by Jerry Feitelberg

The poll takers have asked around and when the question comes up about San Francisco Propositon B the intitiative that seek height limits on San Francisco’s Waterfront those taking the polls get a surprise in the previous weeks, but not so much a surprise now. The response has been some won’t be coming down to their local polling place and vote for the measure.

Pollsters have reported that ever since the Golden State Warriors opted out of building at Piers 30-32 at the Embarcadero that was satifactory to the pro B voters and they have figured why bother. Recent polls have shown that Prop B is losing by as much as 5-9 points ever since the W’s said they were going to build their new arena at Mission Bay the team’s second choice.

Before the Warriors Mission Bay arena announcement it looked like Prop B was going to win hands down after neighborhood groups rallied to City Hall to get the amendment on the ballot but now that all has changed and voters or enough of them have said they won’t attend the yes on Prop B voting campaign this coming Tuesday.

Also if the trend on elections is correct on off season elections one out of four of the electorate will not show up. Both sides of the Prop B fight have seen huge campaign donations pour into what might be one of San Francisco’s most important and conroversial elections in recent memory. A lot is riding on Prop B from both sides, for those in favor of the measure such as the Sierra Club, former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos, former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and the greater Waterfront neighborhood who don’t want to see high rise development unless voter approved that stretches from the Ferry Buiding to Pier 70 in the Dog Patch district of the city the measure if passed means protection for their views of the Bay, the Bridge and the East Bay.

Mission Bay development for the Warriors was not going to be an objection with the Yes on B campaign as it’s further away enough that it won’t block the Bay views that the neighborhood wanted to protect. Meanwhile the No on B campaign lead by Bruce Agid a community advocate who appears on a number of TV ads is a energy consultant who also had a stint with PG&E said in the ad that Prop B is a ” political free for all” he said that the measure would open up loop holes that developers can use to avoid environmental regulations.

Agid says that Prop B which restricts height limitations on the waterfront would reduce support for transportation, open space, and affordable housing. Former Mayor Agnos questioned the Warriors at the time of the planning at Piers 30-32 about affordable housing and would there be any at all when Golden State proposed building retail and condo towers across the street from the new arena at the piers.

The argument of developer restrictions on the No side goes mainly to the side of development that would be profitable for the city translating jobs, retail, condos, transportation and the like but no arena where the Warriors originally wanted it by Piers 30-32 because of their committment to Mission Bay. If Prop B loses and as of this writing it’s behind in the polls the Waterfront could be a development mecca and a backfire to what it’s writers originally intended it for to protect over development.

It would ironically leave the Warriors out of the picture because they’re committed at Mission Bay and businesses like the San Francisco Giants can develop on Parking lot A where they have plans for retail and a retail village near the AT&T site and a full retail development at Piers 70 as proposed by Forest City Development, without height restrictions there will be free reign and it’s all because voters thought that Prop B was delivered once the Warriors backed off from Piers 30-32.

The Yes on B folks say that if the measure loses it will be a developmental free for all at the Embarcadero. One things for certain free for all indeed.

Jerry Feitelberg is covering the Golden State Warriors and Sacramento Kings arena developments for http://www.sportsradioservice.com