Thoughts? Is it true that this is just a parking lot?
Dear Steve and or Wendy Guthrie;
The point is with SF facing a huge budget deficit and everyone in
Silly Hall being asked to take pay cuts etc - where did the money
mysteriously come from to buy this property? And are there far
better uses for the stolen tax money money than some political back
room double dealing shenanigans pay off of some kind.
The point is also the Anti - Libertarian taking of property by a
government agency using the peoples money without their say so. Did
any of the Supervisors who voted yes - ask you if it was okay to use
the money they stole from you in taxes to buy some wedge of land and
turn it into a park? And did you say it was okay?
Did any of the Supervisors get the okay of the rest of the people in
SF to see if it was okay to use the money which was stolen from them
in taxes to buy this land?
The Stupidvisors are just another example of Robbing Hood running
amok with the money stolen from the people under the guise of taxes.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@d...>
wrote:
Thoughts? Is it true that this is just a parking lot?
> From: Wendy Guthrie
> Date: February 11, 2004 9:31:18 PM PST
>
> is this an attempt to garner sympathy for a condo developer? who
gives
> a shit about some rich guy who didn't read the fine print. well,
I
> guess you do, but i don't. from what i read, it looks like there
was a
> provision in the deed requiring the owner of the property to
negotiate
> to sell should the funds to expand the park be made available.
>
> Peskin and the Telegraph Hill Dwellers said that a deed
restriction
> from the 1980s, which would require the landowners to
negotiate for
> control of the site if funds were available to convert it into
park
> space, should have served as a notice to developers that the
city
> might pursue control over the property.
> http://www.sfneighborhoodparks.org/news/news102803.html
>
> sure that was probably some fancy maneuvering by the
neighborhood
> association, and maybe a bit of political pull in city hall.
most
> likely, some very rich and powerful homeowner (more powerful
than
> O'Flynn mmwhahahhahha) probably didn't want his view blocked or
have a
> shadow cast across his living room every day of the year. if i
paid
> $2.5 mil for my house, i'd fight like hell to keep my view and
the
> sunlight too. screw the other rich guy. i want what's mine--i
had it
> first, right? yeah.
>
> the plot of land is currently a parking lot, and the city wants
to
> turn it into a park. All in all, i'm fine with the fact that
we'll
> have a larger park to visit in the city instead of some looming
high
> rise building that neither you, nor me, nor most of our friends
would
> be able to afford to live in. if he was building affordable
housing,
> maybe i'd feel a little differently, and i think the supervisors
would
> too. i certainly don't think we need any more $2500/month condos
with
> $750 HOA fees in this town. I'd bet there'd still be a fight
over the
> building if it were affordable housing because the rich guy with
his
> $2.5 mil view wouldn't watch a bunch of middle to low income
folks
> mucking up the neighborhood. ew.
>
> it's a parking lot; it's not like O'Flynn is loosing his home:
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml
>
> the sympathy train has left the station, brother, and i ain't on
it.
>
> -w-
>
>
>>
>>> Subject: 701 Lombard Street Eminent Domain Update
>>> From: Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
>>>
>>> Bad news -- new Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier voted with
Peskin,
>>> Daly, Gonzalez, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Ammiano and Sandoval,
giving
>>> them
>>> the super-majority they needed to enable the city to
confiscate the
>>> land belonging to Brian O'Flynn and his partner via eminent
domain.
>>>
>>> The proceedings took less than an hour, and the Board acted
without
>>> allowing public comment. Now the matter will have to be
pursued in
>>> court. I've encouraged Brian to seek help from the libertarian
public
>>> interest law firm Institute for Justice, and he sounds like he
will
>>> follow up with them. He'd already filed an action in Superior
Court
>>> today before the decision came down, relating to the permits
for the
>>> development. Brian also said my suggestion of starting a
local
>>> chapter
>>> of IJ's "Castle Coalition," a group formed to fight eminent
domain,
>>> was
>>> "a good idea."
>>>
>>> After a representative from the city attorney's office made
some
>>> reference in previous testimony to 12 cases, Brian was able to
get
>>> them
>>> to produce some records for his inspection. He's invited me to
go
>>> with
>>> him to look at them when he makes copies. He says most of them
relate
>>> to people forced out by the expansion of the Moscone Center.
If I
>>> understand correctly, they told him that there were no records
of
>>> anything more than three years ago; supposedly such records
aren't
>>> retained longer than that. It sounds fishy to me. But any
records of
>>> eminent domain actions we can get our hands on should yield a
group
>>> of
>>> individuals who are rather disgruntled with local government.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> ---------------------~-->
>> Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from
only
>> $29.99!
>> Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee
and
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The point is with SF facing a huge budget deficit and everyone in
Silly Hall being asked to take pay cuts etc - where did the money
mysteriously come from to buy this property?
There is money in an Open Space Fund or something like that that will be
used to seize O'Flynn's property. However, that means that (a) other open
land that was already intended to be bought won't be, and (b) since the
actual settlement amount will be determined in court, probably at a
compromise between the city's price and O'Flynn's, the actual amount paid
will be much higher than the supervisors say, and thus be available for
even less other land.
