Jump to content


News from SF Embarcadero...


  • Please log in to reply
5375 replies to this topic

#1801 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,155 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

Maybe the list of AC personalities and YCs is a list of those who are or have been interested in AC34?
Maybe they think these folks may provide insight into organization of AC34?
As for the mystery Does?
Maybe they expect to find some skeletons to revive?

And that would be the most interesting.

#1802 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,155 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:05 PM

For someone who has a couple of hours to kill, it would be an interesting exercise to go through the list of suits that are a matter of public record for the plaintiff firm, and cross reference those clients of the plaintiff firm to see if there is someone with an obvious ax to grind against Larry.

Not necessary. You know why the mafia does not sign its crimes ? because their targets know who is behind.

#1803 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,684 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:28 PM

Dogwatch asks me, "(D)o you have any observations about the long list of supposedly interested parties, many of whom are clearly nothing of the kind. What purpose may that serve?"

I don't get it, either.


OK, thanks. Very strange indeed that the Royal Thames Yacht Club (among a cast of thousands) finds itself cited as a party in a dispute about rebuilding piers in a city to which it has no connection, that is circuitously linked to a regatta in which it plays no part.

#1804 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,684 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

I still contend that our native american friend is lurking in the background on this one.


Doubtless you've seen this http://www.bymnews.c...p-33/indian.php . I don't mention this to ask you to explain or justify the connection you had with Rosas at that time because that is water under the bridge. What does interest me is: do you agree that what Marian found was accurate? And if it was, are you really saying that a well-known politician and the Sierra Club have joined up with this guy? I mean, whether you agree with either of those parties I'd expect them both to have some degree of street-sense and operate some kind of diligence in choosing allies?

I'm not saying you are wrong either. Just - something doesn't add up here.

#1805 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:44 PM


Dogwatch asks me, "(D)o you have any observations about the long list of supposedly interested parties, many of whom are clearly nothing of the kind. What purpose may that serve?"

I don't get it, either.


OK, thanks. Very strange indeed that the Royal Thames Yacht Club (among a cast of thousands) finds itself cited as a party in a dispute about rebuilding piers in a city to which it has no connection, that is circuitously linked to a regatta in which it plays no part.


dog watch --you should watch/read the d o g by gls -


and you should read the pet -again or try and understand what was stated on the reason and requirements to name those REAL PARTY[S] IN INTERESTS

they all have one thing in common -which has been missed by you and others --

they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust called THE AMERICA'S CUP TRUST as established by GLS and ny and us of a -dept of treasury

read the jpg and explain it should be clear why they had to name and SERVE those real parties in interest

Attached File  AC TRUST 2nd lawsuit acea et al 01234ABc.JPG   178.57K   21 downloads

#1806 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:00 PM

they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust

They are beneficiaries only when they take the opportunity to challenge.

The list is ridiculous.

#1807 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:07 PM


they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust

They are beneficiaries only when they take the opportunity to challenge.

The list is ridiculous.


if you think your right then your dumbass should call the lawfirm

who composed the pet and those real party[s] in interest and filed that litigation and tell them Posted Image

#1808 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,361 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:12 PM



Dogwatch asks me, "(D)o you have any observations about the long list of supposedly interested parties, many of whom are clearly nothing of the kind. What purpose may that serve?"

I don't get it, either.


OK, thanks. Very strange indeed that the Royal Thames Yacht Club (among a cast of thousands) finds itself cited as a party in a dispute about rebuilding piers in a city to which it has no connection, that is circuitously linked to a regatta in which it plays no part.


dog watch --you should watch/read the d o g by gls -


and you should read the pet -again or try and understand what was stated on the reason and requirements to name those REAL PARTY[S] IN INTERESTS

they all have one thing in common -which has been missed by you and others --

they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust called THE AMERICA'S CUP TRUST as established by GLS and ny and us of a -dept of treasury

read the jpg and explain it should be clear why they had to name and SERVE those real parties in interest

Attached File  AC TRUST 2nd lawsuit acea et al 01234ABc.JPG   178.57K   21 downloads


You should try to understand what you have repeatedly been told - the only beneficiaries of the DOG are 'All the Yacht Clubs of the World' *


So guess again Councillor


* (properly constituted)
(minus those from country of the Yacht Club presently holding the Cup)


#1809 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:22 PM




Dogwatch asks me, "(D)o you have any observations about the long list of supposedly interested parties, many of whom are clearly nothing of the kind. What purpose may that serve?"

I don't get it, either.


OK, thanks. Very strange indeed that the Royal Thames Yacht Club (among a cast of thousands) finds itself cited as a party in a dispute about rebuilding piers in a city to which it has no connection, that is circuitously linked to a regatta in which it plays no part.


dog watch --you should watch/read the d o g by gls -


and you should read the pet -again or try and understand what was stated on the reason and requirements to name those REAL PARTY[S] IN INTERESTS

they all have one thing in common -which has been missed by you and others --

they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust called THE AMERICA'S CUP TRUST as established by GLS and ny and us of a -dept of treasury

read the jpg and explain it should be clear why they had to name and SERVE those real parties in interest

Attached File  AC TRUST 2nd lawsuit acea et al 01234ABc.JPG   178.57K   21 downloads


You should try to understand what you have repeatedly been told - the only beneficiaries of the DOG are 'All the Yacht Clubs of the World' *


So guess again Councillor


* (properly constituted)
(minus those from country of the Yacht Club presently holding the Cup)


if you think your right then your dumbass should call the lawfirm

who composed the pet and those real party[s] in interest and filed that litigation and tell them Posted Image

#1810 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:34 PM


I still contend that our native american friend is lurking in the background on this one.


Doubtless you've seen this http://www.bymnews.c...p-33/indian.php . I don't mention this to ask you to explain or justify the connection you had with Rosas at that time because that is water under the bridge. What does interest me is: do you agree that what Marian found was accurate? And if it was, are you really saying that a well-known politician and the Sierra Club have joined up with this guy? I mean, whether you agree with either of those parties I'd expect them both to have some degree of street-sense and operate some kind of diligence in choosing allies?

I'm not saying you are wrong either. Just - something doesn't add up here.


I've no problem explaining my connection to JohnTommy. Said it before, but short version here - when he first appeared on the SA scene as MSP, that was at the time when Ernesto was both messing with the way the RRS would be applied to the AC - meaning he was going to be both judge and jury, and the way he was screwing around with money. My interest was in the administration of the rules for fair play, and it just seemed way wrong that Ernesto was going to control the Cup for a profit while at the same time turning the racing into a phreak show by the he was going to control the racing rules. So little by little I started talking to JohnTommy via SA PM, then by email, then finally got him to tell me who he was, convinced him the only way he might help was to come out in the open AND start posting under his real name and STOP with the nonsense gibberish, if he wanted to be taken seriously. For a while he did that.

As for your question - was Marian wrong about what she found and posted. No. But she didn't get it all. As for his claims about breaking billion dollar companies....well, that isn't exactly true. I did see evidence of some success he has had in terms of being a PITA against one very large company that was doing a big land development deal in Marina del Rey, but he certainly did not do that all on his own. I saw evidence of other successes he had, in other areas too. I saw the way he worked, specifically in Newport Beach where I know more than a few people, having lived there for 15 years, but in that instance, his claims amounted to nothing. What he tried to stop was under full construction when I was there a few months ago.

Would a well known politician join forces with JohnTommy. Well, not exactly. But if JohnTommy called Peskin and said "hey, here's what I've been working on and here's what I think you ought to do and why, and here's reams and reams of documents I've pulled off the internet that will help you paper your file, and I'll just give it all to you, in the USA, in the State of California, of course an experienced politician is likely to use that free research, just because it will help advance his efforts where he has no experience. Doesn't mean Peskin gives a rats ass about JohnTommy, a guy like Peskin is just a political opportunist. He'll use whatever he can to further his objective, whether the guy that brings the info to him is a Stanford grad, or a guy who posts crazytime stuff on Sailing Anarchy. Peskin probably doesn't even know SA exists, and doesn't care about JohnTommy's credentials, real or imagined. He just cares that he's got another guy who will help him - in San Fran and California, crazy is usually a good way to get heard.

