dalypresser.jpg

Rich people aren’t Chris Daly’s friends, so it stands to reason that really rich people *really* aren’t the caustic D6 supe’s friends.

Hence, the soon-to-be-termed-out legislator snubbed his invitation to be on the America’s Cup “Honorary Welcoming Committee,” turning down the opportunity to be a figurehead in aiding Oracle CEO/megarich dude Larry Ellison’s much-publicized effort to bring the yacht race to San Francisco in 2013. Not only that, he’s telling everyone who will listen — calling a hastily-organized press conference Thursday in the Tenderloin for the purpose — what a bad, awful, no-good idea it is to host the boats.

“It’s a billionaire’s regatta. Why are we going out to raise $270 million for Larry fucking Ellison?” asked a yachting-gear clad (see pic above) Daly, reacting to an announcement by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, that he is authoring a bill to use $270 million in public financing to spruce up the SF waterfront, so that it can be shipshape for Ellison and his BMW Oracle racing team, which won the America’s Cup in Spain earlier this year. The bill is not yet written and the exact hit to S.F. taxpayers is not yet known, according to Quintin Mecke, an Ammiano spokesman.

“San Francisco should not be going so out of its way, using the people’s money so that a billionaire can have his yacht race,” Daly said.

Under Mayor Gavin Newsom’s plan, Ellison would get more than a pretty place to race a boat: Ellison would receive rent-free leases for up to 75 years and exclusive development rights on Piers 30-32, an adjacent parking lot, and Pier 50 in getting-ritzier. Newsom’s plan also relies on substantial private generosity: private donors would be called on to pitch in as much as $270 million to help get San Francisco cup-worthy.

In return, there’s money and jobs for us little people, according to race organizers.

Economic forecasts by the likes of the Bay Area Council — which represents corporate interests like Catholic Healthcare West, Clear Channel and Hathaway Dinwiddie — peg the money bomb coming the Bay Area’s way via the cup at $1.4 billion, and say that nearly 9,000 jobs will be created.

Daly dismissed both figures as fool’s gold, using rosy economic forecasts given ahead of money-draining Olympic Games as precedent.

“Whenever there’s an economic forecast to promote these events, they never pan out,” said Daly, pointing to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta as prime examples. “The $1.4 billion is not going to go to homeless services… your average person in the Tenderloin, your average person struggling to make it by in San Francisco, is not going to benefit from the America’s Cup.”

Since he is termed-out, there is little Daly can do other than voice his opposition to the Cup. And that’s what he’s doing.

“It used to be that San Francisco was called a millionaire’s playground,” he said, offering one last barb. “So now it’s a billionaire’s playground?”

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Greg Dewar

    Daly was re-elected with developer cash, because he helped usher in the One Rincon Hill project. Clear Channel’s billboards also helped him get re-elected. He’s a landlord and now plans on opening a business with the help of wealthy folks. So he’s a pal of the wealthy just not the ones with boats!

  • Greg Dewar

    Daly was re-elected with developer cash, because he helped usher in the One Rincon Hill project. Clear Channel’s billboards also helped him get re-elected. He’s a landlord and now plans on opening a business with the help of wealthy folks. So he’s a pal of the wealthy just not the ones with boats!

  • Jamie Whitaker

    Let’s see… Sales tax dollars collected will increase…. Property values might even increase, helping to provide more property tax revenues as assessments go back up…. San Francisco has a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix the piers… Chris can hate rich people all he wants, but he and his fellow Supervisors are not actively reforming the pension system in order to save vital services for the poor. Chris, please don’t shit the bed on the way out!

  • Jamie Whitaker

    Let’s see… Sales tax dollars collected will increase…. Property values might even increase, helping to provide more property tax revenues as assessments go back up…. San Francisco has a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix the piers… Chris can hate rich people all he wants, but he and his fellow Supervisors are not actively reforming the pension system in order to save vital services for the poor. Chris, please don’t shit the bed on the way out!

  • Al

    Eh, a free 75-year lease is plenty in exchange for fixing the piers. But to throw in another $270 million? Getting a little ridiculous.

