Posts Tagged ‘peninsula’

At Long Last, a Map That Clearly Shows That Part of San Francisco is in the East Bay on Alameda Island

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

O you can say that this map is wrong, but you can’t say that you don’t get the point, which is that that left piece of Alameda you can see on the wrong side of the line is part of the City and County of San Francisco:

Click to expand

I should go visit sometime…

Carry on.

IN-N-OUT BURGERs in San Mateo County Point South in the South and North in the North

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Looking west from the 101:

Ten miles and 12 minutes to the north, looking west from the 101

Shouldn’t they point in the same direction?

San Francisco’s Back 40: What Should We Do With Our Unused 40 Acres in Alameda? How About a Casino?

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

Isn’t San Francisco’s green triangle of landfill over in the East Bay beautiful?

Why don’t we do something with it, like put in a casino or something? People’d take a ferry from Fishermans Wharf or South Beach.

Click to expand

And think of the revenues from all those America’s Cup richers.

Shockingly, Part of San Francisco is in the East Bay on Alameda Island – This Photo Tells the Story

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011

Here it is a map showing the borders of San Francisco. And here’s the view of two East Bay peninsulas looking south from the Bay Bridge.

See? The nearer peninsula, the one with the big white crane, is part of the City of Oakland. It shows respect for the Alameda / San Francisco county border by stopping exactly where it should. But the farther one, part of the City of Alameda, simply juts all the way into San Francisco County.

How wude!

Here’s the borderline:

Anyway, it’s our land but it’s in the East Bay.

Somehow.

All the deets:

“Looking eastward from Twin Peaks, San Francisco. That’s Mission Bay / Dogpatch in the foreground with Oakland in the background.

Here’s your first choice. Does this line represent the border betwixt the counties?

Click to expand

And here’s your second, with the westernmost portion of Alameda in the City and County of San Francisco:

And here’s your third choice, right down the channel:

And here’s your answer, it’s photo #2, for some odd reason.

Now, you Better Know the Bay Area.

Thanks for playing!”

Reunification = Denuclearization: Our RAND Corporation Says We Should Just Buy Our Way Out of Trouble in the Koreas

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation, has something to say today about denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

Check it:

“Alternative to Futile Negotiations with N.K.”

It’s pithy so it won’t take to long to see his point.

China’s little buddy certainly is upset about something or other these days, it would seem.

The gist:

“So a reunification strategy would need two main thrusts. First, South Korea and the United States would need to prepare for a potentially massive, possibly violent stabilization effort, as well as a humanitarian relief operation. China would react to any instability in North Korea, especially if South Korean and U.S. forces move into North Korea’s territory. There must be an effort to coordinate South Korean and U.S. plans with the Chinese.”

Sounds good to me.

Trees vs. Trains: High Speed Rail Project Threatens Stanford’s Iconic Redwood – “El Palo Alto” is Directly in the Path

Friday, November 5th, 2010

El Palo Alto, aka the Stanford Tree, is smack dab in the way of California’s High Speed Rail project, according to Doug Ray over at the Peninsula Press.

Appears as if the NIMBY’s of counties San Mateo and Santa Clara are gaining speed in the battle of HSR – how much will it take to buy them off?

El Palo Alto, back in the day. It’s still there, for now:

Click to expand

Will CA HSR run over Stanfoo’s famous, fun-loving mascot?

Only Time Will Tell

Resolved: California’s High Speed Rail Authority Ought to Respond to this Readable Report from the NIMBYs of Palo Alto

Monday, November 1st, 2010

I think our California High-Speed Rail Authority should respond to this recent report:

The Financial Risks of California’s Proposed High-Speed Rail Project: A Review And Assessment Of Publicly Available Materials

(I don’t think they will, but I think they should.)

It would be easy to go point by point. See?

This is just for starters:

Of course a lot of the rich people of Counties San Mateo and Santa Clara wouldn’t want more RR tracks in their backyards even if they didn’t have to pay for it – that’s what makes them NIMBYs. And the principal author frets about the effects of HSR on tony Atherton, CA. But these Peninsulans deserve an answer from the authoritahs, do they not?

Point by point, that’s the way to do it.

Just saying…

“We do not oppose high-speed rail in concept. It seems to work in parts of Europe and Japan and possibly elsewhere. The 2008 Prop 1A promise that captured many voters was that the California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) would not cost the taxpayer a penny. After months of work on this report, we are forced to conclude that the Authority’s promise seems an impossible goal.”

AUTHORS

Alain C. Enthoven – Marriner S. Eccles Professor of Public and
Private Management (emeritus), GSB Stanford; President,
Litton Medical Products; Economist, Rand Corporation;
President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service;
Baxter Prize for Health Services Research; Fellow American
Academy of Arts and Sciences; Founder, Jackson Hole Group
(BA Economics, Stanford; Rhodes Scholar–Oxford; PhD
Economics, MIT)

William C. Grindley – World Bank; Associate Division Director,
SRI International; Founder and CEO, Pacific Strategies, ret.
(B Architecture, Clemson; Master of City Planning, MIT)

William H. Warren – 40 years of Silicon Valley finance, sales
and consulting experience, management, including CEO of
several start-ups, Director/Officer at ROLM, Centigram, and
Memorex (MBA, Stanford)