The funny part is that people are saying that this suit will stop the Cup. I don't see that happening. It might stop some redevelopment of some old piers, and maybe that is a very good thing for Larry at this point. Who really cares if there is an AC village? Sure it be amusing and all, but at the end of the day, it is the racing that matters. It is the global TV show that is really the focus. Redevelopment of some piers so casual fans can walk by and go oh and ah, that doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. It would be best if there was an AC Village, but it's hardly the end of the world if there isn't one.

Maybe ACEA would be wise to just rent a big hotel ballroom and turn that into AC central for the duration of the LVC and AC.

But bottom line, would a guy like Peskin use a guy like JohnTommy Rosas? Hell yes, Peskin is a politician. He'll use whatever he can to try and advance his own cause.

#1811 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,684 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:00 PM

^

I guess MSP's posts of the last couple of hours indicate you are probably correct that he's been involved.

As for whether piers get developed or not - I think you are right - it makes little difference to the AC and none at all to me. I'll be watching over the www which - as I found out at Plymouth - is the best way to view this racing anyway.

#1812 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,361 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:11 PM





Dogwatch asks me, "(D)o you have any observations about the long list of supposedly interested parties, many of whom are clearly nothing of the kind. What purpose may that serve?"

I don't get it, either.


OK, thanks. Very strange indeed that the Royal Thames Yacht Club (among a cast of thousands) finds itself cited as a party in a dispute about rebuilding piers in a city to which it has no connection, that is circuitously linked to a regatta in which it plays no part.


dog watch --you should watch/read the d o g by gls -


and you should read the pet -again or try and understand what was stated on the reason and requirements to name those REAL PARTY[S] IN INTERESTS

they all have one thing in common -which has been missed by you and others --

they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust called THE AMERICA'S CUP TRUST as established by GLS and ny and us of a -dept of treasury

read the jpg and explain it should be clear why they had to name and SERVE those real parties in interest

Attached File  AC TRUST 2nd lawsuit acea et al 01234ABc.JPG   178.57K   21 downloads


You should try to understand what you have repeatedly been told - the only beneficiaries of the DOG are 'All the Yacht Clubs of the World' *


So guess again Councillor


* (properly constituted)
(minus those from country of the Yacht Club presently holding the Cup)


if you think your right then your dumbass should call the lawfirm

who composed the pet and those real party[s] in interest and filed that litigation and tell them Posted Image


This seems to be your answer to everything legal - 'Read what the law firm/lawyer claims'. Duh!

Glad to say it doesn't work that way - try reading what the court has stated instead, there's less of it and what there is is to the point and written by judges, not the 'paid by the page' money grubbers that you seem to love quoting.

For someone who apparently hates all things AC, you sure seem spend an inordinate amount of time fussing with it. Everything except the boats crews and sailing that isPosted Image

#1813 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,987 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:13 PM

the environmentalism activist (terrorist) have been on a roll for far too long

taking the peoples desire to protect nature as an extremist tool just like those using muslim as an extremist tool

time will come when some group shall start to do something like fuck-up some pristine location, document it and present it to the world

each time the courts allow something as ridiculous like this to go forward

that might be the only way this stupid crap will end - when people finally tie the enviro-extremist action to the negative impact that shall cause

people can't be allowed to sue places they haven't visited for not meeting there needs and killing the place just for the fun and profit of it "With the courts blessings"

#1814 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:24 PM





OK, thanks. Very strange indeed that the Royal Thames Yacht Club (among a cast of thousands) finds itself cited as a party in a dispute about rebuilding piers in a city to which it has no connection, that is circuitously linked to a regatta in which it plays no part.


dog watch --you should watch/read the d o g by gls -


and you should read the pet -again or try and understand what was stated on the reason and requirements to name those REAL PARTY[S] IN INTERESTS

they all have one thing in common -which has been missed by you and others --

they are all BENEFICIARIES to the charitable trust called THE AMERICA'S CUP TRUST as established by GLS and ny and us of a -dept of treasury

read the jpg and explain it should be clear why they had to name and SERVE those real parties in interest

Attached File  AC TRUST 2nd lawsuit acea et al 01234ABc.JPG   178.57K   21 downloads


You should try to understand what you have repeatedly been told - the only beneficiaries of the DOG are 'All the Yacht Clubs of the World' *


So guess again Councillor


* (properly constituted)
(minus those from country of the Yacht Club presently holding the Cup)


if you think your right then your dumbass should call the lawfirm

who composed the pet and those real party[s] in interest and filed that litigation and tell them Posted Image


This seems to be your answer to everything legal - 'Read what the law firm/lawyer claims'. Duh!

Glad to say it doesn't work that way - try reading what the court has stated instead, there's less of it and what there is is to the point and written by judges, not the 'paid by the page' money grubbers that you seem to love quoting.

For someone who apparently hates all things AC, you sure seem spend an inordinate amount of time fussing with it. Everything except the boats crews and sailing that isPosted Image


Keep in mind this comes from a nut job that plays dumb and calls out countries, and whose english has suddenly improved. Here a good example;

"THIS IS FIRST WARNING TO ALINGHI/UBS AND SPAIN--- SURRENDER THE AMERICA'S CUP NOW-- NO SURRENDER THEN MAHGUAH SHOW NO MERCY-- MAHGUAH SAY THIS FIRST-- LAST-- ONLY WARNING-- SURRENDER AMERICA'S CUP--MAHGUAH GIVE YOU ONLY 24 HOURS TO COMPLY."

#1815 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:42 PM

It's important that we have a good adjudication system, and elected officials to create the law that gets ruled by, including environmental protection laws.

But this Watch suit is apparently trying to use the CEQA process as the means to achieve some other agenda; or Peskin would not have so crassly admitted as much to the SF Weekly reporter.

As for MSP's 'help' well they completely wasted their money if they paid him anything; and clearly their agendas have f-all to do with trying to remove the Cup to the Mahguah Cup whatever-thing anyway, by redefining who 'ultimate bennies' are, or by trying to drag Federal taxes into it, Hague Convention treatises, Indian rights, monohull boats, illegal everything else's, etc ad infinitum.

Peskin and probably Avalos are being used, by who knows who, for some completely different agenda, that is likely forgotten old news left in the wake by this time next month anyway. Everyone will probably have moved on except for our feathers-still-ruffled one, who will then try out yet another truly bizarre argument to his own end; on a forum, the only forum he can get whatever legal attention he does.

#1816 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,155 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:54 PM

"THIS IS FIRST WARNING TO ALINGHI/UBS AND SPAIN--- SURRENDER THE AMERICA'S CUP NOW-- NO SURRENDER THEN MAHGUAH SHOW NO MERCY-- MAHGUAH SAY THIS FIRST-- LAST-- ONLY WARNING-- SURRENDER AMERICA'S CUP--MAHGUAH GIVE YOU ONLY 24 HOURS TO COMPLY."


Yep, that is when MSP was a hero for you. ;)

#1817 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:59 PM

IT's doubtful they paid him anything, and in reviewing Peskins history it seems like these two are both loose cannons.

It seems like the agenda is to threaten to delay as much as possible to force tougher negotiations, which carries additional risks for the taxpayers who don't seem to care about the piers.

I'd think Alameda would move mountains to get the team bases, instead of creating them like SF.

#1818 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:05 PM

^ Nailed it

#1819 fubaru

fubaru

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Clarksdale, Ms

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:09 PM

But this Watch suit is apparently trying to use the CEQA process as the means to achieve some other agenda; or Peskin would not have so crassly admitted as much to the SF Weekly reporter.