  • Al

    Eh, a free 75-year lease is plenty in exchange for fixing the piers. But to throw in another $270 million? Getting a little ridiculous.

  • milkcluber

    One thing is for certain: no one has asked what entity receives the 75-year rent-free lease along our waterfront. Supposedly it goes to an “Events Committee” which turns out to be two groups — the Golden Gate Yacht Club, where three of the six directors are Ellison and his staffers, and the other group is Ellison himself. We have heard nothing about what they plan to do along our waterfront — hotels? office buildings? a midway carnival? — and no one has suggested any guidelines that would deal with transit planning, height restrictions, etc. Will this be a new Oracle headquarters? Who knows? And who seems to care? Daly is certainly correct that rosy projections are just that — rosy projections. And it’s hilarious to see the Chamber of Commerce’s push for this. Wonder if there would even be a discussion if the old Embarcadero Freeway still loomed over the waterfront. After all, the Chamber campaigned against tearing it down, saying the result would be an economic disaster. How’s that working out? Think today’s waterfront looks like a loser?

  • milkcluber

    One thing is for certain: no one has asked what entity receives the 75-year rent-free lease along our waterfront. Supposedly it goes to an “Events Committee” which turns out to be two groups — the Golden Gate Yacht Club, where three of the six directors are Ellison and his staffers, and the other group is Ellison himself. We have heard nothing about what they plan to do along our waterfront — hotels? office buildings? a midway carnival? — and no one has suggested any guidelines that would deal with transit planning, height restrictions, etc. Will this be a new Oracle headquarters? Who knows? And who seems to care? Daly is certainly correct that rosy projections are just that — rosy projections. And it’s hilarious to see the Chamber of Commerce’s push for this. Wonder if there would even be a discussion if the old Embarcadero Freeway still loomed over the waterfront. After all, the Chamber campaigned against tearing it down, saying the result would be an economic disaster. How’s that working out? Think today’s waterfront looks like a loser?

  • areallyniceguy

    I am an average, hard-working person. The revenue that the America’s Cup brings to San Francisco, however overstated it may be, will help me pay my bills. I might even have some extra cash to go shopping or eat out a bit more often.

  • areallyniceguy

    I am an average, hard-working person. The revenue that the America’s Cup brings to San Francisco, however overstated it may be, will help me pay my bills. I might even have some extra cash to go shopping or eat out a bit more often.

  • Al

    Not if taxpayers have to foot a $270 million dollar bill. Supposedly it’s going to be “raised from private sources”. But how, exactly, can the city guarantee a thing like that? One way or the other, the city will be on the hook for that, and the money will come from taxes on hardworking people.

    Hell, I’m not normally a fan of Daly, but this idea seems pretty suspect.

  • Al

    Not if taxpayers have to foot a $270 million dollar bill. Supposedly it’s going to be “raised from private sources”. But how, exactly, can the city guarantee a thing like that? One way or the other, the city will be on the hook for that, and the money will come from taxes on hardworking people.

    Hell, I’m not normally a fan of Daly, but this idea seems pretty suspect.

  • mikesonn

    My concern is with Red’s Java. Someone please protect Red’s Java House.

    Greg is right though, Daly has developers so deep in his pocketbook. Someone buy that man a boat.

  • mikesonn

    My concern is with Red’s Java. Someone please protect Red’s Java House.

    Greg is right though, Daly has developers so deep in his pocketbook. Someone buy that man a boat.

  • Marce

    This article is absolutely incorrect when it says “that he (Ammiano) is authoring a bill to use $270 million in public financing to spruce up the SF waterfront.” The $270 million number is the amount to be raised from PRIVATE sources (not from the city of SF or SF taxpayers). The correct information about Ammiano’s bill can be found in another Appeal article at: http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/09/ammiano-authoring-bill-to-finance-sfs-americas-cup-bid.php

    Please correct this article and be a little more responsible with your fact-checking in the future.

