I will sue and send the lot of you to jail for disparaging my good boys, my darling angels!
Good. Now victim's family can sue and get restitutions.
The true NIMBYs here are the people of San Francisco, not Palo Alto. The City and County of San Francisco owns and operates SFO as a for profit corporation, in their neighbor, San Mateo's yard.
Three of the five approach routes to SFO under the prevailing westerly winds cross over Pal Alto at 3,000'. The one and only approach route that passes over San Francisco, crosses the far west of San Francisco at 11,000". None of the noisier departure routes cross over San Francisco, at any altitude.
San Francisco is using the Peninsula as a toxic dumping ground for all of the problems associated with the SFO, while pocketing all of the profits.
"As experienced renters ... the Byers thought their landlord was in for a surprise"
Google "San Francisco rent control" and read the just result. I don't think this article reads as experienced renters - perhaps long-term. I live in a multi-unit building that is subject to rent control but also subject to the pains of sharing walls/floors/ceilings with neighbors.
BART to the Beach is the real solution!
San Franciscans should be careful what they wish for — and vote for.
Because there should be no mystery who’s really to blame for today’s crippling shortage of housing. San Franciscans are, collectively, as an electorate. You need a long memory to think back to 2004, when voters were asked to approve plans for up to 4,000 workforce units that would be built over several years, as part of a plan that would have also included entitlement for 6,000 market-rate units. The measure, Proposition J, t went down in flames, losing by nearly 70 percent to 30 percent, with the issue having been mischaracterized as a “giveaway to developers,” and scandalized by market-rate units selling for the then-outrageous sum of $1.5 million.
It’s difficult to avoid the parallels between the distracting arguments that were used to sink Prop. J., as it was known in 2004, and Prop. B and C last November. In both cases, we got trapped in the mistaken zero-sum game that building more of one type of housing means building less of another, and that restricting housing development on political grounds is cost-free. It’s anything but free. It helps create the housing shortage that now plays a starring role in driving unaffordability. We fixate on how plans and proposals fall short of a perceived perfect version of San Francisco housing. This requirement for perfection then becomes the enemy of good proposals that, is a large part of the reason why there are few apartments renting below $2,500 per month, or houses selling for much under $1 million.
This is how we ordained it. It’s as simple as that. It changes when voters will it to, by making different political decisions. Until then, when it comes to housing, we have met the enemy, and he is us.
There are water and power solutions that are far less harmful to the environment. Visit www.hetchhetchy.org or stay tuned and open minded as alternatives are discussed. We need to win this for Yosemite and for the American people, but it won't happen unless we deal with the water and power practically and fairly.
-Spreck Rosekrans, Executive Director
Restore Hetch Hetchy
It's not about water, anymore. It's about electrical power and distribution. That is the real monopoly. PGE. They will be the ones fighting this, and have always fought any change in their distribution monopoly. Or their power source, as long as that power source (like certain turbine fitted dams) have low maintenance costs. For a real enlightenment on this, SFO voters should check out CITY LIGHT in Seattle.
Until a cost effective power solution is developed that will allow us to setup desalinization plants in the bay and delta the only realistic solution for Bay Area water is pulling it down from the sierra snow packs. I have seen even more ambitious projects that include damming the Carquinez straights at Benicia and forming one of the largest man made lakes in the world.
once we have the power (fusion, solar, microwave beam, etc..) it would be a no-argument task to start removing the dams from waterways and valleys.
Housing projects right near there. How could that be?
Given a crisis between the practical (the need for water) and aesthetics (Hetch Hetchy Valley el natural), I choose to keep O'Shaughnessy Dam.
aaah, shiut the whiney up. chinatown must support their own heroes, who else is going to do it? chinatown is its own successful economic world, I'm so proud to be part of it. the vibrancy, the high educational values instilled into their children. it may not look so hot from the outside compared to other communities, but it has cultural strength and resolve long overdue.
Kwong needs to stop accepting the MTA's terminology---that everything they want to do to city streets is an "improvement." And the Van Ness BRT project is not a happy precedent, since it removes most bus stops on Van Ness, removes street parking, and diverts a lot of traffic from Van Ness to already-congested Franklin and Gough Streets.
And then there's the development scam factor: the Geary BRT is also about opening up Geary to "smart growth" with highrise development as per City Hall's "transit corridors" theory---that the city can over-develop any neighborhood anywhere near a major Muni corridor.
@ JuiceWeasel ; .. Omission of race = black.
Unless there's a major restructuring of California's Water Rights laws and significant reduction in agricultural water use, removing Hetch Hetchy would cause far more environmental damage than any potential benefit. The diversion would simply be moved elsewhere, with accompanying construction damage and increased electricity usage (we'd lose the power supply, the gravity-fed transport system and the filtration avoidance, leading to increased pumping and water treatment). Also, which other free-flowing river would you like to destroy? I know you like Yosemite. We all like Yosemite. But we have to minimize impact on all of nature, not just a few precious tourist sites.
The lobos song mr plant covered was angel dance.....
Because they are talking of building ONLY market and below market rate housing for SALE....
mortgage industry backed housing, not rental housing which is what the city needs at affordable initial rents.
I realize that Ed is trying to get out in front of the reality that City policies and the tech companies are responsible for a huge chunk of our problems, but trotting out existing BMR ideas does not solve or really alleviate the essential middle class issues that are destroying the City. People are being pushed out by a focus on luxury condos and making this a tech campus for the "free bus to work" companies that aren't in SF. Ed and the board (Sup Farrell holds an outside job as a ... tech investor/consultant) hold a huge amount of responsiblity for where we are at, because they have created a tighter market with perverse incentives while chasing tech and real estate (and some low income support through bmr).
For example, the formula and the goals Ed and others rehash have middle class buyers pay more to subsidize BMRs than the upper middle class / luxury condos -- they are based on units, not square feet -- and it does not help the working poor when BMRs are allowed to be offsite. We also have policies adjusting the "market rate" housing (whatever that means) with our subsidies to tech companies that encourage upper middle class development and speculation and flipping by outside investors. We are manipulating the already imperfect market and doing a crappy job.
Maybe Ed's right and people shouldn't blame the tech companies: instead they could blame him and real estate developers and the tech companies. I don't think he'll talk or trinket his way out of this: there is too much knowledge of the various subsidies and shrugs that SF provides for everyone from google to Conway. People know there's a tax break, and they probably know of at least one of the other subsidies that are supporting companies "disrupting" existing tenants and businesses -- many of which won't be able to return when the bubble pops. But hey, they contribute "free" wifi.
I agree (almost) completely with Sftop1 - except that not just property owners should be taxed to provide affordable housing - EVERYONE should be taxed above a certain income level. There are some very wealthy people who rent apartments and they shouldn't be exempt from contributing just because they don't own a house. On the other hand, there are a lot of homeowners who scrimpted and saved years ago to buy their places and are now on limited incomes with little if any cash - they should not have to pay just because they own their own house - which in many cases is their only savings.
Race unknown, again.
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation