but through actually having a plan for our sidewalks. As described below, through a strong and well-planned permitting system, we can do that.
So, why did I, in the end, tip in favor of voting to reject the appeal?”
[UPDATE: And oh, yesterday's vote at the Board o' Supes will have no effect upon cell phone service in San Francisco, despite what some might tell you. Uverse is about TV and wired Internet and wired phone service, for the most part. It's FttN, Fiber to the Node, bro-ham. It's not Fiber to the Cell Phone Antenna, no, not at all...]
The selfish, aging, rich, white, property-owning NIMBYs of San Francisco are having a tough go of it in the 415 during 2011. I mean, we just had the approval of the Booker T. Washington Community Service Center and the (effective) approval of the King Edward II project and, now, a whole mess of utility boxes from AT&T.
Am I saying that San Francisco should “push projects into neighborhoods without input?”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The thing is though, even when you allow the NIMBY’s to give input before you start building a community service center or apartment building or brace of utility boxes, they’re still not happy.
Isn’t that funny?
Don’t you think that ugly people from San Francisco Beautiful had more than a little input on the long-delayed project to bring regular San Franciscans U-Verse Internet and TV and phone and WiFi service? (Way too much input, IMO.)
Anyway, Sunglint was all over yesterday’s action at the Board of Supervisors. See below. (Sunglint is not without strong feelings on the matter, so you’ve been warned.)
Is this an AT&T box? No it’s not. Should area NIMBY’s want it banned? Well, not if they want electricity:
Click to expand
Here’s an excerpt from Sunglint, who later goes into what was behind each pro-NIMBY vote:
“At approximately 4:45PST, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the exemption determination for AT&T’s once-in-a-century telephone infrastructure upgrade project, aka “Project Lightspeed.” This means that AT&T can now start to implement their plan to upgrade the telecom infrastructure in the city, with the goal of delivering higher-speed 24Mbs DSL service within all San Francisco districts. AT&T also calls this as “Uverse” which can be any combination of television, telephone, and internet.
The final proposal seems to allow 495 cabinets to be installed throughout the city of San Francisco by AT&T. Multiple potential sites for each cabinet location are to be evaluated. When AT&T seeks an excavation permit from the DPW, besides doing the usual permit stuff, DPW will also notify that site’s supervisor. Then, that supervisor signs an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with AT&T regarding the site, or one of the alternative sightings are considered. Something like that: the specific details seem fuzzy. There seems to be a formal and sane DPW appeals process, and a my-supervisor-is-crazy-curve-ball appeals process.
Voting against were the following sorry lot of supervisors, with their comments below.
District 1: Eric Mar
District 3: David Chiu
District 5: Ross Mirkarimi
District 6: Jane Kim
District 11: John Avalos
Note to the supervisors listed above: I will be voting against you in future elections, geography permitting, and consider your conduct in this matter anti-internet, anti-technology, anti-jobs: death eaters, all! Here are specific comments.”
Get Sunglint’s summary of comments here.
All right, I have to go talk a suicidal Comcast executive down from the roof right now. He’s yelling, “Millions, millions, our precious monopoly is going to lose millions!”
Oh, and after the jump, a list of NIMBY fellow travelers, the people who don’t want you to have high-speed Internet and whatnot.
Back in the day, Rob Anderson was The Most Hated Man In Town, ’cause he tied the City and County up in knots by insisting upon an Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan. He instigated a slam-dunk lawsuit (really, he was pretty much guaranteed victory) owing to the City trying to go around CA state law by just pretending that an EIR wasn’t necessary.
But eventually, after years, the required report got finished and that was that. IMO, he should have quit while he was ahead, but no, he and his lawyer said the EIR wasn’t good enough – they ended up losing on that issue. Still, you’d have to say he was one of the most successful NIMBYs in CA history.
Remember when he was on the front page of the national edition of the Wall Street Journal? Good times:
But that was then and this is now, so forget about Rob Anderson.
And now, today, ooh boy, that’s not going to go down well, no sir.
“I was pleasantly surprised by how there’s not a ‘no way, this is crazy, don’t do it’ feeling out there,” [Mike] Sallaberry said, according to Streetsblog.org, a pro-cycling website. But the bike coalition research, obtained using the open-records law, surveyed only 14 businesses — and it actually reveals very serious objections, which some survey respondents later reiterated in interviews.
To annoy drivers “and make it worse of a pain is not the solution,” Miloslavich said.
Robert Williams, owner of Panhandle Guitar, said: “Fell Street is dangerous to have bike lanes on.”
[SFMTA Spokesmodel Paul] Rose said he was not sure whether Sallaberry’s remarks had been correctly reported. Sallaberry was not available for comment.”
Wow, that’s all you can come up with? You’re “not sure whether the remarks had been correctly reported?”
Wow. That’s the last arrow in your quiver that you should be using, right? Oh, it was the only arrow you had?
Obviously, when the SFMTA and its affiliates decide to do a program, it’s the job of the SFMTA to push that program through come Hell or high water. If the program gets executed then the manager succeeded and if the program doesn’t get executed, then the manager failed – it doesn’t matter a whit whether or not the program itself is good or bad for the commonweal at that point. Not at all. What matters is that the SFMTA decided to do something. It’s the job of SFMTA employees to cheerlead and mislead and lie to get any particular program through.
Remember the traffic circles of the lower and upper Haights? Boy, they took out stop signs on Page Street and Waller and then you’d just have to guess at what drivers were going to do when they came upon the intersection. You see, drivers didn’t have to stop. Anyway, that crazy idea got voted down – it lost five times out of five – but all the people behind the stupid traffic circles could say is how “sad” it was that the traffic circles were such a failure.
The fact that they weren’t a good idea never seemed to occur to the people behind the traffic circles.
Fixing the eastbound Panhandle-to-Wiggle connector shouldn’t be that hard. Mostly, it’s about taking out some parking spaces or otherwise freeing up some more room. It’s not about “completing” Oak Street, it’s not about being the next “win-win” from the SFMTA. It’s about making compromises, it’s about winners and losers, it’s about costs and benefits.
Lying to people about the costs doesn’t benefit the people of San Francisco.
[Well, the can got kicked down the road today at the BoS of course. Oh well. BTW, can your neighbors band together to prevent you from getting your mail? Not that I know of. So why should your neighbors band together to prevent you from getting your Internet at faster than dial-up speed? I don't know. Once again it's Rich White Homeowners 1, You 0.]
I don’t know, I think I’ve weighed-in enough already on the whole AT&T LightSpeed / U-Verse situation. But anyway, once more into the breach, my friends, once more down to City Hall for another Board of Supervisors meeting, starting at 2:00 PM this afternoon.
Now I know this might come as a shock to the easily shocked homeowners at San Francisco Beautiful, but, you know, most of the existing AT&T utility boxes in town don’t have graffiti all over them.
And remember, there’s graffiti in town that’s on other, non-AT&T utility structures.
Can you imagine?
All right, let me be your Sightsee M.C. – let’s take a tour of the Western Addition, the NIMBYs’ Fortress of Reaction.
Check it, is this a graffitoed AT&T box? No it’s not:
Click to expand
So what, should we take it out to satisfy the millionaire homeowners across the street? You know, just do without whatever utility this utility box provides? Is that what you want, NIMBYs?
I think that one above is about electricity.
I know this one here is about electricity or gas, one or the other or both – see the new SmartMeter stuff? Is this array considered blight? So then we should live in the dark with candles, maybe?
Oh here we go, look at all this telephone pole “blight.” Should we get rid of land lines now?
Now, I don’t think you people need to watch any more TV than you already do. But U-Verse is a utility, right? Just like phone service and electrical and gas and whatnot, right?
So what gives wealthy, influential, white people* the right to put the kibosh on somebody’s Internet / Phone / Cable TV triple play for $99** a month?
That’s what I don’t know…
*What’s that NIMBY? You’re not wealthy? Oh yes you are! What’s that NIMBY? You’re not influential? Oh yes you are! You’ve got Supervisor Scott Wiener shaking in his boots, as ascared of you as he is of area dog owners. What’s that NIMBY? You’re not white? Oh, forget it, you already know you’re white, right NIMBY?
**For the first six months, but then, look out, brother!
Oh, look, yet another “utility box” on the sidewalks of San Francisco. But, kell domaje, it’s covered in graffiti. Let’s solve this problem by cancelling mail service to the 415 – does that make sense?
“My final words to SF Beautiful. Keep your hands off the neighborhoods of others. You don’t speak for us. We can speak for ourselves.”
Harsh. Now, I’m not sure how real a group the Ocean Beach Condominiums Homeowners Association is, but you can only get Comcast or dial-up internet out there near the ocean? Wow. Those poor devils, poor poor devils.
And, generally, do young people like judgmental homeowners associations? Apparently. (You mock twisted copper into the home? All right, but some people would like that. Deal with it. Who is stepping up for Fiber Into the Home or whatever they call it? Who is going to pay for that? Oh well, in the meantime, we’ll have AT&T as another choice.)
Anyway, appears as if those AT&T boxes will get approved today at the Board of Supes, but that will come with the chance that your neighbors will still say neigh and you won’t be able to get U-Verse after all.
Consider that a partial victory for Progress.