Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

From SaveMuni.com: “LAWSUIT FILED – MUNI’S CENTRAL SUBWAY PROJECT IS STILL NOT A DONE DEAL”

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

Here’s the latest on The Central Subway from SaveMUNI.com:

“SUMMARY: Despite Muni’s anticipated celebration of the receipt of the federal grant agreement for the Central Subway, SaveMuni.com cautions that the project is still not a done deal because, as set forth in the lawsuit, the current plan violates Section 4.113 of the San Francisco City Charter.

In approving its grant agreement (FFGA) for the subway, the federal government has opted to ignore the City Charter, which it is free to do. However, since Muni cannot ignore the City Charter, SaveMuni.com urges the agency to refrain from spending any federal funds on the project until it has a legally approved plan, because any and all federal funds spent on an unapproved project are at risk to being returned to the federal government.

BACKGROUND: On Wednesday October 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in Superior Court on behalf of SaveMuni.com. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) from extending a subway station into Union Square, a public park, without the approval of the San Francisco electorate as required under SF City Charter Section 4.113. If our lawsuit is successful, the SFMTA will have the choice of either finding a station location that does not intrude upon Union Square or putting the question to a public vote.

Other SaveMuni.com actions now under active consideration include a plan to qualify an initiative measure for next year’s San Francisco ballot that would bring a halt to the Central Subway project unless and until the SFMTA demonstrates that it has met the Muni operational performance standards set forth in the City Charter.

As SaveMuni.com representatives have stated many times in public testimony, and as set forth and laid out in detail on SaveMuni.com’s website, the violation referred to above is just one of many major flaws embedded in the SFMTA’s Central Subway program.

Until recently, we had expected that the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) would react to these flaws by rejecting the Central Subway as a candidate for a federal New Starts grant. Our confidence that the FTA would act appropriately in this matter was based on the explicit New Starts enabling legislation (49 USC §5303 Sections c, d and g) and on the FTA’s exemplary past record of guarding the federal treasury. In the past, the FTA acted under a comprehensive set of rigorous cost-effectiveness guidelines designed to prevent federal funds from being squandered on local boondoggles. Unless a candidate New Starts project met the standards it simply didn’t make it through the approval process. However, we have found that in recent years politics has watered down the FTA’s traditional record of professionalism.

For the past 5 years, the government of San Francisco has steadfastly refused to listen to a long and growing list of Central Subway opponents, including over 50 neighborhood groups, the Sierra Club, the San Francisco City Attorney, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, former elected officials who now regret having approved the project and other officials who privately ridicule it, the residents and businesses of North Beach, at least two former Mayors and 235 members of the US House of Representatives.

With the FTA having abdicated its watchdog responsibilities, it appears that SaveMuni.com, the Coalition of San Francisco Neighbors and the other San Francisco neighborhood, environmental and civic groups opposed to the project are the only remaining fiscal watchdogs still trying to turn the SFMTA’s attention back to its long neglected 70 existing bus and rail lines.

If despite our efforts, the government of San Francisco remains on its current path, it appears that San Francisco will suffer six years of severe construction disruption followed by the advent of a marginally useful and money-losing Central Subway operation. Among the adverse effects of the Central Subway are the $15.2 million a year it would add to the cost of operating and maintaining Muni and the diversion of Muni’s existing light rail T-Line from AT&T Park, the San Francisco waterfront, the Ferry Building, the Financial District and the Market Street subway lines. And finally, there is the fact that the Central Subway somehow manages to miss 25 of the 30 east-west transit lines it crosses, including all the lines on and under Market Street and all the lines on Mission Street.

In addition to the local effects, the project would drain away an unnecessary $61.3 million in State 1A HSR connectivity bond money from the essentially bankrupt State of California to allegedly connect the Central Subway to California’s future HSR system, when in fact it would actually disconnect the existing T-Line from that system.

Even more damaging is the plan to deny other, more deserving Muni projects a total of $306 million in State 1B rail bond money that is currently earmarked for the Central Subway project.

And finally, the Central Subway program, if it proceeds, will eat up no less than $942 million in federal funds at a time when the U.S. federal government can ill afford to waste resources on politically-inspired local pet projects.

Tomorrow’s execution of the federal grant agreement for the Central Subway will formalize the refusal of San Francisco’s politicians to seriously consider the obvious major flaws in the project. For this reason SaveMuni.com is seeking redress before the SF Superior Court to force these politicians to let the people of San Francisco decide whether or not they want to proceed with the Central Subway project as currently configured.”

So This Blog is Getting Sued by a Former Chronicle Publisher Wife? Read the Lawyer Letter – Why is the ‘Xam Afraid?

Friday, October 5th, 2012

[UPDATE 2013: My grandmother, who's on the wrong side of fifty but the good side of 100, is still driving her new Hyundai around and, bonus, she doesn't spend any of her hard-earned on SoCal lawyers. And her recent stomach surgery went well, so that's nice.]

Hey look what’s sitting in my Spam folder right now – it’s a scary letter from a Los Angeles attorney demanding that this blog be retracted.

Immediately.

Can you imagine?

Here’s what caused the trouble:

“Pwned! Area Socialite Elisabeth Thieriot Loses Her “SLAPP” Lawsuit against Journalists in L.A. – Mayan Prophecy”

And here’s the vast bulk of the resulting lawyer letter:

Click to expand, if you dare.

Now I can understand why the San Francisco Chronicle might not want to get involved with all the allegations surrounding the making of some movie project about the Mayan calendar deal. You know, relationships ‘n stuff. And plus, it’s not like a whole bunch of people are going to watch this flick.

So that’s one thing, but the San Francisco Examiner, did it get a similar letter earlier this year? You make the call. See? Earlier this year it used to have something to say about Elisabeth Thieriot and the Mayan Prophecy and Mexico and whatnot, but not now. Mmmm. Did the San Francisco Examiner take down a Reuters news story on this topic because it was afraid of getting sued? Sure looks that way.

Of course that online trade journal TheWrap did get sued. For one million dollars to be exact. But then it responded with a Motion to Strike and that took care of that. And then TheWrap wrote about how it won, big-time. Then I linked to its story (and the entire decision itself) and now it sure looks like I’m the next to get sued.

Comments:

Uh, do I know that this lawyer represented/s that lady? No, not all. I mean, I assume that’s the case, but what’s this “as you know” stuff?

Does the lawyer really want/expect me to retract the entire blog, all 6000 posts? (Does the lawyer actually know what a blog is? Apparently not.)

Does the lawyer want to write my blog posts for me, you know, using his point of view? Sure looks that way. Is that his right? And how can I retract something that’s not wrong?

And I’m supposed to rely on CA law about retractions that apply to the MSM, but not really? So what’s the point of bringing that up? 

And I’m “not authorized” by the lawyer to disclose the contents of the lawyer letter so I can’t do it? Really? Well, similarly, I’m not authorized by that lawyer to have a delicious Taco Bell Doritos Locos taco for lunch, so does that mean I can’t have that for lunch IRL? And I can’t show the letter to anybody, even to get help with how to respond? Is that fair dinkum? I think not.

So who else in the bay area has gotten these kinds of communications from Down South? I don’t know.

Anyway, I guess I’ll take that email chain* out of the Spam folder and put it into the Archive folder and await further developments.

But I’ll think to myself, “Man, don’t you realize you just lost, in a big way, on the very same topic in the very same state?” 

KTHXBYE.

*Apparently, Elisabeth Thieriot herself sent me an email last month as well, on purpose, or by mistake, or something in betwixt. I’ll tell her what I told my grandmother,** about how Reply All is kind of an advanced email technique best left to the younger generation, you know, so you don’t email people by mistake.

** I still can’t believe she got a Hyundai, after all those decades of her having large RWD Ford products such as the Mercury Grand Marquis.  She says her new ride is a “good  snow car.”

Pwned! Area Socialite Elisabeth Thieriot Loses Her “SLAPP” Lawsuit against Journalists in L.A. – Mayan Prophecy

Monday, September 17th, 2012

Here’s the news:

A Los Angeles judge threw out a lawsuit against TheWrap News on Wednesday, ruling that an article about movie financier Elisabeth Thieriot was both accurate and “took pains” in reporting on a production dispute with her co-producer. Judge Barbara M. Scheper of Los Angeles Superior Court sided with the news organization in granting an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss Thieriot’s complaint on the grounds that it had no probability of success on its merits.”