Of course. The agenda is to delay construction past the drop-dead date for completion in time for the LVC.

The merits of the case are irrelevant. Peskin et al are exploiting the court and regulatory systems.

When this suit is dismissed, someone else will step forward with another.

#1820 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:17 PM

When this suit is dismissed, someone else will step forward with another.

Yep - that seems possible. At some point, soon, ACEA will need to decide whether to start construction on P30. The Cruise terminal project? I guess SF could forgo all that too.

--

Fresh by KL


Peskin Point

Published: February 26, 2012
"If"
lead negotiator Stephen Barclay and his America's Cup cohorts were a trifle naïve regarding San Francisco politics when they first blew into town, trumpeting the splendors to come, an 11th hour lawsuit filed last week by former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and still-local chairman of the Democratic Party Aaron Peskin should complete their education. This is a blood sport, and you don't have to be certifiably sane to play.

contd..

#1821 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:31 PM

As a San Francisco taxpayer, I don’t want the city to give away the store. Thank you to those who are looking out for my interests—including striking a deal. Here we have a well-capitalized partner eager to invest according to the lend-lease model that succeeded in restoring the Ferry Building and creating the no-longer-controversial (!) ballpark.

I suggest you ring +1 510 747-4701 and ask for Marie Gilmore, Mayor of Alameda. Ask if the city of Alameda might be willing to host a few America’s Cup boats. Or ring +1 510 412-2070 and ask for Gayle McLaughlin, Mayor of Richmond. Ask her if Kersey’s 2010 renderings of a Cup Village on the Richmond waterfront are still good to go.



#1822 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:39 PM

--

Fresh by KL


Peskin Point


The 'if' that I've been posting too, for months:

--
If the deal fails, then, most likely, the Cup does not go to Richmond, does not go to Alameda, and does not leave San Francisco. There is ample space at Pier 80, foot of Cezar Chavez Street, to host the teams for America's Cup 34. The Oracle Racing base is already in full gear at Pier 80, and that will be the base site for America's Cup World Series racing coming to the Bay in either August or September.
--

I just expected LE to make the P80 decision even without the impetus from the Peskins of the world, since LE doesn't want that badly, and certainly does not need, a piers arrangement with that much uncertainty associated. The 'bad faith' only adds weight to what should already have been an easy call.

#1823 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:42 PM


--

Fresh by KL
Peskin Point


The 'if' that I've been posting too, for months:

--
If the deal fails, then, most likely, the Cup does not go to Richmond, does not go to Alameda, and does not leave San Francisco. There is ample space at Pier 80, foot of Cezar Chavez Street, to host the teams for America's Cup 34. The Oracle Racing base is already in full gear at Pier 80, and that will be the base site for America's Cup World Series racing coming to the Bay in either August or September.
--

I just expected LE to make the P80 decision even without the impetus from the Peskins of the world, since LE doesn't want that badly, and certainly does not need, a piers arrangement with that much uncertainty associated. The 'bad faith' only adds weight to what should already have been an easy call.

It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

#1824 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:45 PM



--

Fresh by KL
Peskin Point


The 'if' that I've been posting too, for months:

--
If the deal fails, then, most likely, the Cup does not go to Richmond, does not go to Alameda, and does not leave San Francisco. There is ample space at Pier 80, foot of Cezar Chavez Street, to host the teams for America's Cup 34. The Oracle Racing base is already in full gear at Pier 80, and that will be the base site for America's Cup World Series racing coming to the Bay in either August or September.
--

I just expected LE to make the P80 decision even without the impetus from the Peskins of the world, since LE doesn't want that badly, and certainly does not need, a piers arrangement with that much uncertainty associated. The 'bad faith' only adds weight to what should already have been an easy call.

It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

I don't suppose anyone would care.

#1825 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:48 PM


It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

I don't suppose anyone would care.

I'm sure you're right Posted Image

#1826 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:49 PM

It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

He does have that option, and I still maintain there's a good chance he'll do exactly that. Even were Peskin to drop the suit tonight.

The piers problem will just stay as-is and continue to deteriorate; left to someone (taxpayers, mostly) a few years down the road to try deal with. That is not LE's concern, why should it be?

The larger impact might be to the CST project plans; the city and Port were using AC34 as impetus to get all that off the ground and moving along. Could be more immediate repercussions there, I suppose.

#1827 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:59 PM


It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

He does have that option, and I still maintain there's a good chance he'll do exactly that. Even were Peskin to drop the suit tonight.

The piers problem will just stay as-is and continue to deteriorate; left to someone (taxpayers, mostly) a few years down the road to try deal with. That is not LE's concern, why should it be?

The larger impact might be to the CST project plans; the city and Port were using AC34 as impetus to get all that off the ground and moving along. Could be more immediate repercussions there, I suppose.


I still don't get why there has to be any real estate deal at all. Can you explain why?

#1828 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:06 PM



It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

He does have that option, and I still maintain there's a good chance he'll do exactly that. Even were Peskin to drop the suit tonight.

The piers problem will just stay as-is and continue to deteriorate; left to someone (taxpayers, mostly) a few years down the road to try deal with. That is not LE's concern, why should it be?

The larger impact might be to the CST project plans; the city and Port were using AC34 as impetus to get all that off the ground and moving along. Could be more immediate repercussions there, I suppose.


I still don't get why there has to be any real estate deal at all. Can you explain why?

Their doesn't. The city, the Port, the fans, and the taxpayers will lose out though.

I actually hope their isn't at this point - let the sups and politicians who object or don't vote for it explain where they're going to get the money to tear the piers down because they don't have the money to fix them nor another developer waiting in line, aside from the Peskin Pier development effort Posted Image.

#1829 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:16 PM

I still don't get why there has to be any real estate deal at all. Can you explain why?

Larry said up front that what he wanted was some SF waterfront to use, as place to put event facilities. He was not looking to buy anything, invest in anything, go through year-long CEQA processes, yadda yadda yadda. SF had nothing to offer so he's trying to make that happen by rebuilding some dilapidated piers. But he (quite reasonably imo) wants it to be as close to a zero-sum game as he can get. Rent-free credits to help pay for it, exactly as is the normal process for the Port.

Some people think LE is in this to make money; whereas it strikes me as quite the opposite. It's a very, very, very expensive proposition - with an enormous amount of risk evident even in trying to get just a substructure rebuild approved for the immediate/short-term.

Two more things (aside from money, uncertainty, more potential lawsuits, an unfriendly and borderline combative SFBOS) factors that favor P80? 1: They can easily just rent that facility and put relatively little extra into it to host the bases, and 2: With 6 or fewer AC72 teams likely, even if there are several 2-boat teams they might still be able to squeeze the necessary facilities into it. For the ACWS/AC45 part of Summer 2013 on the Bay? That's where an Alameda or even Richmond might help.

LE needs this about as much as he needs a hole in his head. SF apparently just is too difficult a place to get stuff like this done, it's been the concern here all along. Fine, so long as they can still hold the races!

#1830 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,291 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:32 PM

LE needs this about as much as he needs a hole in his head. SF apparently just is too difficult a place to get stuff like this done, it's been the concern here all along. Fine, so long as they can still hold the races!


Are there any rare species of fish, etc. that no one has ever heard of that the boats sailing through the water will harm?

If not I would not be surprised that one is found that eliminates all sailboat activity in the bay.

#1831 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,462 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:46 PM

Better yet what would be very cool to find is a species of land sharks that feed on out of work politicians and raving lunatic native americans. Can't anyone find me some sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads? Or even ill-temptered sea bass?

#1832 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,155 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:15 PM

LE needs this about as much as he needs a hole in his head. SF apparently just is too difficult a place to get stuff like this done, it's been the concern here all along. Fine, so long as they can still hold the races!

Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.