  • Marce

    This article is absolutely incorrect when it says “that he (Ammiano) is authoring a bill to use $270 million in public financing to spruce up the SF waterfront.” The $270 million number is the amount to be raised from PRIVATE sources (not from the city of SF or SF taxpayers). The correct information about Ammiano’s bill can be found in another Appeal article at: http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/09/ammiano-authoring-bill-to-finance-sfs-americas-cup-bid.php

    Please correct this article and be a little more responsible with your fact-checking in the future.

  • Chris Roberts

    Hi Marce — If you are correct, why would the Port, a publicly-funded entity, require “expanded financing powers necessary to fund the development and improvement of the Port property used for the event”? (That’s all straight from the press release from Ammiano’s office).

    Reports in the Chron indicate that private sources MIGHT be hit up for the $270 million. But if it were all private, there’d be no need for legislation allowing the port to borrow money (aka “financing”) for redevelopment.

  • Chris Roberts

    Hi Marce — If you are correct, why would the Port, a publicly-funded entity, require “expanded financing powers necessary to fund the development and improvement of the Port property used for the event”? (That’s all straight from the press release from Ammiano’s office).

    Reports in the Chron indicate that private sources MIGHT be hit up for the $270 million. But if it were all private, there’d be no need for legislation allowing the port to borrow money (aka “financing”) for redevelopment.

  • Marce

    Because the Port will have to do some work on the piers. But that is totally separate from the $270 million that is to be raised from public sources. You are conflating two different things: 1) the Ammiano legislation and the 2) the City’s bid. The Ammiano legislation that referred to doesn’t say anything about $270 million and its absolutely incorrect to say that it does (as you did in your article).

  • Marce

    Because the Port will have to do some work on the piers. But that is totally separate from the $270 million that is to be raised from public sources. You are conflating two different things: 1) the Ammiano legislation and the 2) the City’s bid. The Ammiano legislation that referred to doesn’t say anything about $270 million and its absolutely incorrect to say that it does (as you did in your article).

  • Marce

    I meant “the $270 million that is to be raised from private sources” in the above post. Sorry for any confusion.

  • Marce

    I meant “the $270 million that is to be raised from private sources” in the above post. Sorry for any confusion.

  • Kimball

    1) The money is not on-ask from the city, because that would be a nonstarter.

    2) Do we hate baseball because only billionaires own baseball teams?

    In 1986-87 I visited Fremantle, Australia, the once run-down port of the greater Perth region, reborn as home to an America’s Cup match. The event was the pride of all Australia, and Fremantle had been reborn as a gem. It remains so to this day, a vital, bustling destination for locals and visitors alike.

    In 2000 I visited Auckland, New Zealand, where a seedy stretch of waterfront, anticipating an America’s Cup match, had been reinvented as the showpiece that remains there to this day.

    In 2005 I visited Valencia, Spain, a city that had been looking for a signature event to focus the attention of the world upon its many attractions. The blighted port was a dismaying sight. By the time of the 2007 America’s Cup match, however, the port had been transformed into a point of pride, justly famed.

    I support the efforts of the City and County of San Francisco to bring America’s Cup 34 to San Francisco Bay. To let this opportunity slip away—the opportunity to revitalize a southern waterfront now fenced off with Caution signs—would be a pity. Since February I have played the optimistic fool to the many who assume that San Francisco will never get its act together. Let’s prove the naysayers wrong this time.

  • Kimball

    1) The money is not on-ask from the city, because that would be a nonstarter.

    2) Do we hate baseball because only billionaires own baseball teams?

    In 1986-87 I visited Fremantle, Australia, the once run-down port of the greater Perth region, reborn as home to an America’s Cup match. The event was the pride of all Australia, and Fremantle had been reborn as a gem. It remains so to this day, a vital, bustling destination for locals and visitors alike.

    In 2000 I visited Auckland, New Zealand, where a seedy stretch of waterfront, anticipating an America’s Cup match, had been reinvented as the showpiece that remains there to this day.

    In 2005 I visited Valencia, Spain, a city that had been looking for a signature event to focus the attention of the world upon its many attractions. The blighted port was a dismaying sight. By the time of the 2007 America’s Cup match, however, the port had been transformed into a point of pride, justly famed.