And you journos should check out the ruling – it’s very accessible.

Background:

Area Whacko Elisabeth Thieriot Hosted a Mayan Spiritual Leader in Tiburon and She Wants You To Know ALL About It

The Second-Best Bay Area-Related Press Release of 2012: Elisabeth Thieriot Manages to “Survive” “False Accusations”

Now, is she going to pay the attorney fees for both sides of this fiasco? Only Time Will Tell.

Now let’s see what the San Francisco Examiner has to say about all this. Uh oh, you’re still afraid, huh ‘Xam? So that’s why you took down all what you said about ET, huh? Fair ‘nough.

ET and Mr. Bigglesworth, Marin County, USA: 

And remember to KYAG by December 21, 2012, you know, when the World ends.

Will the world end in the night time?
(I really don’t know)
Or will the world end in the day time?
(I really don’t know)

PS: Fur is murder

Brace Yourselves, Gordon Ramsay’s HOTEL HELL Show is Coming – Big Ad on Market Street, How Apropro

Monday, August 13th, 2012

Famed restaurateur Gordon Ramsay is moving on from restaurants to hotels starting today – HOTEL HELL debuts tonight on the Fox.

Check it:

If [hotels] suggest they will upgrade you to the honeymoon suite, don’t take it. I’m trying to be serious because it is somewhat shocking. I just didn’t think it could shoot that far. I’m talking about if you shake a can of Coke and open it.” 

OK fine.

Actually, GR, I was thinking that bed bugs might belong at the top of the list.

Market Street, USA:

Click to expand

But, hey Gordo, are you going to come to the 415? We need you here.

Speaking of Market Street and bed bugs, here’s what the Hotel Whitcomb (renamed from Ramada Plaza not too long ago because of a massive lawsuit  involving bed bugs and ballyhoo) will send out to you if you report dozens of bites on your porcelain skin:

“19 July 2011

Dear Guest,

We are sorry for any discomfort that you may have experienced and we are very concerned about what happened. We want you to know that it is our highest priority to provide our guests with the cleanest rooms possible. We have a dedicated inspection team of trained staff that inspects all our rooms to ensure that these cases do not arise.

As you mentioned that you did not find any evidence, so it is possible you could have encountered them elsewhere. Please note that this incident has nothing to do with the cleanliness of our rooms. Please rest assured that this is not a reflection of our facilities cleanliness, as we take pride in providing excellent service and the cleanest accommodations, for all our guests.

Please feel free to contact me at your convenience so we may discuss any circumstances which may have occurred and please accept our sincerest apologies.

Kris Betz, Director of Operations”

That’s how we roll in San Francisco’s corrupt Mid Market Twitterloin.

So sure, you’re covered in bites, but:

1. You probably got bitten somewhere else, not at Hotel Whitcomb!

2. Or maybe you’re just making things up, maybe you’re insane! 

3. Or maybe you’re not insane but you’re a criminal who wants to shake us down for, I don’t know, another big fat $71,000 judgment / settlement!

4. Or maybe you did encounter bed bugs in one of our rooms, but probably you didn’t experience any discomfort, right? Kind of a no harm no foul kind of thing!

5. And, in any event, our rooms are clean. Did I mention that before? Our rooms are clean. Can I mention this fact four times in five sentences? YES I CAN!

Save us, Gordon Ramsay.

Gascon’s Boner: Kokkari-Boozing Drunk Driver Kills a Tourist Then Runs – But Only a Year in Jail for Joshua Calder?

Thursday, August 2nd, 2012

Wow, this case ended up with a plea bargain for just twelve months in jail?

The case of Nils Linke used to be a BFD.

See? 

Click to expand

But late last month it evaporated into nothingness, into a simple jail term.

So, you can booze it up at world-famous Kokkari restaurant, run over a German tourist despite your gf yelling at you to look out, get out of the car to move the German tourist’s bike off of the road (no, not him himself, just the bike, you leave the dude himself to die), get back into the car after switching seats with the gf, and then drive away, and your punishment, years later, will be, what six months, eight months, in county jail because that’s what District Attorney George Gascon is willing to sign off on. No trial, no nothing, just a plea deal.