#1833 fubaru

fubaru

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Clarksdale, Ms

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:20 PM

Are there any rare species of fish, etc. that no one has ever heard of that the boats sailing through the water will harm?

Apparently AC crowds would interfere with the seals' mating habits, while ordinary crowds do not. . . :unsure:

#1834 fubaru

fubaru

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Clarksdale, Ms

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:24 PM

Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.

The City has been looking for such a developer for 20 years. LE is the first to come along who can back up his bullshit with real $.

edit:
I used to work for developers. They do everything with other peoples' money and structure their deals so their principals can avoid all liability. They are not the sort of people a municipality wants to have a long term relationship with. It will be a long time before SF finds anyone as substantial as LE to deal with.

#1835 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:26 PM


Are there any rare species of fish, etc. that no one has ever heard of that the boats sailing through the water will harm?

Apparently AC crowds would interfere with the seals' mating habits, while ordinary crowds do not. . . :unsure:


Not to mention the fact that AC crowds are notorious for interrupting the migratory habits of several species of birds only found in SF, and their are also sacred burial grounds scattered throughout the AC course area too.

#1836 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:38 PM

Better yet what would be very cool to find is a species of land sharks that feed on out of work politicians and raving lunatic native americans. Can't anyone find me some sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads? Or even ill-temptered sea bass?

That species went on the endangered species list about 25 years ago in SF, and is believed to be extinct as of about 15 years ago, poisoned by the food it preyed on.

#1837 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:44 PM

One of my favorite lawyer jokes
--

        Two alligators are sitting on the edge of a swamp. The small one turns to the big one and says, "I don't understand how you can be so much bigger than I am. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids... I just don't get it."
        "Well," says the big alligator, "what have you been eating?"
        "Lawyers, same as you," replies the small alligator.
        "Hmm. Well, where do you catch 'em?"
        "Down at that law firm on the edge of the swamp."
        "Same here. Hmm. How do you catch 'em?"
        "Well, I crawl under a BMW and wait for someone to unlock the door. Then I jump out, bite 'em, shake the crap out of 'em, and eat 'em!"
        "Ah!" says the big alligator, "I think I see your problem. See, by the time you get done shakin' the crap out of a lawyer, there's nothing left but lips and a briefcase."

#1838 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,987 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:58 PM

I sure hope the port of San Diego is part of the conversations in deciding the Best was to go from here out

How about an AC Village with High-Tec "You Are There" displays and up close & personal access to people and related equipment

as well as "A Grand Location to Attend the racing action over Jumbo Screens"

that's what people would wind up in the best case if they went to SF and were able to find as good a place to watch the ACtion

DAGO can and would be an Excellent plACe to hold (like when the Superbowl was here) a Super AC Experience Event to Showcase the AC while the AC was taking place

Give us the traffic and the crowds (run AC-45 events on Non-Race days)

hold the AC in SF and run it all on minimally adequate industrial grade piers not safe for the public (no public access whatsoever) Fix or Build Nothing

leave nothing but memories (NO IMPROVEMENTS)

and hold the AC-Carnival down here in DAGO WIN - WIN !

Build a SUPER AC Theater Experience in DAGO

only impact SF with those who must work or race on the boats

if you can run an AirForce of Drones from another country you can sure as hell run an AC Party on a different part of the Kalifornia Coast

#1839 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,155 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:38 PM


Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.

The City has been looking for such a developer for 20 years. LE is the first to come along who can back up his bullshit with real $.

edit:
I used to work for developers. They do everything with other peoples' money and structure their deals so their principals can avoid all liability. They are not the sort of people a municipality wants to have a long term relationship with. It will be a long time before SF finds anyone as substantial as LE to deal with.

I agree with you, the AC is an excellent opprtunity to repair the piers but Larry's conditions look unacceptable.
It is not only about the 66 years lease but:
- the refusal to put a cap above the $ 55 M knowing that the city would have to pay the difference (through tax reimboursements)
- the $ 12 M for an non identified pier which is probably the pier 80 that was refused by the city but that could be accepted later other supervisors
- mainly the refusal to sign a waiver saying he will not file a suit against the city after the deal is signed. Whe we know Larry's history, with Google, SAP etc. we know what it means.

Their business seems simple: they know in how many years they will reimbourse the $ 55 M and the extra cost will being reimboursed with tax exemptions will make the profit at SF taxpayers expenses.

Whatever it may be, I think OR problems now are just the result of a policy of all or nothing. which makes a lot of people mad.

#1840 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,203 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:56 AM

Barclay's side of the story in a interview with Craig Lewick . Part two on tuesday in Sbutt.

http://www.sailingsc...m/news/12/0226/

#1841 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,681 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:13 AM

Barclay's side of the story in a interview with Craig Lewick . Part two on tuesday in Sbutt.

http://www.sailingsc...m/news/12/0226/


thanks MM good one -

barclay is scrambling -- he will be fired soon -- his spin attempt below

// I should add though, that the story about the property and environmental side of things has taken over for what I believe to be the bigger story, which is how the America's Cup was awarded to San Francisco, and what a great event it will be on the Bay with hundreds of thousands of people being able to watch the races. And part of that is the way in which the event authority will be reimbursed has a property component.
This has been portrayed as a property development project, which clearly it is not. //



barclay trying to distort the deal that isnt done

Posted Image


#1842 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:31 AM

Barclay's side of the story in a interview with Craig Lewick . Part two on tuesday in Sbutt.

http://www.sailingsc...m/news/12/0226/


Good read, from the guy trying to make it work in SF somehow.

#1843 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,523 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:49 AM

One of my favorite lawyer jokes
--

Two alligators are sitting on the edge of a swamp. The small one turns to the big one and says, "I don't understand how you can be so much bigger than I am. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids... I just don't get it."
"Well," says the big alligator, "what have you been eating?"
"Lawyers, same as you," replies the small alligator.
"Hmm. Well, where do you catch 'em?"
"Down at that law firm on the edge of the swamp."
"Same here. Hmm. How do you catch 'em?"
"Well, I crawl under a BMW and wait for someone to unlock the door. Then I jump out, bite 'em, shake the crap out of 'em, and eat 'em!"
"Ah!" says the big alligator, "I think I see your problem. See, by the time you get done shakin' the crap out of a lawyer, there's nothing left but lips and a briefcase."


Theres a dead lawyer and a dead snake in the road.... whats the difference??














Skid marks in front of the snake....


(told to me by an attorney in the family...)

#1844 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:34 AM

Waterfront Watch should sue Pesky for using its name.

From here.


Confusion regarding America's Cup

— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 25 February 2012 — 5 comments below »
Editor's note. This blog — and the activism this blog promotes (principally New Urbanist development in Hercules, Calif.) — has absolutely nothing to do with a group purportedly of the same name that has filed legal challenges against the planned 2013 America's Cup in San Francisco. (Google has failed you.)



#1845 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,203 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:47 AM

From our very own front page, WTF ?

I am currently in San Francisco working about three weeks per month. So you can imagine how excited I was to learn that Oracle Racing's two week practice session coincided with my visit. Moreover, my son Gavin, an Opti sailor, was going to be in town on the weekend that the two catamarans would be ripping across the bay in 20 knots of breeze. I was sure that, in the face of disappointing spectator interest and almost no outside sponsorship , Oracle Racing would be pulling out the stops with a major PR campaign. Even though it was only a practice session, of course there would be official spectator boats, tons of local exposure, an experiential village for the public, rides on the catamarans for VIPs, insane social media execution, and an all-out effort to build community around the event.

Boy was I wrong. Neither the Oracle Racing website nor a Google search could produce any information at all about the practice session. Not one mention! I only discovered the whereabouts of the Oracle Racing compound because I happened to meet a couple of the crew on the train to work. Otherwise the boats are completely hidden from public view in a nondescript location well South of the City. There is absolutely zero buzz or excitement in San Francisco (as far as I can tell) about the America's Cup. While my son and I did happen to see the boats sail by near St Francis Yacht Club one afternoon, we got no information at all from Oracle Racing or the local press. You get the feeling that the whole event will pass by San Francisco without anyone noticing.

