As we first reported last month, with San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors having approved the Environmental Impact Report, Conditional Use Authorization, land sale and zoning amendments necessary for the 8 Washington Street development to rise, opponents of the project were planning to pursue a ballot measure to block the development.

With a little under 20,000 signatures needed to place an anti-development referendum on this November’s ballot, a little over 31,000 signatures were delivered to San Francisco’s Department of Elections last week.

As noted by the Examiner: “If [the signatures are] certified, the board will vote again on the project. If the project passes again, it would go before voters this November. However, if it misses this year’s filing deadlines, it would appear on the November 2013 ballot. In the meantime, the project would remain stalled.”

UPDATE: The Money And Motivation Behind The 8 Washington Ballot Measure.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    This is going to be an interesting referendum on height limits along the waterfront.

  2. Posted by futurist

    Why isn’t the final vote by the BOS sufficient and valid? Why must this insane volleying go on and on?

  3. Posted by neighbor

    I think it’s idiocy to have a ballot measure for one specific building project, but at least the signature gathering is over. There had to be 20-30 people gathering signatures for this at Dolores Park and along Valencia the last two weekends. And the “approach” was about building low income housing in SF versus housing for the rich, not about height restrictions. I was particularly offended by the number of people out collecting signatures in this one little area of the city, and no where near the actual development.

  4. Posted by rabbits

    They asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks, and he said “because that’s where they keep the money.”
    Why gather signatures for this across town in a totally unrelated neighborhood? Because that’s where the people pissing and moaning about gentrification are.

  5. Posted by Rob

    Its not because it’s where the people are “pissing and moaning about gentrification” are…
    I watched people hand over their signatures like they were bumming cigarettes. Its a collection of “under-employed” young people, walking around saying shit like, “wanna sign a petition, I make $3 per signature…” Interestingly enough, the common response is something like, “Whats the petition for?” Replied by, “They wanna block our views of the bay…” People then, willing grab the pen and sign away.
    The reason they’re in Dolores Park and on the train platforms and along Market, is because that’s where they hang out… and they know people won’t ask them questions. Easy sell.
    To know that development in the city—as well as many other important things—can be stalled by shit like this, is appalling.

  6. Posted by futurist

    Good comment Rob. Totally agree. I refuse to sign any petitions on the street. These paid petition junkies are very pushy. I just ignore them.
    Dolores park is one of the best places to push their petition “drugs”.

  7. Posted by Patrick

    The signature gatherer at the Diamond Heights Safeway got all weird and aggro when I refused to sign and told him that I supported 8 Washington.
    I was approached on the platform in the Muni Metro station and asked to sign a petition for some stupid thing so I made as if I was going to sign but instead wrote “Warning: This is an incredibly stupid proposition. Do not sign this petition.” I will never forget the look on the signature gatherer’s face as I got onto the Metro and waved bye bye as the doors closed.

  8. Posted by Robert

    OK, this explains why there is opposition, but why is Chiu opposed? Campaign contributions?

  9. Posted by futurist

    Great comeback Patrick!

  10. Posted by sfresident

    Hmm, I thought the petition would have been about converting the development into below market rate housing.
    I agree stopping the development probably makes sense, but moving forward at taxpayer expense to provide subsidized housing in a lottery system, well, now we’re talking!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *