Voter Approval to Waterfront Development campaign officially underway

|
(24)
Last year's campaign morphed into the current one.

The campaign to subject big projects proposed for San Francisco’s waterfront to popular approval is officially underway, with the City Attorney’s Office today issuing the ballot title and summary for what is now officially known as the Voter Approval to Waterfront Development Height Increases initiative.

The effort, which grew out of the successful No Wall on the Waterfront campaign that stopped the 8 Washington luxury condo towers in November, must collect at least 9,702 signatures by Feb. 3. Those interested in signing or circulating petitions can start at noon this Saturday with a launch event at 15 Columbus Avenue, the same campaign headquarters as the fall campaign.

“The idea was to have a public process around what we’re going to do with the waterfront,” campaign consultant Jim Stearns told the Guardian.

The trio of high-profile projects that would be most directly affected by the initiative are the proposed Warriors Arena, hotel, and condos at Piers 30-32, a large housing and retail project proposed by the San Francisco Giants at Pier 48, and a sprawling office, residential, and retail project that Forest City wants to build at Pier 70.

For a complete rundown of those projects, this initiative, its chances of success, and its larger political implications, pick up a copy of next week’s Bay Guardian.   

Comments

If they did, no signatures would be needed.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

is that the people see merit, and I think they will.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

few billionaires.

Would you rather the ballpark was still a bunch of rotting piers?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 3:58 pm

The warriors stadium was losing in the last poll I saw.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 10:55 pm

Isn't that a success?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 6:31 am

Waste of taxpayer money. As long as developments don't require waivers on existing height limits, there is NO need to subject future developments to this crap.

Posted by Richmondman on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

This only concerns projects seeking waivers to existing height limits, which all the projects I cited are seeking. 

Posted by steven on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 1:43 pm

provide jobs, homes and entertainment for the people?

Says it all really.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 3:59 pm

Whatever waterfront residents wants waterfront residents get and the rest of the east side gets screwed by out of scale development.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 5:51 pm

Kids who get to see the game?

Folks who work there?

Visitors to the city who want to take in a game?

Help me out here.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 6:34 pm

Test. (Was unable to comment on the pedestrian/cyclist thread....spam filter blocked me multiple times even after entering the letters).

Posted by Nonpartisan Guest on Jan. 09, 2014 @ 6:46 pm

Another manipulation of SF government brought to you by Richard and Barbara Stewart along with perennial brown starfish Aron Peskin.
Except, the warriors project is actually incredibly popular among most SF voters.
It is only the landed gentry of the people who live next door and the telegraph mafia who oppose.
Of course Marcos throws in his token opposition from the comfort of his gentrifying mission district condo.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 7:43 am

He opposes anything and everything new, and wants to freeze SF in time like some gay hippie theme park.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 8:14 am
Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 8:16 am

Guest played with itself.

It was that weird kid in the corner, eating paste and rubbing its crotch.

Posted by Pikachu on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

Only that he didn't play sports and so cannot understand why SF'ers want a stadium.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 4:58 pm

Are you suggesting that I went to the only high school in Texas that did not field a football team, that I did not live next door to Dallas Cowboy Calvin Hill and did not babysit his young son Grant Hill?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 8:29 am

Test.

Posted by Nonpartisan Guest on Jan. 10, 2014 @ 7:55 pm

Yes, there have been so many exemptions granted to the height limit requirements that the voters will get behind this.

If we have height-limit thresholds in place, they should be obeyed. Why so many exceptions granted?

Posted by Guest Lecturer on Jan. 14, 2014 @ 2:06 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2014 @ 3:14 pm

Build a new Arena but build it where Candlestick Park is located now. The 49er's are out of here so when they tear down the old stadium you can build a new arena in it's place. No problem with parking (parking lot already there) and easy access to freeways! The waterfront views will be spared for all to enjoy.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 11:42 am

So why with this? The trend of building stadiums downtown is nationwide. That's where people want them.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

I must have missed the nationwide poll regarding where people want stadiums and arenas built. You must admit, born and raised San Franciscans respond to polls a little differently than the rest of our nation!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

downtown stadiums in recent decades which would be shocking if the residents did not want them and value them.

And if San Franciscans were really that different, we would not have a new ballpark downtown. In my experience, SF'ers really aren't that different from people in other places, except that they like to think that they are.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.