According to this report from the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Supreme Court has denied review of Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco, 167 Cal. App. 4th, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), the decision held:
The Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee (DBHPC) gathered the required number of signatures on a petition to force a citywide referendum on an ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point community. The City and County of San Francisco (the City) rejected the petition because it failed to include a copy of the 57-page redevelopment plan that had been incorporated by reference in the ordinance when the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco voted to approve it. DBHPC’s ensuing petition for a writ of mandate compelling the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Clerk) to accept the referendum petition was denied by the trial court, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment denying DBHPC relief.
According to the report:
The Board of Supervisors voted in May 2006 to place nearly 1,400acres, more than half of Bayview-Hunters Point, under control of thecity Redevelopment Agency.
Backers said the plan would reduce blight, promote affordablehousing and provide startup money for businesses from new tax revenue.
Opponents, the Committee to Defend Bayview Hunters Point, saidproperty seizure and gentrification would displace residents andbusinesses.
In other words, the redevelopment plan will not be put to a vote of the people, and it is full steam ahead for the project. The critical part of the report is the last paragraph:
When Hunters Point underwent redevelopment in the 1970s, the city saidit would replace housing for residents who were forced to leave, butmost of the promised housing was never built. The city is now offeringthe former residents or their descendants top priority for anyavailable affordable housing if they live in San Francisco and meetincome standards.
Any bets on whether it will be diffferent this time around?