Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

candlestick

Expand Messages
  • Linda McKay
    Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City s ability
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
       
      So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
       
       
      Linda
    • Illena Takahashi
      Thanks Linda & Tara.   The article s phrasing, Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore, stood out and made me want to
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 13, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Linda & Tara.
         
        The article's phrasing, "Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore," stood out and made me want to see the plan; otherwise, it's very compelling. So is the text of prop G, until you read the rebuttal.
         
        My questions, for tonight, include that of whether this "plan" is in-flux or static. I do read the paper, but I have that 5-day deal, and wonder what I miss. Looking forward to connecting with others, who are able to make it.
        Illena


        --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Linda McKay <lmckay@...> wrote:

        From: Linda McKay <lmckay@...>
        Subject: [Valley_Eye] candlestick
        To: Valley_Eye@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:31 PM

         
        Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
         
        So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
         
         
        Linda
      • tara hui
        Please read the comments, I d posted one myself. -- Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 13, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Please read the comments, I'd posted one myself.

          --
          "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are." - Hafsat Abiola





          To: Valley_Eye@yahoogroups.com
          From: ictakahashi@...
          Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:37:28 -0700
          Subject: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts

           
          Thanks Linda & Tara.
           
          The article's phrasing, "Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore," stood out and made me want to see the plan; otherwise, it's very compelling. So is the text of prop G, until you read the rebuttal.
           
          My questions, for tonight, include that of whether this "plan" is in-flux or static. I do read the paper, but I have that 5-day deal, and wonder what I miss. Looking forward to connecting with others, who are able to make it.
          Illena


          --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com> wrote:

          From: Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com>
          Subject: [Valley_Eye] candlestick
          To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
          Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:31 PM

           
          Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
           
          So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
           
           
          Linda



          Get your vacation photos on your phone! Click here.
        • anne seeman
          Hi all, Sorry I m out of town for this meeting. Please bear in mind that density need not be lost if park acreage is saved. Buildings could be built a bit
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 13, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi all,

            Sorry I'm out of town for this meeting. Please bear in mind that density need not be lost if park acreage is saved. Buildings could be built a bit higher is all. Also, plans for a signature park ala Crissy Field don't particularly mesh with Lennnar's plans for Big box stores near Vis. Valley. And how about a decent connection to Bayview Hill? That will be important to the signature park as well. Arc Ecology had some good alternate plans, but seem neutral on the Big Box issue. That may be because our neighborhood was included later in the game. I know tonight's focus is on the park, and trust we will be informed of actions we can take. Thanks!

            Anne Seeman

            --- On Thu, 8/13/09, tara hui <tarahui@...> wrote:

            From: tara hui <tarahui@...>
            Subject: RE: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts
            To: "Valley Eye" <valley_eye@yahoogroups.com>
            Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM

             

            Please read the comments, I'd posted one myself.

            --
            "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are." - Hafsat Abiola





            To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
            From: ictakahashi@ sbcglobal. net
            Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:37:28 -0700
            Subject: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts

             
            Thanks Linda & Tara.
             
            The article's phrasing, "Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore," stood out and made me want to see the plan; otherwise, it's very compelling. So is the text of prop G, until you read the rebuttal.
             
            My questions, for tonight, include that of whether this "plan" is in-flux or static. I do read the paper, but I have that 5-day deal, and wonder what I miss. Looking forward to connecting with others, who are able to make it.
            Illena


            --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com> wrote:

            From: Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com>
            Subject: [Valley_Eye] candlestick
            To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
            Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:31 PM

             
            Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
             
            So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
             
             
            Linda



            Get your vacation photos on your phone! Click here.

          • Illena Takahashi
            I ll go back to look, again, for yours, Tara. ... From: tara hui Subject: RE: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts To: Valley
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 13, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I'll go back to look, again, for yours, Tara.

              --- On Thu, 8/13/09, tara hui <tarahui@...> wrote:

              From: tara hui <tarahui@...>
              Subject: RE: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts
              To: "Valley Eye" <valley_eye@yahoogroups.com>
              Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM

               
              Please read the comments, I'd posted one myself.

              --
              "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are." - Hafsat Abiola





              To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
              From: ictakahashi@ sbcglobal. net
              Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:37:28 -0700
              Subject: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts

               
              Thanks Linda & Tara.
               
              The article's phrasing, "Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore," stood out and made me want to see the plan; otherwise, it's very compelling. So is the text of prop G, until you read the rebuttal.
               
              My questions, for tonight, include that of whether this "plan" is in-flux or static. I do read the paper, but I have that 5-day deal, and wonder what I miss. Looking forward to connecting with others, who are able to make it.
              Illena


              --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com> wrote:

              From: Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com>
              Subject: [Valley_Eye] candlestick
              To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
              Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:31 PM

               
              Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
               
              So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
               
               
              Linda



              Get your vacation photos on your phone! Click here.
            • Illena Takahashi
              Among some great ideas, those attending came up with an immediate three-pronged approach:   1st: Claude and Mayor Agnos will draft a letter for Sen. Leno,
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Among some great ideas, those attending came up with an immediate three-pronged approach:
                 
                1st: Claude and Mayor Agnos will draft a letter for Sen. Leno, the offending bill's (SB792)author, and Mr. Agnos will hand deliver it, per request of those at the meeting. Based on a motion made by Espanola Jackson, of Friends of Candlestick Park, the letter will ask for a delay, because the Bayview/Hunters Point communities, among others, were not informed on the bill, are opposed to it, and need time to discuss it; that, along with a reminder that he is supposed to be representing BVHP.
                 