    I support the efforts of the City and County of San Francisco to bring America’s Cup 34 to San Francisco Bay. To let this opportunity slip away—the opportunity to revitalize a southern waterfront now fenced off with Caution signs—would be a pity. Since February I have played the optimistic fool to the many who assume that San Francisco will never get its act together. Let’s prove the naysayers wrong this time.

  • SFbaysailor

    As an avid sailboat racer, I’ve seen America’s Cup racing change greatly over the years. There are huge differences in not only the type of boats, venues, and how the races were conducted then, but there are also big differences in the amount and type of nation participation in the examples Kimball uses above. I can understand everyone’s (especially Kimball, given he’s a freelance sailing writer) enthusiasm for San Francisco to host AC racing, but the Americas Cup examples of Perth, Auckland, and Valencia are an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison to what we might expect in future AC racing. Unless you were an AC fan, you probably wouldn’t understand this. The 1988 Mercury Bay challenge were Dennis Connor raced a catamaran against Michael Fay’s mega-yacht in San Diego might be a better comparison in structure, participation, and the quality of racing one might expect in San Francisco. Did the 1988 Cup race bring in tens of millions for the city of San Diego? No. Did this race help foster enthusiasm and excitement for the sport and the city of San Diego? No. Until we go back to racing more closely matched spectator friendly boats, we will not see the draw of money and ‘world focus’ which was the Americas Cup. These days, the AC is a billionaire’s yacht race. This is not a good deal for the City. Sadly, I’m on the side of not hosting the Cup in San Francisco this time around.

  • SFbaysailor

    As an avid sailboat racer, I’ve seen America’s Cup racing change greatly over the years. There are huge differences in not only the type of boats, venues, and how the races were conducted then, but there are also big differences in the amount and type of nation participation in the examples Kimball uses above. I can understand everyone’s (especially Kimball, given he’s a freelance sailing writer) enthusiasm for San Francisco to host AC racing, but the Americas Cup examples of Perth, Auckland, and Valencia are an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison to what we might expect in future AC racing. Unless you were an AC fan, you probably wouldn’t understand this. The 1988 Mercury Bay challenge were Dennis Connor raced a catamaran against Michael Fay’s mega-yacht in San Diego might be a better comparison in structure, participation, and the quality of racing one might expect in San Francisco. Did the 1988 Cup race bring in tens of millions for the city of San Diego? No. Did this race help foster enthusiasm and excitement for the sport and the city of San Diego? No. Until we go back to racing more closely matched spectator friendly boats, we will not see the draw of money and ‘world focus’ which was the Americas Cup. These days, the AC is a billionaire’s yacht race. This is not a good deal for the City. Sadly, I’m on the side of not hosting the Cup in San Francisco this time around.

  • Marce

    I don’t know where you are getting your information, but this next cup will be a “mutual consent” match, meaning that the challenger and holder are working together on a set of parameters for the boats, which means that these boats will be “more closely matched spectator boats.” They will NOT be dissimilar boats, such as in the San Diego match and in the latest Valencia match. If you were truly and “AC fan” and familiar with the protocol that is being developed for this next race, then surely you would understand this. The primary aim of all the people involved this time around is precisely to make it “spectator friendly.” That’s what everyone wants.

  • Marce

    I don’t know where you are getting your information, but this next cup will be a “mutual consent” match, meaning that the challenger and holder are working together on a set of parameters for the boats, which means that these boats will be “more closely matched spectator boats.” They will NOT be dissimilar boats, such as in the San Diego match and in the latest Valencia match. If you were truly and “AC fan” and familiar with the protocol that is being developed for this next race, then surely you would understand this. The primary aim of all the people involved this time around is precisely to make it “spectator friendly.” That’s what everyone wants.