I'm just a sports marketing guy and sailing fan. When I first heard about Larry Ellison bringing the America's Cup to San Francisco, I naively believed the event had the potential to bring the sport to hundreds of thousands of new fans. I now see that the America's Cup in 2013 will go down as a huge missed opportunity. Our sport will continue to speak to a small and insular group of people, and we'll just write off any hope of building a larger fan base with our marquee event. - Anarchist Peter


#1846 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:59 AM

I don't see the article on the FP, but all homie had to do was look here, the training dates were posted weeks ago. The next session will be March 12-23, excluding weekends.

#1847 fubaru

fubaru

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Location:Clarksdale, Ms

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:00 AM

I don't see the article on the FP, but all homie had to do was look here, the training dates were posted weeks ago. The next session will be March 12-23, excluding weekends.

A sad commentary on ACEA's abilities

'If you can't find AC info on our official site, check with a third party that really cares'. . . :unsure:

#1848 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,203 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:38 AM

I don't see the article on the FP, but all homie had to do was look here, the training dates were posted weeks ago. The next session will be March 12-23, excluding weekends.



I think his point is that if someone like himself or his son who are interested sailors and well aware of the AC can't readily find the info then how can the ACEA possibly expect to recruit new interest from those that are presently not aware at all ? Here is a guy with a real interest , feet on the ground in the heart of the goings on and can't even find out the most basic of facts . With sports marketing apparently being his profession someone should take heed. Kudos to SA for posting his letter , perhaps someone of authority will finally get a clue .

#1849 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,684 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:26 AM

^

Is the schedule for a practice session really "the most basic of facts"?

#1850 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:34 AM

I was trying to be facetious, but it came off wrong. I agree, it's pretty strange that one can glean more information from an online forum where it's customary to tell each other to F-off and to SYGFTs, than the official web site.

Maybe they keep it on the downlow in an effort to stop a bunch of gawkers from getting in the way. I would.

#1851 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,203 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:07 AM

I was trying to be facetious, but it came off wrong. I agree, it's pretty strange that one can glean more information from an online forum where it's customary to tell each other to F-off and to SYGFTs, than the official web site.

Maybe they keep it on the downlow in an effort to stop a bunch of gawkers from getting in the way. I would.


I did miss your true meaning. The guy did have a point . I would think that they would be doing everything they could to get the word out especially with the vote on Tuesday.

#1852 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,365 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:14 AM

Sorry but this is just stupid.
Did this guy "Peter" (PH?) make ANY effort to find out if a training seasion was going on?
A few short FB messages could have given him all the info he needed.
I feel sorry for his kid though, lets hope he doesnt get dads genes...

#1853 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,987 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:21 AM

It is beyond me why anybody should expect Oracle to pubicise these sessions. They are not "practice sessions" but they are serious 2 boat trialing of design concepts for the AC72. If these were indeed AC45 training sessions, then I am sure that Oracle would have publisised them but they weren't and I bet that Oracle would rather they could do these sessions away from all prying eyes. The general public has as much right to seeing these trials as they do to freely wander around the Oracle boatbuilding facility. Maybe somebody will start complaining that they tried to get in there and weren't allowed access :blink:

And Oracle has done some promo work during these sessions. I have seen the photos of the party they threw which I believe was open to all.

#1854 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,623 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:11 AM

^^^

Really?

ORACLE Racing returns to San Francisco Bay for training session

Posted on 15 February 2012

ORACLE Racing, Team USA for the 34th America’s Cup in 2013, returned to San Francisco Bay today, commencing the first of two training sessions.

The team took its two AC45 wingsail catamarans out for practice with full crews. The wind strength built into the high teens in the afternoon and the session was welcomed by the sailors.

...

http://www.americascup.com/en/Teams/ORACLE-Racing/Latest/News/2012/02-Feb/ORACLE-Racing-returns-to-San-Francisco-Bay-for-training-session/



#1855 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 03:53 PM

Seen at a rant here

Posted Image

#1856 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 03:53 PM

Sorry but this is just stupid.
Did this guy "Peter" (PH?) make ANY effort to find out if a training seasion was going on?
A few short FB messages could have given him all the info he needed.
I feel sorry for his kid though, lets hope he doesnt get dads genes...


Can assure you Tony the guy who wrote that article was not me. I'd have used my full name, I'm not really in the sportsmarketing biz any more (just get pulled into it from time to time) and I hope that my kids never set foot in an Opti. They are 9 and 7, already sailing, and enjoying, Lightning's (particularly when my 7 yo daughter caught the biggest large mouth bass I have ever seen in my life when we did the sailing/fishing thing) and the occasional ride on a big boat.

And yes, they will get out on some sort of a cat as soon as they have a bit more experience.

#1857 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:39 PM

New online, AC Swag Store

#1858 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:49 PM

New online, AC Swag Store


Best Sailors. Fastest Boats. Warmest Jackets.

Seriously?

#1859 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,684 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:02 PM

Seriously?


There was someone on SAAC a while ago complaining at length that he couldn't find merchandise at ACWS. Takes all sorts.

#1860 boomer

boomer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,197 posts
  • Location:PNW

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:09 PM


New online, AC Swag Store


Best Sailors. Fastest Boats. Warmest Jackets.

Seriously?


:lol:

Why to people think its cool to wear this stuff?

#1861 buckdouger

buckdouger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:18 PM


I don't see the article on the FP, but all homie had to do was look here, the training dates were posted weeks ago. The next session will be March 12-23, excluding weekends.



I think his point is that if someone like himself or his son who are interested sailors and well aware of the AC can't readily find the info then how can the ACEA possibly expect to recruit new interest from those that are presently not aware at all ? Here is a guy with a real interest , feet on the ground in the heart of the goings on and can't even find out the most basic of facts . With sports marketing apparently being his profession someone should take heed. Kudos to SA for posting his letter , perhaps someone of authority will finally get a clue .


I was in the City over the past two weekends, and I can add a few things: at the intersection of market and powell there are some nice AC banners flying there, but that seems to be the only flag flying in the city that I came across. Presumably once the refurbishment of the piers begins in earnest for the hosting, big posters will be put up to start to familiarize the local citizens with the event.. it may be just that the full-on promotion hasn't yet begun.
To peter's point, it isn't particularly straightforward to figure out quickly where to look to try to see the boats in training (its arguable whether oracle want that or not). We live in a culture increasingly desirous of fast information feedback, and my cursory searches in some obvious places (AC website, Twitter, locations around town) bore no fruit. SA forums are a great resource, but the lay-person who saw a cool photo of the boats and heard they were in town and wanted a glimpse is not going to land here immediately.
At the end of the day, it's a big bay, and one probably only wants to know where to look, on what day, on the off chance of a sighting.
Given the team's base location, it may not be a bad idea to 'buzz' the piers at the beginning and end of each training day in SF, with some posters in the ferry building and at pier 39 highlighting that event on appropriate days. There's are awfully big crowds milling around there, and I'm sure most of them would think it pretty cool.




#1862 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:59 PM

Seen at a rant here

Posted Image



It's no surprise that when it's complimentary to larry and russ vision it's a 'good fun read' but if it's bad, it's a rant...
The guy actually knows enough to be heard...don't expect you to listen...

Third, it will give a much needed spark to our economy.

LIKE A STIMULUS PACKAGE? SO WHY DON’T WE GIVE THE NINE-FIGURES TO THE PEOPLE NOW, INSTEAD OF TO LARRY ELLISON?

The 34th America’s Cup will create more than 8,000 jobs and pump an estimated $1.4 billion dollars into our economy.

