Next, the Treasure Island sellout

Wait -- where's the seawall?

Now that he's done such a bang-up job negotiating a deal for the CMPC hospital, leaving the supervisors to clean up the mess, does anyone think that the hurry-up-and-finish-in-time-for-a-China-trip talks with Rose Pak and Willie Brown (who has his own interests here, too) will have a good outcome for San Francisco?

Because I don't.

Nothing the mayor has directly negotiated with private interests has been anything but a disaster for the city. America's Cup, the Warriors arena, CPMC ... the guy just can't seem to say No. And you really don't want someone who gives away the story to be representing the city when there are billions of dollars and the future of a huge new neighborhood (on a sinking island in the middle of a rising bay) at stake.

I still don't see how intense residential and commercial development works on TI, when there's only one overcrowded artery on and off the island. In New York, people who live on Staten Island are used to using the (free, heavily subsidized)  ferry -- 60,000 a day take the boats into Manhattan. That's going to be a huge stretch for people who live on TI, where there will be limited shopping (even for things like groceries) -- and at this point, I don't see the developer, or the city, purchasing and paying for enough cheap ferry service to make it an effective form of transportation.

That said, if we can make it work as a transit-first community, I have no problem with developing Treasure Island -- but I don't see Lee getting the level of civic benefits out of Lennar and the China Development Corporation that San Francisco needs to make this pencil out. Hasn't happened yet. 



could make Treasure Island an extremely desirable community. As long as the city abandons its plans to continue to place transitioning homeless people on the island - no one is going to pay market rates for a condo sandwiched between a heroin addict on one side and a newly arrived homeless family of 5 on the other.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

Newly arrived from where, Asia? What are you trying to say?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

Do you? Where do they tend to cluster - Chinatown or Japantown?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

They're not called the model minority for nothing.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

Isn't the CCDC empire built on helping Chinese Americans in poverty? Or are they too busy providing services to LGBT Chinese American seniors to be bothered with that?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:53 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

Marcos isn't as forthright about it as Greg is, but the trend remains clear. They seem threatened by Asians, somehow.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

My great grandparents fled the pogroms and came here in the bottom of a ship in the 1890s, a time of massive wealth disparity and economic instability here, landed in abject poverty in the Lower East Side, found themselves jobs and then went to night school to learn English.

This was back before the words "social" and "services" were used in the same sentence.

I'm unclear on the concept of how folks whose families have been here for generations, many of whom have faced discrimination, some of whom are too ill to carry their freight, some of whom are Asian, even, and have ended up homeless are undesirable and not deserving of services but someone who's come here not bothered to learn the language and relate to the greater culture is desirable and deserving of services.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

immigrants ensure they get first dibs on social services and then spend their lives in a cocoon of others just like them. Look at the housing for elderly Jews and Asians in San Francisco - you can forget about getting on the list for that unless you belong to an Asian family association or have connections at one of the non profits which administer it.

You know that there are entire industries in San Francisco built around administering the city's "contracts" to provide services to "vulnerable populations." It's the Non Profit-Industrial Complex.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 6:52 pm

I'm one of those who wants to condition new immigration on doing right by those who've been here and been screwed for generations. Not out of xenophobia but out of business sense. We have a problem persistent poverty amidst plenty and a scarce commodity, visas. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that we can harness that desire to move here in order to force justice for the underclass.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

Unfortunately - that's just a fact. We should make sure children are well cared for but as for adults - not everyone can have a lot of money.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 8:42 pm

Who said a lot of money? Basic economic security and dignity, you know, the stuff people fought for and won in the 1930s and 1960s.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:02 am

America has always rejected the European notion that the government should give out welfare to anyone and everyone who wants it, such that not working becomes a "lifestyle option".

Even MediCare and State pensions have to be earned via payroll taxes.

Immigrants generally do not qualify for these benefits and so work hard and for viable economic pay, thereby reducing inflation and lowering costs. We all benefit from net immigration, and dressing up xenophobia and racism as concern for people who are themselves descended from immigrants seems disingenuous, at best, and hateful at worst.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:11 am

Not genuine; false; two-faced; hypocritical; tongue-in-cheek; nasty.

And, naturally, there's the glib lies, told with such certitude and a layering of falsehood.

During the great depression those of anon's ilk didn't get up on any soapboxes preaching their false sense of what it is to be an American because it wouldn't have been safe.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:52 am
Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 7:09 am

Yep, blame the Asians and Russians. How easy it is to find a scapegoat, while those really responsible for our economic problems laugh their way to the bank (oh, they own them)

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 11:11 pm

Legal immigration is one of the fingerprints of the 1% who use that for a range of racist and economic purposes. Latinos coming across the arbitrary border without papers is the least of our problems.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:04 am
Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:12 am

and dismisses complaints regarding large-scale immigration from Mexico because he has never worked painting houses, etc.

He is absolutely correct, though, in identifying immigration policy -- and racism -- as a tool of the 1%ers.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:46 am

IT guy from Asia can do his job for less money, because Marcos is overpaid for what he does, like many Americans.

If Americans were not overpaid, then we would not see immigration, would not see imports, would not see outsourcing and would not see a falling dollar. But in fact we see all of those thigns for one reason and one reas only - you, me, marcos and the rest of us are paid too much relative to other nations for the same skills.

Throwing out "one percent" cliches does nothing to reveal the real problem - our pay levels are unsustainable in a modern, global economy.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 6:58 am

Please, broadcast far and wide your opinion that Americans are overpaid, I'm sure that will work out well for you.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 8:15 am

I'm sure that will work out well for you too.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 9:30 am

It's very simple:

Technically skilled IT people with H-1B visas are a threat to Marcos' job.