  • SFbaysailor

    Thanks for your response Marce. A ‘mutual consent match’ is very different from how the Cup races were held in Perth and Auckland. In those regatta’s there were a series of round robin elimination matches to decide who would challenge and defend the Cup. There was participation from dozens of teams from all over the world, and it fit the Deed of Gift’s description of a ‘friendly match between nations.’ The venue lent to nation participation, more visibility, media, and spectator participation. For example, at Perth, we even had two teams challenge from the West Coast – Blackaller from SF, and Connor from San Diego. As a spectator, it was fun to get behind your team, watch them as they raced dozens of matches. The total number of races held in the challenger and defender series leading up to the final Cup match was somewhere around forty races. With a ‘mutual consent’ match there might be what ….. seven races? Although it was exciting to see the technological wonders at Valencia, it was a yawn of a match race, just like the 1988 San Diego match.

    This time around the AC is going to be raced in winged catamarans. These are much faster, two or three times faster than previously raced mono hulls, meaning a larger difference in speeds between the boats. A greater speed difference means there will be a greater distance between the boats and less tactics and close racing. These catamarans are also not as maneuverable as the older mono-hulled Cup boats, don’t require as much sail handling, and quite frankly, are a poor selection for a match race. There will be no tacking duals, no pre-start maneuvering and tactics with dial-ups in the box, no close mark roundings, no analyzing of sail trim, less boat for boat and wind shift tactics, no botched spinnaker douses with another boat close on your heels, etc. These are the things make match racing sailboats exciting. Comparing a mutual consent match in catamarans to the racing in twelve meters at Perth is like comparing a single drag race to a stock car race series. Which do see as having more spectator participation and excitement?

    For these reasons, the expectation of excitement, money influx, participation, and even ‘world focus’ of the America’s Cup of old is not going to be there. I wouldn’t expect the average San Franciscan to understand these nuances. Comparing the hosting of Cup races of the past to this time around is not a fair comparison.

  • SFbaysailor

    Thanks for your response Marce. A ‘mutual consent match’ is very different from how the Cup races were held in Perth and Auckland. In those regatta’s there were a series of round robin elimination matches to decide who would challenge and defend the Cup. There was participation from dozens of teams from all over the world, and it fit the Deed of Gift’s description of a ‘friendly match between nations.’ The venue lent to nation participation, more visibility, media, and spectator participation. For example, at Perth, we even had two teams challenge from the West Coast – Blackaller from SF, and Connor from San Diego. As a spectator, it was fun to get behind your team, watch them as they raced dozens of matches. The total number of races held in the challenger and defender series leading up to the final Cup match was somewhere around forty races. With a ‘mutual consent’ match there might be what ….. seven races? Although it was exciting to see the technological wonders at Valencia, it was a yawn of a match race, just like the 1988 San Diego match.

    This time around the AC is going to be raced in winged catamarans. These are much faster, two or three times faster than previously raced mono hulls, meaning a larger difference in speeds between the boats. A greater speed difference means there will be a greater distance between the boats and less tactics and close racing. These catamarans are also not as maneuverable as the older mono-hulled Cup boats, don’t require as much sail handling, and quite frankly, are a poor selection for a match race. There will be no tacking duals, no pre-start maneuvering and tactics with dial-ups in the box, no close mark roundings, no analyzing of sail trim, less boat for boat and wind shift tactics, no botched spinnaker douses with another boat close on your heels, etc. These are the things make match racing sailboats exciting. Comparing a mutual consent match in catamarans to the racing in twelve meters at Perth is like comparing a single drag race to a stock car race series. Which do see as having more spectator participation and excitement?

    For these reasons, the expectation of excitement, money influx, participation, and even ‘world focus’ of the America’s Cup of old is not going to be there. I wouldn’t expect the average San Franciscan to understand these nuances. Comparing the hosting of Cup races of the past to this time around is not a fair comparison.

