Posts Tagged ‘june 1’

Vandalized Panhandle Playground Slide Crisis Enters Its Second Month – Won’t Somebody PLEASE Think of the Children?

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

Amy Stephenson of Hoodline (fka uppercasing) has the deets on the The Case Of The Missing Panhandle Slides

Now here’s how the purple slides looked back in happier times, before The Attack of May 2014:

But then, sometime at the end of May, I’m guessing May 30th or May 31st, you know, the weekend, some vandal(s) (I’m guessing “young punks” or “hippies”) put a giant hole in the leftmost slide. Ouch!

So, first it was all like this…

…and then it was all like this – an even bigger hole:

But then on the following Monday (June 2nd), somebody from SFGov (DPW? RPD? SFPD?) came along and added some red DANGER tape:

And then soon after that, up went the plywood and then somebody came along and did a more permanent fix and so that’s how things look today, near the end of June.

Now I’m just assuming that the hole was the result of vandalism, but I don’t figure how else it could have happened.

(Can I blame SFGov for the hole? Nope. Not at all.)

(Can I find fault with how SFGov was/is handling the issue? Nope. Not at all.)

IMO, fixing these slides proper would be a big job, so simply getting another big old piece of plastic might be the best course of action. And that might take a while. I’m figuring a resolution by the end of July is reasonable – sorry kids.

In mitigation, the playground still has one working slide.

In the meantime, WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

This One’s Optimistic: Rio Grande Bar of Market Street Says, “June 1, 2012-”

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

That’s the opening date for the Rio Grande.

See?

Click to expand

When will it close?

Well, considering its location in the Mid-Market, I’ll bet on 2013.

But, Prove Me Wrong, Children

Prove Me Wrong.

 

Homer Simpson’s Donuts on Sale at Krispy Kreme – Life Imitates Art

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

Which Limited Edition Krispy Kreme doughnut, Strawberry Iced or Blueberry Iced, looks more Homer Simpsonesque?

img_7185-copy

Click to expand

Whether it’s shocking pink or passionate purple - either treat would make a happy Homer. 

popup_fresh_and_fruity

Available until August 16, 2009

The Pros and Cons of Progress at the Presidio Main Post – A Kind of Dialogue

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

This recent post here regarding the Presidio inspired a correspondent to take pen to paper (so to speak) and leave a comment. Below are the words of “PresidioPal” along with some queries. (Surprisingly, he’s not a NIMBY.) Anyway, enjoy.

The mighty, historic Great Parking Lot of the Presidio is jeopardized by the Main Post Plan. The Presidio Trust just might unpave this paradise and put up a…lawn. Heaven forfend. What happened was the Army put it in and then left. Are we bound to have it forever?

Says PP:

“If we are talking about the “decay” of the historic character of the Presidio, which is a rare national historic landmarks district chosen for the layer upon layer of American history visible on Main Post…”

What does that mean to people – landmark status? Why should people care about this? The historic character of the South was Jim Crow laws (not that we didn’t have James Crow laws outside the South, but that’s another story)  - would the “historic character” argument be useful for maintaining segregation? Would you like to turn the Presidio itself into a museum, where nothing ever changes? Isn’t it an underpopulated Land of Wind and Ghosts now?

“…the Fisher art museum…”

Isn’t the name of the proposed museum Contemporary Art Museum of the Presidio (CAMP). Isn’t it specifically not called The Fisher? Isn’t that one of its selling points? Isn’t it going to have like a “b” as in boy billion dollars of art in it or something, that’s not otherwise available for public view?

  ”…a hotel…”

Or lodge, some people are calling it a lodge, in keeping with the whole “park” theme of the Presidio. What’s wrong with a lodge in a park?

“and a modern movie house”

Or “modernized,” I’ll give you that. Didn’t it used to seat something like 1000 GIs back in the day? Do you think your millionaire NIMBY allies would like to have all those blue-collar types back in the Presidio in “their neighborhood” near the houses they inherited from their parents fair and square? Isn’t it true that the Presidio Theatre seats zero people today and that’s the way the owners of competing theatres in San Francisco like it? Isn’t it true theater owners kicked in money to oppose the Main Post Plan because they don’t want competition? Is that a good reason to oppose opening up a small three-screener that would seat far fewer people than the 1000 it was built for back in the day?

“…ADD to the “decay” by introducing non-historic elements that detract from the historic site itself…”

Does the non-historic TransAmerica pyramid detract from historic San Francisco? Should nothing ever change in town? Did a collection of histrionic societies, millionaire NIMBYs and movie theatre owners object to the Louvre Pyramid in Cour Napolean? Probably, but isn’t the pyramid a good thing, despite its “non-historic” status?

