February 3, 2014
Warriors Concede Plans For 2017 Season In SF, 2018 A Stretch
With opponents ready to submit the necessary number of signatures for a ballot measure which would require the Golden State Warriors to win voter approval for their proposed development on Pier 30-32 and across the street, the Warriors have officially conceded their plans for having an arena on San Francisco's waterfront in time for the 2017 season.
In fact, based on the critical path for the arena project and the current state of affairs, an arena opening in time for the 2018-2019 NBA season is a stretch at this point, and that’s assuming the plans and permits are even approved.
∙ Timeline And Key Milestones For Building The Warriors Arena In SF [SocketSite]
∙ SF Arena Threat: The Waterfront Height Limit Right To Vote Act [SocketSite]
∙ The Odds Are Against The Warriors Moving To SF In 2017 [SocketSite]
First Published: February 3, 2014 7:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
This is why we can't have nice things.
Posted by: Seriously at February 3, 2014 8:39 AM
Eh, fine with me. I wouldn't have voted to oppose the project, but I'm happy not seeing it in SF
Posted by: Sam at February 3, 2014 8:45 AM
c'mon oakland! get your act together and get to building a new arena!
Posted by: OaklandSchtuff at February 3, 2014 8:54 AM
They aren't saying they won't build, they are just admitting that it will probably be voted on and take more time than they had hoped.
Posted by: gribble at February 3, 2014 8:55 AM
Oakland - here is your window. Take it!
Posted by: Grace at February 3, 2014 9:04 AM
Round 1 goes to the NIMBYs.
Posted by: R at February 3, 2014 9:25 AM
The Warriors never had the slightest chance at a 2017 opening. The 2017 date was either pure marketing B.S. or a monumental misunderstanding of the myriad difficulties involved.
Posted by: anon at February 3, 2014 9:47 AM
The ownership paid $450 million for the team. They never had any intention, and still don't, of staying in Oakland.
If not San Francisco I have to think San Jose. There is no money in Oakland
Posted by: Zig at February 3, 2014 9:59 AM
'There is no money in Oakland'.
I don't entirely agree. There's less money in Oakland no doubt and it is dwarfed as a city by San Francisco and San Jose in it's capabilities to raise funds but maybe they have a small window here to do something. Mind you I don't think they will...
Posted by: Willow at February 3, 2014 10:47 AM
Oh, I know. But I also am of the opinion that this has no chance in hell of being built, this initial setback is a first important one, and the first of many.
Posted by: Sam at February 3, 2014 11:23 AM
This stadium will not be built, here at least. With NIMBYs who don't want any development at all in San Francisco, combined with those opposed to a stadium in the Bay, and rage against the 1%, the opposition will be insurmountable.
With the 8 Washington vote in the rear-view mirror, the Warriors can see the writing on the wall.
Posted by: Jackson at February 3, 2014 12:57 PM
it would be a horrible shame to the city if this is not built. who doesn't want more culture and a beautiful iconic building on the waterfront, with an amazing new park? Its just hard to imagine why more than a handful of people would opposse this
Posted by: moto mayhem at February 3, 2014 4:04 PM
It is unfathomable to me how somebody could not want this in the city, on a dilapidated rotting pier that has not found a profitable use despite decades of attempts to find one.
I agree with the poster on the last Warriors thread who mentioned that these people seem to not even want to live in a city -- no big buildings, no big events, no cars, no new construction, no sports, no business, no transit, no progress, no nothing. There is not a single other city in the Top 20 in the US that would react this way to every single proposition. This is not NIMBYism anymore(because nobody even lives here), this is just rabid, vehement, blanket anti-progress.
Is it new? SAVE SAN FRANCISCO!
I guess the Western Addition, Outside Lands, Transamerica Pyramid, AT&T Park, Golden Gate AND Bay Bridges, Golden Gate Park, Chinatown, Alcatraz, and all the other landmarks we now cherish as classic parts of the city were here when the Spanish colonists stumble upon the 7x7.
And before anybody starts up with this "SF is a low-rise city" nonsense, we are TOP 5 IN THE NATION FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS ALREADY. When you adjust those Top 5 for land mass and per capita, we are #2. We have always had an extremely dense and tall core. We have been both the "Wall Street of the West" and the center of tech for decades. None of this is anything new. Nobody would look at San Francisco's stats, maps, and photos on paper and deem us a "low rise city for artists". It is one of five Global Alpha Cities in the US, for pete's sake!
Posted by: JWS at February 3, 2014 5:51 PM
I've been pro-arena since day 1. I was initially opposed to the Pier 30 location because of the crazy traffic nightmare it would create and the missed opportunity to develop a site on the Central Waterfront. However, now that the usual and entirely predictable NIMBY BS is kicking in, I find myself rooting for the arena project and I will certainly vote against that ballot measure.
Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at February 3, 2014 5:58 PM
I would love to go visit a wonderful waterfront attraction like this, maybe even watch a couple basketball games there.
Moto Mayhem is right also - it would be iconic, meaning it would be so nice and memorable that it would start to appear on postcards, keychains and other tourist memorabilia. People would travel to the waterfront just to see it, even if there was no game or event that day.
If the Warriors want to get this done though, they'll need to seriously step up their efforts. The opposition is out in full force, and the Warriors are going to need to do something drastic to nip that ballot measure in the bud.
What would it take to file a law-suit against the signature gathering campaign, alleging that they illegally used misinformation to get those signatures? Maybe that would delay it a couple election cycles?
How much would it cost to pay off Aaron Peskin and Art Agnos to keep their mouths shut for the next few years? $1M each? $5M each?
They'll also need to step up their own language. They'll need to do A LOT better than the people who ran the pro-8-Washington campaign.
If people don't like the 1%, tell people it's the 1% who are trying to block the arena. If people don't like developers and luxury condos, tell people that developers hate the idea of an arena, because it's not luxury condos.
They need to start the campaign early, and they need to hit those hot-button issues before the opposition does. I want to hear that "the rich 1% don't want this basketball arena, because they think only poor people and 'minorities' like basketball, and so they're trying to kick you out of the city! They're trying to keep the waterfront and San Francisco all for themselves, because they don't want you to come here and watch basketball games."
Sometimes I imagine what the city would be like if people here actually treated it like a city instead of like a giant gated community where Aaron Peskin is the President of the HOA. Then I get sad.
I don't want to be disappointed this time.
Posted by: anon at February 3, 2014 6:00 PM
The canvassers' dumb language and what the petition proves about the rote, misleading, shameful, cynical politics aside, this isn't a major setback. The arena is actually gaining in popularity. People here love basketball. People here think it's weird they need to go to San Jose or Oakland for arena size entertainment. Rich, or poor. These are conventional wisdoms in SF and the dubs brass has that going for them.
Posted by: Truth at February 3, 2014 6:20 PM
Posted by: SocketSite at February 3, 2014 7:17 PM