                2nd: Many of us commited to calling Sen. Leno, in Sacramento. His number is 916-651-4003. (See above, for talking points, and I'm sure others in attendance will share more of the rich discussion, over the next couple of days.)
                 
                3rd: Aside from politely asking for a delay, buses will be arranged to take people up to Sacramento on August 19th, four business days away, to make our outrage known with raised voices of protest. The buses are being coordinated by Francisco Da Costa, Executive Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy, with Claude's assistance. They will leave from 3rd Street, and the cost is not yet determined. Mr. Da Costa has conducted such Caravans for Justice in the past. I do have his email address, but am not sure if I can post it. In the meantime, I'm compiling a list, so feel free to let me know of your ability to travel next Wednesday; I'll link you up, eventually.
                 
                Illena

                --- On Thu, 8/13/09, anne seeman <sguanne@...> wrote:

                From: anne seeman <sguanne@...>
                Subject: RE: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts
                To: "Valley Eye" <valley_eye@yahoogroups.com>, Valley_Eye@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 5:36 PM

                 
                Hi all,

                Sorry I'm out of town for this meeting. Please bear in mind that density need not be lost if park acreage is saved. Buildings could be built a bit higher is all. Also, plans for a signature park ala Crissy Field don't particularly mesh with Lennnar's plans for Big box stores near Vis. Valley. And how about a decent connection to Bayview Hill? That will be important to the signature park as well. Arc Ecology had some good alternate plans, but seem neutral on the Big Box issue. That may be because our neighborhood was included later in the game. I know tonight's focus is on the park, and trust we will be informed of actions we can take. Thanks!

                Anne Seeman

                --- On Thu, 8/13/09, tara hui <tarahui@hotmail. com> wrote:

                From: tara hui <tarahui@hotmail. com>
                Subject: RE: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts
                To: "Valley Eye" <valley_eye@yahoogro ups.com>
                Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM

                 
                Please read the comments, I'd posted one myself.

                --
                "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are." - Hafsat Abiola





                To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
                From: ictakahashi@ sbcglobal. net
                Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:37:28 -0700
                Subject: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts

                 
                Thanks Linda & Tara.
                 
                The article's phrasing, "Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore," stood out and made me want to see the plan; otherwise, it's very compelling. So is the text of prop G, until you read the rebuttal.
                 
                My questions, for tonight, include that of whether this "plan" is in-flux or static. I do read the paper, but I have that 5-day deal, and wonder what I miss. Looking forward to connecting with others, who are able to make it.
                Illena


                --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com> wrote:

                From: Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com>
                Subject: [Valley_Eye] candlestick
                To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
                Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:31 PM

                 
                Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
                 
                So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
                 
                 
                Linda



                Get your vacation photos on your phone! Click here.

              • Illena Takahashi
                we learn... is what Lennar really wants, because it will be used for the most expensive units and, therefore, bring the big bucks for them   knew that most
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  we learn... is what Lennar really wants, because it will be used for the most expensive units and, therefore, bring the big bucks for them
                   
                  knew that "most" sounded suspicious
                   
                  Illena

                  --- On Thu, 8/13/09, tara hui <tarahui@...> wrote:

                  From: tara hui <tarahui@...>
                  Subject: RE: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts
                  To: "Valley Eye" <valley_eye@yahoogroups.com>
                  Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM

                   
                  Please read the comments, I'd posted one myself.

                  --
                  "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are." - Hafsat Abiola





                  To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
                  From: ictakahashi@ sbcglobal. net
                  Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:37:28 -0700
                  Subject: [Valley_Eye] Re: prop G & Maxwell article posts

                   
                  Thanks Linda & Tara.
                   
                  The article's phrasing, "Most of the acreage identified for transfer is located away from the bay shore," stood out and made me want to see the plan; otherwise, it's very compelling. So is the text of prop G, until you read the rebuttal.
                   
                  My questions, for tonight, include that of whether this "plan" is in-flux or static. I do read the paper, but I have that 5-day deal, and wonder what I miss. Looking forward to connecting with others, who are able to make it.
                  Illena


                  --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com> wrote:

                  From: Linda McKay <lmckay@pobox. com>
                  Subject: [Valley_Eye] candlestick
                  To: Valley_Eye@yahoogro ups.com
                  Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:31 PM

                   
                  Contrary to what people are saying, Proposition G did not mention anything about selling off or trading State Park land. It only references the City's ability to sell or transfer Park & Rec land as needed (because the stadium is Park and Rec land).
                   
                  So, no matter how you feel about the potential transfer, the voters did NOT give it the green light when passing Proposition G.
                   
                   
                  Linda



                  Get your vacation photos on your phone! Click here.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.