7thriv

San Francisco progressives are always bragging about how they are the hip vanguard of the future. But they have a nasty habit of trying to trap present conditions in amber, so that residents can do little to improve their living and working conditions. Historic Preservation Plan Won't Save SF

Aaron Peskin swears he isn't trying to "shrink wrap the city" and designate virtually every building in San Francisco an untouchable historical site. Yet that's the allegation from those opposed to the former Board of Supervisors president's efforts to rewrite two parts of the city Planning Code.

Peskin's proposal would make it easier to declare a neighborhood a historic district, and states that buildings that "contribute" to the historic significance should be made nearly impossible to change, tear down or renovate. To be considered a contributing resource, the building only has to be "present during the period of historical significance."

These so-called contributing buildings could not be "demolished," and the definition of what constitutes demolition is incredibly broad. If 25 percent of a building's facade is removed, or 50 percent of the floor, the building would be considered demolished.

This is all important because the conventional wisdom is that San Francisco will soon be declaring many neighborhoods historical districts, which means that these restrictions would automatically apply. Almost any building in the city could conceivably qualify as a "contributing" structure.

Far be it from me to question Peskin's noble intentions, but this looks like a progressive's version of NIMBY-ism, an attempt to protect existing property values by making it impossible to build or rehabilitate housing.

There are a lot of beautiful buildings in SF. But there are also a lot of run-down ones as well. People like looking at pretty fascades. They don't like living in crowded flats with 5 college graduates sharing a bathroom that was built in 1920. But that is the situation in many SF neighborhoods because the preservationist mentality makes it so difficult to renovate and rehabilitate "historic" buildings. Historic in what way? Shouldn't there at least be a PhD dissertation associated with a building before it is declared historic? Is the Sunset going to be declared historic? How about the Outer Mission? Is Stonestown historic? It was one of the earliest "gallerias," after all. I could go on all day.

Of course, San Franciscans have a habit of celebrating events and persons of dubious historic value. Check out this rant, which demands that SF preserve a room where a Depression-era strike was organized: Don't Raise Hall Where It All Began

We the longshore unions of the Bay Area would like to clarify a number of issues concerning the proposal to tear down our founding headquarters at 113 Steuart St. in San Francisco. Federal, state and city laws protect significantly historic sites such as 113 Steuart St.

This nationally important historic site must be preserved for the working people of San Francisco and the United States. On the 75th anniversary of the West Coast Maritime and San Francisco General Strike, which shook the world, developers are proposing to demolish our birthplace.

It was from this union hall that Harry Bridges and the Maritime Strike Committee organized, led and won the battle for union rights and recognition. This hall was the center of the three-month Waterfront Maritime Strike. It was ground zero on Bloody Thursday, July 5, 1934, when police and deputies, following orders, shot scores of union members, and where Howard Sperry was martyred (in front of the adjoining building).

Yammer. Yammer. Yammer. No matter how old my grandmother got, you could always get her going by bringing up Harry Bridges. He may have been a hero to some, but to a lot of his contemporaries, he was a commuist subversive who tried to wreck SF's economy through riots and mob violence. My grandmother never stopped saying that Bridges "ruined San Francisco." His proponents (Howard Zinn is a big fan) often credit him with bringing the counter-culture to SF. You mean we can blame him for drugs, bad Beat Poetry, bathhouses, and the Grateful Dead?

All of this shows how little history has actually happened in SF. Maybe that's just my East Coast bias; but, where I grew up (Northern Virginia) people argued over preserving Civil War battlefields where thousands were killed in the cause of freedom. But a bunch of goofs going on strike and wrecking SF's status as a working port? Color me unmoved.