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT. NUMBER ONE, YOU’RE JUST GUESSING. NUMBER TWO, ITS A WILDLY-INFLATED GUESS, AS EVERYBODY WHO HAS LOOKED INTO THIS ALREADY KNOWS. AREN”T THE CURRENT WILDLY-INFLATED ESTIMATES MUCH LOWER THAN THIS ALREADY?

Among major sporting events, the America’s Cup delivers the third largest economic impact to host destinations, exceeded only by the Olympic Games and World Cup.

THIS STAT WILL NEED TO BE RE-WRITTEN AFTER THE AMERICA’S CUP TURNS INTO A FIASCO OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. WOULDN’T SAN FRANCISCO PREFER TO GET THE WARRIORS OR TO NOT LOSE THE NINERS? AND HAS MONTREAL FINALLY FINISHED PAYING OFF ITS OLYMPICS FROM LIKE FOUR DECADES AGO? WHAT KIND OF IMPACT WAS THAT? AND HOW ABOUT GREECE? WHAT DID THE OLYMPICS DO TO GREECE?

Of course, with any major event come some temporary inconveniences and sacrifices like traffic, parking and crowded restaurants.

WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THAT? WE”RE PAYING WAY TOO MUCH MONEY FOR THE CUP AND TOO MUCH OF THE RISK IS ON US. AND ALL THE NUMBERS FROM THE PROMOTERS ARE PROVING TO BE WRONG ALREADY. WHY DO YOU TALK ABOUT THE GOOD THINGS YOU GUESS MIGHT HAPPEN WITHOUT MENTIONING THE BAD?

WHY DON’T YOU TELL US WHAT IT WILL COST US? YOU DON’T SEEM TO CARE. MAYBE IF IT COST US A BILLION, YOU’D STILL APPROVE? WHO KNOWS? MAYBE.

LARRY ELLISON WANTS TO PLAY AROUND WITH BOATS, BUT LARRY ELLISON WANTS US TO PAY FOR IT AND HAVE US TAKE THE BULK OF THE RISK.

IT’S A SORRY SITUATION.



#1863 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:47 PM

^ I could have posted the Cheerleading article instead, that the ranter was responding to.

Neither piece argues anything new, neither party adds good argument, the more noteworthy item in all of it is Mayor Lee's booster meeting. So that's what I did post.

Lee is also hosting an event at Red's on P30 in about 15 minutes from now. edit: At Sbutt:

LOCALS ONLY: At 11:00 am on Monday, Feb 27, San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee will host a roundtable discussion on the benefits of hosting the 34th America's Cup at the screamingly unpretentious local landmark - Red's Java House at The Embarcadero & Bryant Street.

#1864 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,690 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:07 PM

There's also this...not sure if it's a reschedule from Red's:

*** REVISED MEDIA ADVISORY ***


MAYOR EDWIN M. LEE’S SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC EVENTS FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012










1:00 PM

Mayor Lee and America’s Cup Event Authority to make announcement about 34th America’s Cup.

Pier 80 at Oracle Racing Team Base

Marin Street at Illinois Street



#1865 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:22 PM


LE needs this about as much as he needs a hole in his head. SF apparently just is too difficult a place to get stuff like this done, it's been the concern here all along. Fine, so long as they can still hold the races!

Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.



What makes you think ANY developer in their right mind would consider messing with SFO after the crap Ellison has had to go through on this issue, particularly when you consider how much support he had from the many big hitters that and jumped on board with the AC effort? Can you imagine some plain developer getting the support Ellison has had from Newsome, Lee, et al for some simple development project without the cache this project has had? And without that kind of support, why would any developer want to mess with what would assured to be a similar or even more severe battle by the same malcontents?


Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.

The City has been looking for such a developer for 20 years. LE is the first to come along who can back up his bullshit with real $.

edit:
I used to work for developers. They do everything with other peoples' money and structure their deals so their principals can avoid all liability. They are not the sort of people a municipality wants to have a long term relationship with. It will be a long time before SF finds anyone as substantial as LE to deal with.



One of your better posts.

#1866 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:24 PM


I don't see the article on the FP, but all homie had to do was look here, the training dates were posted weeks ago. The next session will be March 12-23, excluding weekends.



I think his point is that if someone like himself or his son who are interested sailors and well aware of the AC can't readily find the info then how can the ACEA possibly expect to recruit new interest from those that are presently not aware at all ? Here is a guy with a real interest , feet on the ground in the heart of the goings on and can't even find out the most basic of facts . With sports marketing apparently being his profession someone should take heed. Kudos to SA for posting his letter , perhaps someone of authority will finally get a clue .



I was wondering just how much they wanted to let everyone know, at this time, exactly what time and where they will be, testing out their own, semi-secret stuff.

#1867 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:26 PM


I was trying to be facetious, but it came off wrong. I agree, it's pretty strange that one can glean more information from an online forum where it's customary to tell each other to F-off and to SYGFTs, than the official web site.

Maybe they keep it on the downlow in an effort to stop a bunch of gawkers from getting in the way. I would.


I did miss your true meaning. The guy did have a point . I would think that they would be doing everything they could to get the word out especially with the vote on Tuesday.



I believe if it was truly about training, rather than TESTING, they would have more interest in using it as PR opportunities.

#1868 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,523 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:37 PM



I was trying to be facetious, but it came off wrong. I agree, it's pretty strange that one can glean more information from an online forum where it's customary to tell each other to F-off and to SYGFTs, than the official web site.

Maybe they keep it on the downlow in an effort to stop a bunch of gawkers from getting in the way. I would.


I did miss your true meaning. The guy did have a point . I would think that they would be doing everything they could to get the word out especially with the vote on Tuesday.



I believe if it was truly about training, rather than TESTING, they would have more interest in using it as PR opportunities.


They have PR events like the media day. They have member events. and they have team events. The latter is focused on a successful defense and they don't need/desire spectators. Different people and planning for each.

#1869 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,563 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:12 PM



LE needs this about as much as he needs a hole in his head. SF apparently just is too difficult a place to get stuff like this done, it's been the concern here all along. Fine, so long as they can still hold the races!

Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.



What makes you think ANY developer in their right mind would consider messing with SFO after the crap Ellison has had to go through on this issue, particularly when you consider how much support he had from the many big hitters that and jumped on board with the AC effort? Can you imagine some plain developer getting the support Ellison has had from Newsome, Lee, et al for some simple development project without the cache this project has had? And without that kind of support, why would any developer want to mess with what would assured to be a similar or even more severe battle by the same malcontents?


Good, let him organize a boat race at GGYC or else, and let the piers to a developper willing to have a win win situation with the city.

The City has been looking for such a developer for 20 years. LE is the first to come along who can back up his bullshit with real $.

edit:
I used to work for developers. They do everything with other peoples' money and structure their deals so their principals can avoid all liability. They are not the sort of people a municipality wants to have a long term relationship with. It will be a long time before SF finds anyone as substantial as LE to deal with.



One of your better posts.






When an "asset" is left to rot for decades there are several highly likely truths:

* The asset has a negative basis.
* The regulatory environment is uncertain, unpredictable or toxic.
* There is no obvious market.
* The problem is simply too large (or too small) to be attractive.
* There are no interested developers. (A developer: A guy with a dime and a thousand mirrors, an LLC and a sole interest in zero-sum games.)

All of these are the case on the SF waterfront. I have a decent portfolio in the assessment of the redevelopment potential of abandoned industrial properties. I've toured the SF piers with one of the most knowledgeable people in SF urban redevelopment. Those piers have an extraordinary negative value to any redevelopment scheme as they sit there. Their ONLY value is that they cover water surface.