So what would Joshua Calder have gotten without the hitting and the running and the seat switching? Three months? Community service?

Mmmm….

San Francisco’s 11th Commandment: Christians Shalt Not Obey Parking Rules on Sundays

Monday, June 25th, 2012

Thusly: 

Click to expand

You know, back in the day, SFGov freely violated the 14th Amendment until it got slapped down.

These days, SFGov violates the 1st Amendment with its Christians Park Free rule. When will SFGov get slapped down on this issue?

I know not. It’ll take a new Yick Wo to file a lawsuit. (Right? ‘Cause just nagging the SFGov isn’t going to cut it. SFGov will just ignore you.)

In the meantime, enjoy San Francisco’s Transit First (Except for Church-Goers) policy.

The Feds Make a Deal to Set Aside More Space for Western Snowy Plovers, San Francisco’s Cutest Birds

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

The Center for Biological Diversity is crowing about more room being designated for the Western Snowy Plover along the west coast.

San Francisco isn’t getting more space for these critters but they already have as much as they need here now, not that some area dog owners agree with the way things are these days.

Anyway, here are some San Francisco Snowy Plovers and the also the deets of the new agreement with the Feds are below.

(Oh, and remember, as always, plover rhymes with lover.)

A snowy plover on Ocean Beach _not_ being harassed by a dog:

Now, Ocean Beach Dog, ooh, somebody over there got an off-leash ticket from the Feds a looooong time ago. (Can you guess what year by looking at the website design? Sure you can.) Oh well. Well, the Feds don’t like Ocean Beach Dog and people what behave like Ocean Beach Dog. The Feds consider us Whacko City, USA because of outfits like OBD, oh well.

Most dogs don’t bother the boids, of course. Can you see the snowy plover?

But some dogs do harass the birds. (These aren’t actually snowy plovers near Lawton and the Great Highway but the dogs don’t know or care about that.)

(Get those Ocean Beach birds, good boy!)

And here’s the sitch up in Crissy Field:

See the birds, see the unleashed dog?

Is is surprising to you that an unleashed dog could find and chase these plovers? What was surprising to me was to hear that this particular boid flew up from Morro Bay (where it was banded and which is like way south of here) all the way up to the Marina District:

Keep on keeping on, plovers:

More Than 24,000 Acres of Critical Habitat Protected for Western Snowy Plover

PORTLAND, Ore.— In response to a Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today designated 24,527 acres (38 square miles) of critical habitat to protect the Pacific Coast population of threatened western snowy plovers in Washington, Oregon and California.

“Protecting critical habitat will help this lovely shorebird continue on the path to recovery,” said Tierra Curry, a conservation biologist at the Center. “Species with federally protected habitat are more than twice as likely to be moving toward recovery than species without it, so this puts a big safety net between plovers and extinction.”

Western snowy plovers breed primarily on beaches in southern Washington, Oregon, California and Baja California. Today’s designation includes four critical habitat units in Washington (covering 6,077 acres), nine units in Oregon (covering 2,112 acres) and 47 units in California (covering 16,337 acres).

Snowy plovers were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, when the coastal population had dropped to 1,500 birds and plovers no longer bred at nearly two-thirds of their former nesting sites. That Endangered Species Act protection allowed the population to increase to more than 3,600 adults by 2010.

Plovers are recovering but still face many threats, including widespread and frequent disturbance of nesting sites by humans, vehicles and off-leash dogs; crushing by off-road vehicles; global climate change; pesticide use; and habitat loss.

The western snowy plover was first granted 19,474 acres of critical habitat in 1999. In 2005 the Bush administration illegally reduced the critical habitat to 12,145 acres, eliminating protection for thousands of acres scientists believed necessary for the snowy plover’s survival and abandoning key habitat areas crucial for recovery. In 2008 the Center sued over the unlawful reduction of the plover’s habitat protections, leading to a settlement agreement with the Service and today’s revised designation.

Today’s final rule includes the reinstatement of habitat areas identified by government scientists as essential that were improperly withdrawn in 2005; inclusion of some areas not currently occupied by plovers but important for their recovery; and addition of habitats such as back-dune systems in an attempt to offset anticipated effects of sea-level rise caused by climate change.

