Posts Tagged ‘port’

Frisco’s Busy Port: Grand Princess at Pier 27 and Star Princess at Pier 35

Monday, October 17th, 2016

I’ve never seen two cruise ships together thusly, but I guess this kind of thing happens from time to time:


A View of the East Bay From Top to Bottom: Mt Diablo, Oakland, San Francisco – How an Accident of History Put Part of The City on Alameda Island

Friday, April 8th, 2016

Here you go:

7J7C3485 copy



The Port of Oakland showed respect for the SF City Limits – can you see how the landfill project in the upper right ends abruptly? That’s the border. But the US military just didn’t care and it kept filling until it was satisfied. (You can see how the SF part looks different – it’s a wetter / greener area.)

Ans here’s another way of saying it – see our little homeslice?


Anyway, lots of people still don’t believe me. But you do, right, Gentle Reader?

So We’re Still Advertising for ORACLE Years After the America’s Cup Fiasco? – Yes, on the Temporary Pier 80 Homeless Shelter

Friday, March 11th, 2016

Did Larry Ellison ever get those 99-year leases he wanted from us, you know, in exchange for making us all rich, for “activating” our “world-class” “natural amphitheater?”

I’ll tell you, back in aught-ten, a newcomer had just moved to town – he called the original deal, the southern waterfront 99-year lease proposal, a “wonderful opportunity without a downside.” Of course we had a lot of downsides, and we’re still paying for them. Is this giant ad going to be here forever, or as long as the building is with us?

7J7C2219 copy

This sign has been up for what, a half-decade now? One wonders why…

“Pride of America” is Anything But: Pier 70 Drydock Fixing a Cruise Ship That was “Made in America” Yet Not

Thursday, March 10th, 2016

Project America is more of a threat to us than Projekt Amerika ever was.

7J7C2206 copy

This vessel is a kind of Bridge to Nowhere, Hawaii-style…

Pride of America is scheduled to enter a 14-day dry dock period in February 2016, at the BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair facility. Normally, the ship uses facilities in Pearl Harbor, but these were already fully booked.[9] Described as “its first major refresh since the ship launched in 2005”, the ship is due to receive improvements or renovations in the spa, passenger cabins, restaurants, and also to receive the addition of a wedding chapel.[10]

America Still Imports Millions of Cars per Year – Here’s What It Looks Like, at the Ports of the East Bay and North Bay

Friday, January 8th, 2016

One after the other, they come and get stacked up here and other places nearby

7J7C1723 copy

It’s endless

Mile Rock and a Freighter Full of Japanese Cars – Roll On, Roll Off

Wednesday, August 19th, 2015

Somehow, it still makes sense to get our cars from high-cost Japan.

7J7C1944 copy

Cars roll on this ugly Chronus Leader ship in Japan and roll off in the east bay or the north bay.

T’was ever thus.

BRUTAL: New “CAUTION” Sign Depicts Drunk, Moneyed, iPhone-Distracted San Franciscans Fleeing High Rents by Running to Oakland

Tuesday, August 18th, 2015

[UPDATE: Oh, it’s a coffee cup, not a red Solo cup – see Comments.]

Ouch, this one hurts.

From Jeremy C. Owens  – left to right, OAKLAND, Drunk San Franciscan, iPhone-Addled San Franciscan, Moneyed San Franciscan, SAN FRANCISCO:

CMtFcasVEAA7hKr copy

If only this sign had Oracle Arena heading the other way…

Barely Legal: Are These Freeway-Legal Vespas in the Slow Lane of the Bay Bridge or are they Merely “Motorized Bicycles?”

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

I’m thinking that these are Vespas, or similar, with engines displacing 150 cc’s, or more, so that would make them legal (barely) on CA freeways:

7J7C8538 copy

Even so, they were struggling going uphill, it looked like.

May all your lives be semi-charmed, at the very least…

Black Friday Just Wouldn’t Be Black Friday Without the Hanjin Germany

Friday, November 28th, 2014

Heading into the Port of Oakland with 10,000(!) or so containers:

7J7C9935 copy

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

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.”