  • SFbaysailor

    Thanks for your response Marce. A ‘mutual consent match’ is very different from how the Cup races were held in Perth and Auckland. In those regatta’s there were a series of round robin elimination matches to decide who would challenge and defend the Cup. There was participation from dozens of teams from all over the world, and it fit the Deed of Gift’s description of a ‘friendly match between nations.’ The venue lent to nation participation, more visibility, media, and spectator participation. For example, at Perth, we even had two teams challenge from the West Coast – Blackaller from SF, and Connor from San Diego. As a spectator, it was fun to get behind your team, watch them as they raced dozens of matches. The total number of races held in the challenger and defender series leading up to the final Cup match was somewhere around forty races. With a ‘mutual consent’ match there might be what ….. seven races? Although it was exciting to see the technological wonders at Valencia, it was a yawn of a match race, just like the 1988 San Diego match.

    This time around the AC is going to be raced in winged catamarans. These are much faster, two or three times faster than previously raced mono hulls, meaning a larger difference in speeds between the boats. A greater speed difference means there will be a greater distance between the boats and less tactics and close racing. These catamarans are also not as maneuverable as the older mono-hulled Cup boats, don’t require as much sail handling, and quite frankly, are a poor selection for a match race. There will be no tacking duals, no pre-start maneuvering and tactics with dial-ups in the box, no close mark roundings, no analyzing of sail trim, less boat for boat and wind shift tactics, no botched spinnaker douses with another boat close on your heels, etc. These are the things make match racing sailboats exciting. Comparing a mutual consent match in catamarans to the racing in twelve meters at Perth is like comparing a single drag race to a stock car race series. Which do see as having more spectator participation and excitement?

    For these reasons, the expectation of excitement, money influx, participation, and even ‘world focus’ of the America’s Cup of old is not going to be there. I wouldn’t expect the average San Franciscan to understand these nuances. Comparing the hosting of Cup races of the past to this time around is not a fair comparison.

  • SFbaysailor

    Thanks for your response Marce. A ‘mutual consent match’ is very different from how the Cup races were held in Perth and Auckland. In those regatta’s there were a series of round robin elimination matches to decide who would challenge and defend the Cup. There was participation from dozens of teams from all over the world, and it fit the Deed of Gift’s description of a ‘friendly match between nations.’ The venue lent to nation participation, more visibility, media, and spectator participation. For example, at Perth, we even had two teams challenge from the West Coast – Blackaller from SF, and Connor from San Diego. As a spectator, it was fun to get behind your team, watch them as they raced dozens of matches. The total number of races held in the challenger and defender series leading up to the final Cup match was somewhere around forty races. With a ‘mutual consent’ match there might be what ….. seven races? Although it was exciting to see the technological wonders at Valencia, it was a yawn of a match race, just like the 1988 San Diego match.

    This time around the AC is going to be raced in winged catamarans. These are much faster, two or three times faster than previously raced mono hulls, meaning a larger difference in speeds between the boats. A greater speed difference means there will be a greater distance between the boats and less tactics and close racing. These catamarans are also not as maneuverable as the older mono-hulled Cup boats, don’t require as much sail handling, and quite frankly, are a poor selection for a match race. There will be no tacking duals, no pre-start maneuvering and tactics with dial-ups in the box, no close mark roundings, no analyzing of sail trim, less boat for boat and wind shift tactics, no botched spinnaker douses with another boat close on your heels, etc. These are the things make match racing sailboats exciting. Comparing a mutual consent match in catamarans to the racing in twelve meters at Perth is like comparing a single drag race to a stock car race series. Which do see as having more spectator participation and excitement?

    For these reasons, the expectation of excitement, money influx, participation, and even ‘world focus’ of the America’s Cup of old is not going to be there. I wouldn’t expect the average San Franciscan to understand these nuances. Comparing the hosting of Cup races of the past to this time around is not a fair comparison.

  • AC34inSF

    Amazing and shortsighted attitude towards this Historic event. Get over the “billionaire yacht race” moniker, quit crying about how it is so unfair and start looking at the benefits of what this could mean to SF. It is an honour to host an event of this calibre that will bring world recognition to SF Bay showcasing what a wonderful place it is.

  • AC34inSF

    Amazing and shortsighted attitude towards this Historic event. Get over the “billionaire yacht race” moniker, quit crying about how it is so unfair and start looking at the benefits of what this could mean to SF. It is an honour to host an event of this calibre that will bring world recognition to SF Bay showcasing what a wonderful place it is.