The western snowy plover is a shy, pocket-sized shorebird that weighs less than two ounces and lives for three years. Plovers forage for worms, insects and crustaceans in wet sand and in kelp that has washed ashore. The word “plover” is thought to come from the Old French”plovier” or “rain bird” because plovers were seen on sandy French beaches during spring rains.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.”

Oh, and also remember that San Francisco is for Plovers:

Showing How STRAVA, Inc is Dealing with Its Legal Challenges: Here’s What the “Hyde Street Bomb!” Looks Like

Wednesday, June 20th, 2012

Take a look at this segment created by the “Strava Community” of troubled Strava, Inc. owners, managers, and/or users.

See? This is a bike trip down Nob Hill through the Tenderloin to the Mid Market:

Click to expand

Note the innocuous-sounding title: Hyde/Market st.

But also note the URL up there. The name of this segment used to be “Hyde Street Bomb!” But that doesn’t look so hot when you’re in the national news for getting sued.

Oh, here it is, have a go on the YouTube – will the cyclist beat all those cagers in Priuseses what stop for red lights? Hells yes:

Now, do you think that the “Strava Community” might have had an effect on the behavior of this cyclist?

You Make The Call.

And oh, here’s how that Strava webpage looked before, was it just a day ago? Two days ago? I don’t know. But this is quite a recent change. Alls I know is that somebody in the “Strava Community,” be it an owner, manager, legal advisor, person following instructions from a legal advisor, cyclist, or, really, anybody in the entire world, created this segment and/or edited it.

The people at Strava, Inc. aren’t what you call transparent, so it’s hard to tell.

Anyway, here’s your Hyde Street Bomb!

Does registering for Strava and racing down Nob Hill in this fashion make you an “athlete?”

Again, You Make The Call.

So Let’s Hear From Michael Horvath, CEO and Co-Founder of Troubled, SF-Based STRAVA, Inc. – Lawsuit Blog Post

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

Well here’s The Statement, from a few days back:

“Stand with Us”

UH, “STAND WITH US” WHILE WE GET SUED INTO OBLIVION? IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT ON THE EVE OF THE NEWS OF YOUR BIG WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT? OK.

“Posted by Michael Horvath on June 17th, 2012″

JUNE 17TH – LOOK AT THE TIMING, JUST BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. MMMM…

Each and every day we strive to improve Strava for you,­ the athlete. We are athletes too, just like you.

LET’S SEE HERE, SIGNING UP FOR STRAVA = BEING AN ATHLETE. GOT IT. YOU DON’T HAVE TO TELL ME TWICE. OH,  WELL I GUESS YOU JUST DID. UH, ALL RIGHT, YOU DON’T HAVE TO TELL ME _THREE_ TIMES.

As the Strava community grows, we all need to follow a few simple guideposts to ensure that Strava’s impact is positive.

GUIDEPOSTS AND NOT RULES? ALL RIGHT.

This is what we, the Strava community, stand for:

NOW WAIT A SECOND, AREN’T YOU THE FOUNDER AND CEO, MICHAEL HORVATH? I THINK SO. BUT ARE YOU A PART OF THE “STRAVA COMMUNITY?” REALLY? BUT _YOUR_ COMPANY IS GETTING SUED THOUGH, RIGHT? NOT THE “ATHLETES” WHAT MAKE UP YOUR USER BASE. I THINK YOU ARE CONFLATING THE OWNERS/MANAGERS OF STRAVA WITH THE USERS OF STRAVA, JUST SAYING. ALL RIGHT, OFF YOU GO THEN…

We know the rules. Laws and rules are created for our protection. Cycling, running and swimming are inherently dangerous and following the law, and common sense, when it comes to traffic, weather, or conditions, reduces our odds of getting hurt or hurting others. It’s as simple as that.

SO, I’LL STILL BE ABLE TO HAVE MY TIMES POSTED SHOWING ME GOING 20 MPH OVER THE LIMIT? CAUSE, YOU SEE, THAT’S NOT FOLLOWING THE “LAWS,” RIGHT? BUT I GUESS, AFTER YOU TALKED WITH A LAWYER OR TWO, YOU’RE TELLING YOUR USERS, THE SAINTED “ATHLETES” YOU WRITE ABOUT, TO FOLLOW THE LAW? OK FINE.

