Let's take it back

To: Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org
From: rmajora@comcast.net
Subject: Taking Back the UC Extension Site for the City
Date: 6/10/2005

Ross:

If you still oppose the UC proposal for the old extension site, we need to look ahead to figure out what's going to happen if/when that proposal is rejected by the city. If, as I hope, the proposal is rejected, the problem will be that UC still has title to the property. 

You and Supervisor Dufty should consider asking the City Attorney for a legal opinion as to how the city can take the property away from UC. 

If we don't do something, UC will just be back next year with another more or less unacceptable proposal. Clearly UC has deliberately allowed the property to deteriorate for years, and now they claim they can't afford to pay for the necessary repairs. Hence, a plausible line of attack: UC has in effect neglected and abandoned both the property and the public trust by their negligence. 

And they have done so out of sheer greed, since they just want to cash in on a parcel they have had tax-free for 47 years.

Regards,

Rob Anderson

To: Rob Anderson rmajora@comcast.net

cc: Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

From: Ross Mirkarimi

Subject: Taking Back the UC Extension Site for the City

Date: June 10, 2005

Rob,

Yes, I am. I've told UC and their developers that they need to respect all considerations in retaining "public" zoned designations by demonstrating good faith negotiations in seeking public occupants; I am also displeased with the absence of any tangible or substantive community benefit returning to our neighborhoods---the question of affordable housing is valid but not if the below market rate quotient is only pitched at 20% out of the aggregate units proposed while the city is experiencing a moderate to high vacancy rate in rental housing.

Best,

Ross Mirkarimi