8 Washington's going on the ballot


San Franciscans are going to get a chance to vote on the most expensive condos in the city's history and the future of development on the waterfront as soon as this November.

Opponents of the 8 Washington project turned in 31,721 signatures to the Department of Elections July 19, and since only about 19,000 have to be valid, it's a safe bet the referendum will qualify.

That means no work can be done on the development until after the election -- and since the deadlines are tight and it's possible the DOE won't get its counting and verifying done in time for November, 2012, the whole thing could be on hold until 2013.

It's going to be a bitter and expensive campaign: Developer Simon Snellgrove tried to keep this off the ballot -- and, since he has about $200 million riding on the outcome, he's going to spend what it takes to win. The Stop the Wall on the Waterfront folks aren't going to be able to match Snellgrove by any stretch, but they've raised some money and they'll be able to run an effective campaign.

And we can have an important public debate: Should the city continue to build housing for the very rich when it can't keep up with its existing affordable-housing requirements? And what will happen to San Francisco if the people who work here can't afford to live here and the people who live here don't work here (or in many cases, don't work at all because they're stinking rich)?

Is $11 million in affordable housing money enough for a project that will make a $200 million profit?

Gonna be a good one.


"our" neighborhood... I know you like to fantasize Marcos, but from what I remember you are not latin. Like it or not, you are a force of gentrification in the mission.

1) would you support the zoning of the same amount of non luxury condos in the mission?

how is the zoning on 8 washington out of scale when the building immediately behind it is twice as tall?

Posted by Greg on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 9:48 am

What an opportunistic little shit. Using values that you don't subscribe to in order to attempt to corner me on reductio ad absurdum values that I do not subscribe to, in order to give you free pass on implementing public policy oriented around precisely the opposite values of both that which you'd ascribe to me and my own values.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:15 am

full of sound and fury but signifying nothing

Posted by Greg on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:32 am

Say you're not Greg Kamin.

Posted by elaine on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:47 am

Creeper! What business is it of yours who I am.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 11:17 am

Dude, I thought you were a progressive!

Posted by elaine on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 9:40 am

elaine, this greg is not greg k, rather a chickenshit anonymous troll.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 9:44 am

Just imagine this is my version of showing up to government meetings in a chicken suit eh?

Posted by Greg on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 10:27 am

What we did was FUNNY, much funnier than making excuses for an alcohol and cocaine fueled home wrecker.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 10:48 am

I guess one persons funny is another persons not...
No idea who you are referring to. never was much of a fan of Newsom. Cant speak for the blow, but definitely have known you to be alcohol fueled and not terribly hindered by a persons relationship status.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 11:18 am

So you then support the alcohol and cocaine fueled breaking up of families by then Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 11:45 am

I could care less. It's not my business to cast stones at people for perceived infractions. I find it particularly difficult when the people casting the stones are guilty of the same things.
I am sure you make sure all of your tricks are free and clear to do whatever.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Different districts - different dynamics. As I think you both know, my commitment for years has primarily been to the struggle in BVHP, which I believe, and have stated many times, encompasses the worst of all regressive, racist policies. The failure of the 'leadership' to stand in support was a lost opportunity to unite and address all the inequities that are now being experienced by the less marginalised.
Just saying.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:14 am