We rest. We listen to our bodies to avoid injury and we inspire in ways other than by being #1. We don’t burn ourselves out. We enjoy our recovery days because they too tell our story on Strava.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU BEING SUED? DOES THIS EVEN BELONG HERE?

We kudo sportsmanship. We all want to get kudos by being great at our sport. We are courteous and treat others with respect. We earn our spots on the leaderboards through clean competition.

UH, KUDO IS NOT A VERB, RIGHT? OK YOU KNOW THAT BUT YOU’RE BREAKING NEW GROUND, OK FINE. UH, IS BIKE-RIDING A SPORT? I THINK I’M SEEING THE PROBLEM HERE. WAS CHRIS BUCCHERE ENGAGING IN SPORT WHEN HE WAS GOING WAY TOO FAST ACROSS MARKET STREET? SHOULD HE HAVE BEEN? IS DRIVING A CAR DOWN MARKET STREET A SPORT? SHOULD IT BE? I DON’T THINK SO. AND IF MEMBERS OF THE “STRAVA COMMUNITY” AREN’T COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL, DO THEY GET COUNSELING OR SOMETHING? OR DO THEY JUST GET KICKED OUT? CAUSE  I CAN THINK OF A FEW OF YOUR MEMBERS WHO HAVEN’T KILLED THEMSELVES/OTHERS, SO, YOU KNOW, THEY’RE NOT AS WELL-KNOWN AS SOME OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE STRAVA FAMILY, BUT THEY DON’T MEET YOUR STANDARD AS STATED HERE – THEY AIN’T COURTEOUS/RESPECTFUL AT ALL. AND LASTLY, DOES “CLEAN COMPETITION” INCLUDE RUNNING RED LIGHTS? I’M NOT SURE.

We think ahead. We showcase a lot of awesome data about where we go, who we work out with and how hard we push ourselves. If we don’t want everyone to know what we’re up to, we take the necessary privacy precautions before we upload, like setting privacy zones and choosing who can follow us and what they can see.

UH ISN’T THIS A MISH-MASH OF THREE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS?

We’ve got each other’s backs. We watch out for one another. The community does what it can to keep things safe for everyone by looking out for potentially dangerous situations and flagging segments as hazardous.

SO, SELF-POLICING IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY AT STRAVA? HEY, DIDN’T THE “SOUTH PARK DESCENT” GET FLAGGED AFTER KIM FLINT’S DEATH? I THINK IT DID. BUT DIDN’T IT COME BACK, COURTESY OF THE “STRAVA COMMUNITY?” YES IT DID, AND WITH HIGHER SPEEDS THAN WHAT KIM FLINT “ACHIEVED.”

If you want to be part of the Strava community, we’d like you to stand with us and take these guideposts to heart.

SO, YOU’RE GOING TO START KICKING PEOPLE OUT? ALL RIGHT. I DON’T BELIEVE WHAT YOU AND YOUR LAWYERS ARE SAYING HERE, BUT ALL RIGHT.

AND YOU STILL HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT KIM FLINT OR CHRIS BUCCHERE?

ALL RIGHT.

Now, let’s hear from Paul Kapustka of Mobile Sports Report:

“Something tells us that if lawyers are getting involved, it’s not going to be as simple as a statement on a blog to prove that Strava.com’s competitions didn’t cause harm. Or that the bad apples aren’t a part of the Strava.com community. There are going to be many who decry the lawsuit as some part of a nanny-state weirdness, but there is probably some legitimate question to be asked whether or not a site that promotes virtual competitions on real streets and trails is responsible for the participants’ actions, much in the way a 10K race must take out insurance to cover its runners. I have a feeling this may be the tip of the iceberg for such sites like Strava.com.”

Arrested Decay: The NIMBYs of San Francisco’s Presidio Won’t Stop Until They Turn the Main Post Into Another Bodie Ghost Town

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

You know about the Bodie, CA ghost town, right? That’s the model for the NIMBYs of the Marina District and points beyond when they oppose activity in the Presidio.

Read below for the update.