“If you take “decay” to mean delaying needed repairs to historic structures, the new buildings have nothing to do with that.”

You and your NIMBY allies are fighting for the status quo, whether you realize it or not. Congress, in its wisdom, could have put your organization in charge of the entire Presidio. It didn’t though, right? Do you acknowledge that?  Why should anybody pay attention to your unfunded mandates? Your half-baked if-we-had-some-ham-we-could-have-a-ham-sandwich, if-we-also-had-some-bread-but-only-if-five-million-dollars-fell-from-the-sky alternative plans? Back in the 1990s, Congress did something quite unique with the Presidio. Of course, it could have sold off a lot of land to condo developers. Would you prefer that?  

“Let’s get it straight, the proposal is for three major new structures in a national historic landmark.”

Is that really an argument? Shouldn’t you go further and explain why people should care about national historic landmark status? And actually, it’s more than three structures, but I get what you mean. Is the 700-car parking lot historic? Was the Burger King historic? Should we bring it back to honor the military?

“Why not a contemporary museum on Alamo Square?”

The reason why is that millionaire NIMBYs and the Planning Commission would tear that one apart. That’s the short answer.

If I had any advice for the Main Post, it would be this – lively up yourself, mon! This may or may not happen, depending upon the lawyers, the judges and the juries associated with the forthcoming lawsuits. 

We’ll see.

The Presidio: Public Comment Period for the Main Post Update Ends June 1st

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

The Presidio Trust has just announced a last call for comments about ending the arrested decay of the Presidio Main Post – so finish up your drinks and get your comments in by June 1, 2009.

END OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

June 1, 2009 is the end of public comment period for several key documents related to the Main Post planning process. Three draft documents have been circulating for public comment since February 27, 2009:

1. Revised Draft Main Post Update
2. Draft Supplement to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Preferred Alternative
3. Revised Draft Finding of Effect

The Revised Draft Main Post Update reflects the land uses and improvements the Presidio Trust intends to pursue to re-establish the Main Post as the heart of the park. Through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Trust identified a “preferred alternative” that is detailed in the Revised Update and analyzed in the Draft Supplement to the SEIS. The Revised Update is also analyzed as the “undertaking” in the Revised Draft Finding of Effect; prepared under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as part of the assessment phase of the Section 106 consultation.

In June 2008, the Trust released an earlier draft of the Main Post Update and a Draft SEIS which analyzed a range of alternatives. An earlier Draft Finding of Effect was released in August 2008, which analyzed the effects on historic resources of all the alternatives that were presented in the Draft SEIS. All documents can be found on the Trust’s website: www.presidio.gov.

Comments will be accepted on all documents, both current and past drafts. Commentators are free to organize their comments in any way they choose. They may comment separately on the different documents, or address all documents at one time. Commentators are also welcome to address specific issues or comment on specific proposals. The Trust will consider and respond to comments on all of the drafts when developing the final documents.

NEXT STEPS

NHPA Section 106 Consultation: Finalizing the Finding of Effect and Resolving Adverse Effects
A Final Finding of Effect will be issued early this summer, formally completing the assessment phase of the Section 106 consultation under the NHPA. The Historic Resources section of the Final SEIS will be consistent with the Final Finding of Effect. The Final Finding of Effect will be available on the Trust’s website and will be sent to all consulting parties.

The next phase of the Section 106 consultation process is the resolution phase during which consulting parties identify ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects presented in the Finding of Effect. The resolution phase results in an agreement document that establishes parameters for how projects can proceed. A schedule for the remainder of the Section 106 consultation will be issued to all consulting parties early in June.

NEPA: Finalizing the SEIS and Main Post Update
Over the course of the summer, the Trust will finalize the environmental review, issuing a Final SEIS and Final Main Post Update sometime in the fall. The Final SEIS includes a response to all comments. A notice of availablity will be issued once the final documents are released. The final documents will also be available on the Trust’s website. After the final environmental documents are issued, a 30-day no action period ensues.

Record of Decision
The Trust will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) only after both the NEPA and NHPA processes are completed. The ROD memorializes the decision made by the Presidio Trust Board of Directors and clearly articulates the actions that the Trust will pursue in the Main Post and the reasoning behind the Trust’s decision. Once the ROD is adopted, the Final Main Post Update will amend the Presidio Trust Management Plan for the Main Post District.