Posts Tagged ‘port’
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 IslandFriday, April 8th, 2016
Here you go:
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 ShelterFriday, 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?
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 NotThursday, March 10th, 2016
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. 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.
America Still Imports Millions of Cars per Year – Here’s What It Looks Like, at the Ports of the East Bay and North BayFriday, January 8th, 2016
One after the other, they come and get stacked up here and other places nearby
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 (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.”