Here’s the abandoned Main Post Theatre from a few years back – I’m sure it looks the same now. Do you know who supported the mofos listed below back in the late aughts by paying tens of thousands of dollars to oppose the use of the Main Post Theatre? How about the owners of neighboring movie theatres, how about that?  

Click to expand

I don’t know, this crew doesn’t want new buildings and it doesn’t want the reuse of old buildings. Of course they can sue, in this town, the world capitol of NIMBYism, of course. But is it really true that there’s ”nearly unanimous public opposition” against lodges (or inns or hotels) in national parks?

On It Goes:

Press Release (Also distributed via Business Wire 2/2/2012)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Feb. 2, 2012

For more information contact:
Gary Widman, (President, Presidio Historical Assn) 415/435-0360, gwidman@mindspring.com
Becky Evans (Sierra Club/SF) 415/775-3309, rebecae@earthlink.net
Deborah Sivas (Stanford Law School, Environmental Law Clinic) 650/725.8571, lyndaj@stanford.edu
Whitney Hall, (VP, Presidio Historical Assn) 707/778-6975, whithall@comcast.net
www.presidioassociation.org

PRESIDIO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, SIERRA CLUB SUE SF PRESIDIO TRUST TO HALT NEW CONSTRUCTION

San Francisco….The Presidio Historical Association (PHA) and Sierra Club filed a Federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court late Wednesday to halt proposed new construction on the Main Post of the Presidio of San Francisco, a historic national park in San Francisco. The lawsuit charges the park’s managing Federal agency, the Presidio Trust, with failing to comply with the Presidio Trust Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

“The Presidio Trust has violated these statutes in its push to convert the most historically significant site in the Presidio into a luxury hotel despite nearly unanimous public opposition,” said PHA President Gary Widman. “We have no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect this national park, which belongs to all Americans.”

The suit sets a precedent as the first to question activities in a national park that is not managed by the National Park Service.

Recently, the Presidio Trust’s Board of Directors changed restrictive zoning policies that protected the Main Post until now in order to permit construction of a 14-building hotel, a large addition to a historic theater and other structures, a move strongly opposed by numerous nonprofit organizations and private citizens.

“The Sierra Club has protected national parks since 1892, and played a major role in the creation of the Presidio National Park and Golden Gate National Recreation Area,” said Sierra Club spokeswoman Becky Evans. “The unique historic value of the Presidio Main Post should not be sacrificed to build an unnecessary hotel.”

The Sierra Club won a 1986 Federal lawsuit that enjoined the US Army from undertaking new construction in the Presidio, a military base at that time. “By filing this suit, the Sierra Club seeks affirmation of that 1986 decision and seeks the Presidio Trust’s compliance with the Presidio Trust Act and other environmental laws,” Evans said.

The lawsuit asserts that the Presidio Trust ignored its duty to “[protect] the Presidio from development and uses which would destroy the historic…character of the area…and other cultural resources”, and failed to limit new construction to one-for-one replacement of demolished structures as required by the Presidio Trust Act.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Trust’s NEPA process was flawed and that the Trust failed to minimize adverse impacts in its National Historic Landmark District to the maximum extent possible as required by the NHPA.

The Presidio Trust Act (PTA) of 1996 recognized and protected the 1,491-acre Presidio of San Francisco as a unique place of history and open space in a densely populated urban center. The Main Post, established in 1776, was designated a National Historic Landmark District in 1962. The Presidio was home to Spanish, Mexican, and American military operations for nearly 220 years until the base became a national park within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in 1994. More than 30,000 Americans veterans and their families are buried in the Presidio’s National Cemetery, on the western side of the Main Post.

The nonprofit Presidio Historical Association has helped to preserve and present the Presidio’s history for more than 50 years. The watchdog group recently gained attention for successfully fighting the Presidio Trust’s plan to build a massive, contemporary art museum on the historic Main Post.

The Stanford Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic is representing the Presidio Historical Association and the Sierra Club in the lawsuit.

###

The complaint is posted at http://presidioassociation.org/issues.htm
Case# CV12-00522, US District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Presidio Historical Association
P.O. Box 29163
San Francisco, CA 94129
(415) 752-2270
www.presidioassociation.org