#1870 JWR

JWR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:30 PM

When an "asset" is left to rot for decades there are several highly likely truths:

* The asset has a negative basis.
* The regulatory environment is uncertain, unpredictable or toxic.
* There is no obvious market.
* The problem is simply too large (or too small) to be attractive.
* There are no interested developers. (A developer: A guy with a dime and a thousand mirrors, an LLC and a sole interest in zero-sum games.)

All of these are the case on the SF waterfront. I have a decent portfolio in the assessment of the redevelopment potential of abandoned industrial properties. I've toured the SF piers with one of the most knowledgeable people in SF urban redevelopment. Those piers have an extraordinary negative value to any redevelopment scheme as they sit there. Their ONLY value is that they cover water surface.





Nailed it. The improvements necessary to build anything (including the dreaded condominiums, which likely won't happen on a short ground lease of 66 years) on these piers are so costly that it takes any profit out of the equation for a developer. Believe me - this is what I do for a living. If they were a decent investment, someone would have done it a long time ago - there is no money to be made by the development of the piers alone. It's solely a way to try to recoup some of the costs.

Also - remember - under a ground lease - the CITY GETS THE PIERS BACK at the end of the 66 years. With title to all of the improvements that have been constructed thereon.

#1871 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:05 PM


When an "asset" is left to rot for decades there are several highly likely truths:

* The asset has a negative basis.
* The regulatory environment is uncertain, unpredictable or toxic.
* There is no obvious market.
* The problem is simply too large (or too small) to be attractive.
* There are no interested developers. (A developer: A guy with a dime and a thousand mirrors, an LLC and a sole interest in zero-sum games.)

All of these are the case on the SF waterfront. I have a decent portfolio in the assessment of the redevelopment potential of abandoned industrial properties. I've toured the SF piers with one of the most knowledgeable people in SF urban redevelopment. Those piers have an extraordinary negative value to any redevelopment scheme as they sit there. Their ONLY value is that they cover water surface.


Nailed it. The improvements necessary to build anything (including the dreaded condominiums, which likely won't happen on a short ground lease of 66 years) on these piers are so costly that it takes any profit out of the equation for a developer. Believe me - this is what I do for a living. If they were a decent investment, someone would have done it a long time ago - there is no money to be made by the development of the piers alone. It's solely a way to try to recoup some of the costs.

Also - remember - under a ground lease - the CITY GETS THE PIERS BACK at the end of the 66 years. With title to all of the improvements that have been constructed thereon.


Why is it that these positions are not brought up before the televised BOS meetings ?

Barclay either needs a coach or he needs to do a better job of re-framing these discussions, and at the beginning of his speech, not at the end, and then elaborate a bit.

#1872 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:08 PM

Could be interesting, what Lee says at P80.

This from a tweet by someone
--

Doug SovernSources tell me deal will be announced 2 move #AmericasCup from Piers 30-32 to different pier, reducing infrastructure cost & $ risk to City



#1873 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:10 PM

Breaking: SF Mayor announces #AmericasCup teams will be based at Pier 80 instead of Piers 30-32, to reduce SF's investment & financial risk


Move is response 2 potentially deal-killing concerns expressed by Supes. All teams will HQ at much more remote 80 instead of by Bay Bridge



#1874 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:11 PM

Biiingooo - exactly what I have been arguing / guessing:

New tweet by the guy above:

Breaking: SF Mayor announces #AmericasCup teams will be based at Pier 80 instead of Piers 30-32, to reduce SF's investment & financial risk

edit: SCR beat me to it!



#1875 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,987 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:13 PM

Could be interesting, what Lee says at P80.

This from a tweet by someone
--

Doug SovernSources tell me deal will be announced 2 move #AmericasCup from Piers 30-32 to different pier, reducing infrastructure cost & $ risk to City



Live Web-Cast ???

#1876 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:18 PM

This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.

America's Cup organizers eliminate major parts of development deal
America's Cup race organizers decided to cut the heart out of a proposed development deal with the city, giving up on plans to overhaul Piers 30-32 south of the Bay Bridge, Mayor Ed Lee announced today.

However, the elite yachting races, beginning with exhibition matches on the Bay in August and culminating with the trophy competition next year, will go on as planned.

The America's Cup Event Authority, led by billionaire Larry Ellison, to put on the regatta, has been locked in intense negotiations with city officials on a final deal to prepare San Francisco's waterfront for the races.

A key component of the proposed agreement was to give the Event Authority a 66-year, rent-free lease on Piers 30-32 and title to Seawall Lot 330 across the Embarcadero. In exchange, the Event Authority would pay $55 million to stabilize Piers 30-32, a conjoined single pier on the prime waterfront location that was to be used as a home base for some of the racing teams.

Now, all of the teams will be based out of Pier 80 further south.

The Board of Supervisors was scheduled to vote on the proposed deal Tuesday, with no guarantee of approval.

#1877 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:19 PM

Also being confirmed by this guy (who happens to be Comm of the South Beach YC nearby)

olivaglobal@olivaglobal
Mayor Ed Lee just announced Piers 30-32 will be removed from #americascup event plan. Team bases will be Pier 80

me: So LE told the SFBOS to just solve that piers problem themselves ;)

#1878 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:22 PM

This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.

America's Cup organizers eliminate major parts of development deal
America's Cup race organizers decided to cut the heart out of a proposed development deal with the city, giving up on plans to overhaul Piers 30-32 south of the Bay Bridge, Mayor Ed Lee announced today.

However, the elite yachting races, beginning with exhibition matches on the Bay in August and culminating with the trophy competition next year, will go on as planned.

The America's Cup Event Authority, led by billionaire Larry Ellison, to put on the regatta, has been locked in intense negotiations with city officials on a final deal to prepare San Francisco's waterfront for the races.

A key component of the proposed agreement was to give the Event Authority a 66-year, rent-free lease on Piers 30-32 and title to Seawall Lot 330 across the Embarcadero. In exchange, the Event Authority would pay $55 million to stabilize Piers 30-32, a conjoined single pier on the prime waterfront location that was to be used as a home base for some of the racing teams.

Now, all of the teams will be based out of Pier 80 further south.

The Board of Supervisors was scheduled to vote on the proposed deal Tuesday, with no guarantee of approval.


Dang, what will Peskin & Avalos have left to argue about now? And, will this dropped-ball piers fiasco help Peskin, when he tries to unseat SFBOS chair David Chiu later this year? Lol

#1879 Mariner

Mariner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,501 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:22 PM

Biiingo - exactly what I have been arguing / guessing:

New tweet by the guy above:

Breaking: SF Mayor announces #AmericasCup teams will be based at Pier 80 instead of Piers 30-32, to reduce SF's investment & financial risk

edit: SCR beat me to it!




and leaving Piers 30/32 to remain the rotting, crumbling-into-the-bay parking lots they have been for decades.

F'ing idiots... well, we're getting closer to the golf tourny-like, temp hospitality tents model. I guess the four or five boats could fit on 80 no problem, whereas 30/32 was designed for 10 teams or thereabouts.

Real bummer is that P 80 is another mile or so further south, much more isolated.

#1880 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,523 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:23 PM

Also being confirmed by this guy (who happens to be Comm of the South Beach YC nearby)

olivaglobal@olivaglobal
Mayor Ed Lee just announced Piers 30-32 will be removed from #americascup event plan. Team bases will be Pier 80

me: So LE told the SFBOS to just solve that piers problem themselves ;)


stronger negotiating position for AC 35... Posted Image

#1881 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:25 PM

When an "asset" is left to rot for decades there are several highly likely truths:

* The asset has a negative basis.
* The regulatory environment is uncertain, unpredictable or toxic.
* There is no obvious market.
* The problem is simply too large (or too small) to be attractive.
* There are no interested developers. (A developer: A guy with a dime and a thousand mirrors, an LLC and a sole interest in zero-sum games.)