Illegal Mexican laborers are not.

Marcos never advocates for anything that doesn't benefit him personally.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 9:52 am

appear to have their own very special, different reason for doing do.

In Marcos's case, it's a lack of skills at his chosen profession.

For Lilli, I think it's that whole "model minority" thing that gets his goat.

With Greg, it's pure, unadulterated racism.

Eddie appears to have vanished, but with him it was a hatred of Ed Lee.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 10:10 am

Hate, hate, hate!

Posted by marcos on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 10:30 am

I don't think that I ever wrote anything about Ed Lee. Good to see that anon still doesn't let facts get in the way of his self-important so-called arguments.

Posted by Eddie on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 10:33 am

No wonder this place drove you away, in that case.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 10:45 am

reasonable commenters away from this site with your dishonesty and personal attacks.

The fact that you can outlast principled people here doesn't speak to the strength or righteousness of your arguments and viewpoints, but rather to the emptiness of your life.

Posted by Eddie on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 11:17 am

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 11:30 am

Give me your money.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 10:29 am
Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 10:45 am

Considering the level of consumption Americans are expected to maintain they are grossly underpaid.

Posted by pete moss on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 7:07 pm

But the Chinese CBOs don't provide services for LGBT Chinese American seniors, do they? I don't think that any of the ethnicity groups do.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

new homes can be built on effectively vacant land is a fairly unusual thing in SF. The old days when SF attracted hippies and itinerants is no longer viable. We need economically viable migrants, and they typically want newer, nicer homes. TI can provide them.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

Viability is not the same thing as profitability.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 6:21 pm

This country has always accepted immigrants - they are nothing to be feared.

Odd though, I thought it was only right-wingers who oppose immigration, and even then surely only illegal immigration.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 5:56 am

You must be new. Allow me to show you the Tenderloin.

Posted by Chris McNeil on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

although it is viable if you have secured parking.

Still, why would you?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:35 pm

nor will this development harm any existing tenants or other interest groups that you usually have kneejerk support for. So why do you care if there is a profitable development on TI as opposed to, say, doing nothing?

This seems like a typical SFBG criticism of anything that creates a profit for someone, even when your "interests" are not in any way affected.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

They require a continual flow of low-income, rent-subsidized denizens to justify their political opinions and continued existence. The fact that particular population in SF is in decline is mirrored directly in the decline of the Guardian in both pages and advertising. The new monied and technical class isn't much interested in the tales of woe which the Guardian has long used to guilt-trip San Franciscans into ponying up for the "less fortunate," which has come to mean public employees and those who grub from Non Profit Inc. The reaction to their piece on Weismann's sad tale of being Ellis'd from his vacation pied-à-terre while owning a place in Portland shocked the staff at the SFBG. It seemed like that was the first time they truly realized that the gig was up.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:00 pm

"Finalizing a $1.7 billion deal with China Development Corp., the Chinese national railway and Lennar Corp. to construct 12,500 homes on the Hunters Point Shipyard and a string of high-rises on Treasure Island."


Why is this deal not being finalized with a U.S. company? There is no U.S. company that can build homes and "modern luxury high-rises" on sinking Treasure Island that will be covered with water in a few years when the sea level starts to rise faster?

Are the workers coming from China? I would think there are plenty USans who could use the work, including the unemployed and homeless people with skills.

This deal should bring outrage to anyone with a conscience in San Francisco and elsewhere. It's despicable, but typical of this Lee thing.

How would you like your job outsourced or off-shored, if you have one?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 4:45 pm

financing the deal? It's typically to put out bids and take the best. Heck, the new Bay Bridge span was essentially built by the Chinese.

What have you got against Asians? Are you Greg or Marcos?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:25 pm

I would take it as a sign that I am either under-skilled, over-paid or both. And then resolve to take extra classes and work harder so that my labour can become competitive again.

I certainly would not want to know that I only got a job because of some quota or tariff. That would be insulting and demeaning.

Posted by anon on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

Money is money whether it comes from a Chinese development firm or from the United States. It's all fungible.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 11, 2013 @ 5:28 pm

Yes they will. That was a sticking point on this deal. The CCDC didn't appreciate the 'local hire' rules in SF. They didn't want to hire ANY locals. I'm curious what the deal is now.

Posted by pete moss on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 4:20 am

the entire Bay Area. It's ridiculous to say that SF workers should have priority over, say, Oakland workers, esp. since TI is mid-way between the two.

Beggar thy neighbor policies are petty and self-defeating

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 5:58 am

Would that corporations and the wealthy followed your lead would resist the temptation to beggar their corporate or governmental neighbors.

Profit motive is only for those with resources, the rest of us should be good Christians and march in solemn procession bearing gold bricks on red velvet pillows with golden tassels as offerings to our economic overlords.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 9:30 am

Rather than just sit back and whine that you're not rich.

Posted by anon on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 9:36 am

receive to get through US customs.

Again - Chinese labor is not part of the deal.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 12, 2013 @ 9:13 am

How many hours have you spent working construction Lucretia? I'd say either none or zero. CODC wanted to bring in %100 their own crew from project manager down to laborers. And that's pretty much SOP in construction. Which why Local Hire rules were enacted, so at least the local economy would get something. These huge projects never inject anywhere near the money into local economy that backers say they will.

Posted by pete moss on Mar. 13, 2013 @ 3:45 am