I am curious about the deed clause that Wendy asserts was there when
O'Flynn bought the land. That doesn't make a seizure right, of course, but
it does change the game a little bit.
~Chris
- --
Chris Maden, Libertarian for California State Assembly
District 12, San Francisco, 2004
Individual Freedom - Personal Responsibility - Prosperity for All
Can any confirm that?
Can anyone confirm that this is over a parking lot or not?
I'd like to defend the local LP's position here if I can...
-- Steve
Steve,
Yes, the land in question is currently a small, triangular-shaped parking lot on busy Columbus Avenue. It's surrounded by streets on all sides. And I'm sure there would indeed still be a fight to stop the development and put in a park even if it was a bare-bones development designed to pack in poor people, because the wealthy neighbors still wouldn't want to lose their views. Wendy Guthrie is right about that much.
This argument about an alleged "deed restriction" was discussed extensively during the hearings, and it is bogus. What's being referred to was a condition attached to the permit granting the former owners of the property the ability to operate their parking lot, not a restriction on the property deed itself. No evidence was given to show that this condition applied to future owners of the property or future uses of the property. IIRC, Brian got an opinion from the city attorney's office agreeing it didn't apply (Brian, please correct me if I'm misstating this).
The bottom line is this -- Wendy Guthrie as much as admits that this was a back-room deal of political influence-peddling with no due process, but she is OK with the rule of law being violated in favor of politicians being allowed to do whatever they can get away with, because it is her personal opinion, having looked into her crystal ball and seen what the future rents and charges associated with this development will be, that we don't "need any more $2500/month condos with $750 HOA fees in this town."
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
It's currently a parking lot. O'Flynn's reading of the deed clause is that
the City's right to expand the park was at the time the previous thing there
(gas station?) was demolished. And that was over a decade ago. The City made
absolutely no move to acquire that lot for the park until after letting
O'Flynn spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on architectural and
engineering work, city permits, planning department studies, etc. This taking
is 100% pure political cronyism on the Board of Supes.
The true test of that deed clause will be how the court decides to interpret
it, I guess.
Steve,
If I knew Wendy, I would say to her:
Brian may not be losing an existing home, but he is losing the home he dreamed for years of building for himself and his mother. Would you have preferred that the land remain a parking lot for a few more decades because everyone was afraid to make plans for it while the city kept saying it might someday use the land for a park if it ever gets the funds?
North Beach is vibrant because of the kinds of buildings that Brian was planning, with multiple apartments on the upper floors and businesses on the ground floor. And if I recall correctly, some of the units were to be low-income housing. (Anyway, the supervisors could have required that instead of killing Brian's dream.) Also, the park department wants the land so it can build more on the park across the street, so there will be no net gain in park land even if they do come up with the funds to change the parking lot to a park.
There is much more to say, but I don't think it would be a good use of time at this point. I just felt compelled to write this because I am so angry at the eight supervisors who voted to make Brian sell his land to the city, at their price, and have caused him to spend weeks, perhaps months, of his life defending himself.
(Brian, did any of the supervisors who voted against you even talk with you?)
Kelly
Here's the history of the lot. Check out the rest of the site for other details:
i certainly don't think we need any more $2500/month condos with $750 HOA fees in this town
I love San Francisco in many ways, but it's not exactly a Mecca for rational economic thought.
As illustrated by the quote above, many (probably most) San Franciscans actually believe that adding more housing will *increase* housing costs, unless that housing costs less than the current average. So they oppose new housing since there is such a housing shortage...
If there was a way to educate the masses about basic supply and demand theory as it applies to housing, that would be a worthwhile project for LPSF. But I doubt there is much anyone can do about it.
I do like the old "Legalize Housing!" slogan.
Dear Lars and Everyone Else;
There is a simple two sentence method to educate the masses about basic economic supply and demand in the free marketplace without having Econ 101 in college. As an aside learning Econ 101 in college is probably the worst place to get a true understanding of a free market. Too many Keynesians as erudite professors of learning. Not enough Austrian school.
The two sentences are the following:
Prices rise when the demand exceeds the supply at the offering price.
Prices fall when the supply exceeds the deman at the offering price.
Those two simple sentences tells us why the rents in San Francisco remain high and why the housing prices in San Francisco remain high. And I might add anywhere the supply does not exceed the demand. Then top that off with rent control or bass-ackwards Planning Commission regulations and NIMBY's and guess what happens.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Lars Petrus <lars@...> wrote:
i certainly don't think we need any more $2500/month condos with
$750 HOA fees in this town
I love San Francisco in many ways, but it's not exactly a Mecca for
rational economic thought.
As illustrated by the quote above, many (probably most) San
Franciscans actually believe that adding more housing will *increase*
housing costs, unless that housing costs less than the current
average. So they oppose new housing since there is such a housing
shortage...
If there was a way to educate the masses about basic supply and
demand theory as it applies to housing, that would be a worthwhile
project for LPSF. But I doubt there is much anyone can do about it.
I do like the old "Legalize Housing!" slogan.