All of these are the case on the SF waterfront. I have a decent portfolio in the assessment of the redevelopment potential of abandoned industrial properties. I've toured the SF piers with one of the most knowledgeable people in SF urban redevelopment. Those piers have an extraordinary negative value to any redevelopment scheme as they sit there. Their ONLY value is that they cover water surface.


AND . . .
Their (the piers and the bay frontage) value will get smaller and smaller as time goes by and they fall into the sea. It is usually easier to get permission to "re-develop" a place where there is already development than to try and make new development where there is open space, and I would imagine that is even more the case with these piers and SFO politics. If the piers continue to deteriorate and fall into the sea, I could very easily see it happen where nothing ever is developed there again as I imagine it will just get harder to secure approval to develop a new pier/development where there is, at that point, open bay frontage. It might end up being scenic, with new open bay frontage, but it will be a loss in value, utility, and tax base.

#1882 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:25 PM

stronger negotiating position for AC 35... Posted Image

Yep, the same has occurred to me, +1

#1883 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,690 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:26 PM

Yet another development plan evaporates for 30-32. And a black eye for San Francisco.
SFBOS can now proudly call the cars only parking lot of piers 30-32 Peskin Daly Point.

And pier 80, with all that concertina wire and fencing around it...will that change?
Gosh what a shame.

#1884 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:28 PM


This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.


Dang, what will Peskin & Avalos have left to argue about now? And, will this dropped-ball piers fiasco help Peskin, when he tries to unseat SFBOS chair David Chiu later this year? Lol

Avalos's last statement on this was that while he said he understood both sides of the issue (sure he did) he just needed a little more time. He now has as much time as he could possibly want, just no cash and no developer.

Cut off their nose despite their face.

Their should be an "Occupy Telegraph Hill" movement right about now.



#1885 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:28 PM

It's easier for me to get to Pier 80 anyway. Good. The Dogpatch is going to see a serious boost in its economy. I like that neighborhood, it's down home, working class, and the port history there is pretty neat. Screw Pier 32, let the city deal with it (like that will ever happen).

Freinds, welcome the new era of The Dogpatch!

#1886 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:30 PM



This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.


Dang, what will Peskin & Avalos have left to argue about now? And, will this dropped-ball piers fiasco help Peskin, when he tries to unseat SFBOS chair David Chiu later this year? Lol

Avalos's last statement on this was that while he said he understood both sides of the issue (sure he did) he just needed a little more time. He now has as much time as he could possibly want, just no cash and no developer.

Cut off their nose despite their face.

Their should be an "Occupy Telegraph Hill" movement right about now.



I wouldn't be surprised if there was a longshorman lynch mob assembling there right now.

#1887 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:38 PM

So, San Francisco could have had an amazing set of stunning piers suited to celebrating the beautiful bay-front setting of the stunning city, but instead they will continue to have shitty ocean front/top parking lots and ugly warehouses, all of which will help drive the city further and further into bankruptcy, with all of their maintenance/environmental costs to be handled by the city, with no income . . . all thanks to the anti-anything losers in SFO and losers like MSP. Meanwhile, LE will have the race he wants, where he wants it, and when he wants it, and he will continue to be richer than ever, all the while not having to deal with the head-ache of SFO politics. I would love to see these politicians and these obstructionists have to be accountable for the loss the city is going to take on this, long-term. Unfortunately, I highly doubt anyone will hold them accountable.

#1888 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:39 PM




This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.


Dang, what will Peskin & Avalos have left to argue about now? And, will this dropped-ball piers fiasco help Peskin, when he tries to unseat SFBOS chair David Chiu later this year? Lol

Avalos's last statement on this was that while he said he understood both sides of the issue (sure he did) he just needed a little more time. He now has as much time as he could possibly want, just no cash and no developer.

Cut off their nose despite their face.

Their should be an "Occupy Telegraph Hill" movement right about now.



I wouldn't be surprised if there was a longshorman lynch mob assembling there right now.


Yep - $110M in investment foregone is a truly massive loss. Not just the longshoremen will be pissed...

Wonder how Lee framed it? Could be interesting, his comments.

#1889 Mariner

Mariner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,501 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:43 PM

Actually, you can't help but admire LE for calling their bluff and just saying hell with em. Less headache he doesn't need.

what they could have had....
Posted Image

#1890 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,563 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:49 PM



This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.


Dang, what will Peskin & Avalos have left to argue about now? And, will this dropped-ball piers fiasco help Peskin, when he tries to unseat SFBOS chair David Chiu later this year? Lol

Avalos's last statement on this was that while he said he understood both sides of the issue (sure he did) he just needed a little more time. He now has as much time as he could possibly want, just no cash and no developer.

Cut off their nose despite their face.

Their should be an "Occupy Telegraph Hill" movement right about now.



It's "to spite their face". But otherwise I completely agree.

#1891 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,833 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:55 PM

Doug Sovern@SovernNation : It also postpones tomorrow's SF Board of Supervisors hearing & vote on Cup plan, which will be delayed 2-4 weeks while documents are redrawn


#1892 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:55 PM

It would be interesting to see the fallout if LE just stepped back and said, ok, no piers will be rebuilt. Thanks for your consideration and have a nice day.

Now this is getting fun.

I'd guess their will be more hedging going on behind the scenes with the Peskin/Telegraph Hill crowd than what takes place in a gardener's convention.

I suppose ACEA can now tell Peskin where to put his lawsuit, and the pigeon scalper can add more war paint to his mug but it won't make a difference. Posted Image



#1893 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,523 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:57 PM


stronger negotiating position for AC 35... Posted Image

Yep, the same has occurred to me, +1




#1894 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,140 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:01 PM

You know what else is funny about this, it takes away alot, if not all, of the BoFD stuff that Capt Kithcart was tossing around in his suit.

#1895 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,925 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:02 PM




This is good news for the schedule, let Peskin and Telegraph Hill justify their obstructionist position with the Port as to why the piers will be left to fall into the SF Bay.


Dang, what will Peskin & Avalos have left to argue about now? And, will this dropped-ball piers fiasco help Peskin, when he tries to unseat SFBOS chair David Chiu later this year? Lol

Avalos's last statement on this was that while he said he understood both sides of the issue (sure he did) he just needed a little more time. He now has as much time as he could possibly want, just no cash and no developer.

Cut off their nose despite their face.

Their should be an "Occupy Telegraph Hill" movement right about now.



It's "to spite their face". But otherwise I completely agree.

Others thought the same, for your reference;


de·spite

[dih-spahyt] Show IPA

preposition, noun,verb,

-spit·ed,

-spit·ing.

preposition1.in spite of; notwithstanding.





#1896 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,987 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:05 PM

hope no well meaning environmentalist finds that any chemicals are or are about to transfer into the waters of the bay with falling pier pices

any chance creosote or some other nasty stuff was used over the years

might need to remove the bio hazard before it spreads further Posted Image

still not ruling out the mess moving to DAGO at the last minute

could the AC-45 been a dry run to test the climate for a modern AC in me hood ??

#1897 Mariner

Mariner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,501 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:05 PM

http://maps.google.c...2,66.35,,0,0.35

And this is what they're left with...

#1898 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:06 PM

Has Peskin got what he wanted?

#1899 krispy kreme

krispy kreme

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:13 PM

This only takes Piers 30/32 and seawall lot 330 off the table (granted they were significant component of the original plan), but Piers 27/29 and 28 and 26 remain.

A decision to use Pier 80 for team bases throughout AC34 does not impact Pesky Peskin's lawsuit.

Not the first time he's filed a petition for writ of mandate based on CEQA to block a development.

He filed a similar one for the Treasure Island Development in July of 2011, that is still in court. You can read the lengthy case history for that one here:

http://webaccess.sft...S=-ACPF11511452

#1900 Gym

Gym

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Location:S.F. CA USA

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:14 PM

Perhaps the thought of having to remove tens of thousands of cubic feet of toxic material, at a cost of $150/cubic foot, gave LE pause...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users