Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS
Warriors Arena will get taken to the ballot, but the city seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of it (or at least enough are for it to pass). I don't think Mission Rock is in enough of an established area for people to rally against it. The only housing around it is brand new as well. The ones in bold I've essentially kissed off as "will never happen" long ago. Mexican and Howard from NIMBYism, and the other large scale projects as just pipedreams.
|
The thing about the warriors arena is the inclusion of the condo "towers" across the street (more like midrises, really). I know most of SF wants the arena, but the NIMBY propaganda about how luxury residential and waterfront towers are bad, seems to be accepted by a lot of people, and it makes me kind of nervous.
Same deal with the Mission Rock development, which actually does have people on Potrero Hill who will complain about tall buildings going up over there...and these are not only tall buildings, but tall buildings on the *gasp* waterfront! And they surely will not be very affordable either. I can just see Art Agnos and the wealthy NIMBY brigade latching onto it like they did with 8 Washington, and convincing enough San Franciscans to vote it down or at least get the towers killed.
And I feel the same thing could happen in regards to treasure island, 75 howard, hunters point, the Mexican museum tower, and park merced (if the TI/HP/Park Merced projects even happen).
But hopefully the success of "no on B&C" can be attributed more to the fact that barely anyone voted (but all the angry NIMBYs did, of course), rather than to the views of the majority of SF residents. I know that according to recent polls a majority of San Franciscans do see new housing construction as an important and necessary thing, and do want the warriors arena, for example. I guess the goal then is to inform non-NIMBY people about what's going on, and get them to vote when the inevitable NIMBY ballot measures show up.