now we have the chance to put some real econimic engines in there. We already have the ballpark, of course - a huge success. And low-rent or low-rise just doesn't make any sense in a place where land is so short and journeys can mostly be walked (I'd walk from Market to 75 Howard, even to the ballpark.

The demand is there for business, housing and entertainment. Let's build it all. We can influence the architecture and design, without micro-managing the process, and we certainly can't have a NIMBY'ist build nothing attitude.

Of course. Tim only cares about one thing. He doesn't want more people living in SF that won't vote the way he thinks they should. SOMA development meant that Walker got her backside kicked by the more moderate (and much cuter) Kim, and he sees the writing on the wall for his hope of a socialist city.

Muni plans to start up the E-Embarcadero streetcar line in the next couple of years, running from Caltrain to the Wharf, sharing the T/N and F line tracks and using a connector track between Folsom and the Ferry Building that's already built. The streetcars for it are being delivered now. They are fully ADA compliant (as are all the F-line cars). They are no more expensive to buy or operate over their lifetime than a bus. Radulovich has a heat on for modern, low-floor surface streetcars like Portland has, and has an open prejudice against the F-line because of that. 23,000 daily F-line riders disagree. But that's never stopped Tom before.

I take it 75 Howard would be not at all profitable if the developers adhered to the existing height restriction?

As Planning Commissioner Antonini has declared, it is the job of the City to ensure that entitlements are profitable for developers. Heads developers win, tails San Franciscans lose.

It's not clear what Mr. Redmond or marcos are referring to when they state that there's 'no plan for the waterfront.'

A lot of people seem to forget that Planning Department has produced two extensive studies. The first was the "Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan" (http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/NE_Waterfront.htm) that took years and many hundreds of community hearings to produce . There was NO shortage of community input on it. It was subsequently updated.

The problem is what happens when some folks disagree with some of the conclusions of the study, as happened with 8 Washington.

Because of the outcry from NIMBY neighbors, Planning, at the request of Sup. David Chiu, took 15 months, a lot of resources to produce a second study, the "Northeast Embarcadero Study" (http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1662). Again, thousands of people were included in the "process", yet some still disagreed with the conclusions that recognized that a mixed-use development at 8 Washington was a preferable land use than preserving a surface parking lot.

Are the conclusions of these public documents invalid? Did the hundreds of meetings and thousands of people who gave input now be ignored and a new "process" be commenced?

The problems Mr. Redmond refers to result from people who will NEVER accept any change on the waterfront, NOT because there's no plan.