  • Marce

    As I said earlier, I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but you are seriously misinformed. Auckland was absolutely a “mutual consent” match. Perhaps you are confusing “mutual consent” with “deed of gift” challenge (AC33 in Valencia). Under the mutually agreed protocol for AC34 (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC34-Protocol-9-Sep-2010.pdf), there will be many, many races:

    “GGYC and the Challenger of Record are planning the approximate number of regattas:
    2011 – three regattas
    2012 – seven regattas
    2013 – three regattas (it is envisaged that the Regatta Director will schedule additional
    ACWS regattas to be held after the Match.)
    These regattas will have approximately nine days of racing.”

    (see page 18).

    And the boats will be built to the new AC72 rule (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC72-Class-Rule.pdf), so I don’t understand why you think that there will be “a larger difference in speeds between the boats.” Catamarans built to the same rule will have similar speed, just like monohulls built to the same rule will have similar speed. And giant catamarans will be much more visible to spectators from shore than smaller monohulls.

    It’s a shame that someone who claims to be a fan of the AC voicing antipathy to holding the event in SF based on inaccurate information. You can find a wealth of accurate information at the AC34 website.

  • Marce

    As I said earlier, I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but you are seriously misinformed. Auckland was absolutely a “mutual consent” match. Perhaps you are confusing “mutual consent” with “deed of gift” challenge (AC33 in Valencia). Under the mutually agreed protocol for AC34 (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC34-Protocol-9-Sep-2010.pdf), there will be many, many races:

    “GGYC and the Challenger of Record are planning the approximate number of regattas:
    2011 – three regattas
    2012 – seven regattas
    2013 – three regattas (it is envisaged that the Regatta Director will schedule additional
    ACWS regattas to be held after the Match.)
    These regattas will have approximately nine days of racing.”

    (see page 18).

    And the boats will be built to the new AC72 rule (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC72-Class-Rule.pdf), so I don’t understand why you think that there will be “a larger difference in speeds between the boats.” Catamarans built to the same rule will have similar speed, just like monohulls built to the same rule will have similar speed. And giant catamarans will be much more visible to spectators from shore than smaller monohulls.

    It’s a shame that someone who claims to be a fan of the AC voicing antipathy to holding the event in SF based on inaccurate information. You can find a wealth of accurate information at the AC34 website.

  • Marce

    As I said earlier, I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but you are seriously misinformed. Auckland was absolutely a “mutual consent” match. Perhaps you are confusing “mutual consent” with “deed of gift” challenge (AC33 in Valencia). Under the mutually agreed protocol for AC34 (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC34-Protocol-9-Sep-2010.pdf), there will be many, many races:

    “GGYC and the Challenger of Record are planning the approximate number of regattas:
    2011 – three regattas
    2012 – seven regattas
    2013 – three regattas (it is envisaged that the Regatta Director will schedule additional
    ACWS regattas to be held after the Match.)
    These regattas will have approximately nine days of racing.”

    (see page 18).

    And the boats will be built to the new AC72 rule (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC72-Class-Rule.pdf), so I don’t understand why you think that there will be “a larger difference in speeds between the boats.” Catamarans built to the same rule will have similar speed, just like monohulls built to the same rule will have similar speed. And giant catamarans will be much more visible to spectators from shore than smaller monohulls.

    It’s a shame that someone who claims to be a fan of the AC voicing antipathy to holding the event in SF based on inaccurate information. You can find a wealth of accurate information at the AC34 website.

  • Marce

    As I said earlier, I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but you are seriously misinformed. Auckland was absolutely a “mutual consent” match. Perhaps you are confusing “mutual consent” with “deed of gift” challenge (AC33 in Valencia). Under the mutually agreed protocol for AC34 (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC34-Protocol-9-Sep-2010.pdf), there will be many, many races:

    “GGYC and the Challenger of Record are planning the approximate number of regattas:
    2011 – three regattas
    2012 – seven regattas
    2013 – three regattas (it is envisaged that the Regatta Director will schedule additional
    ACWS regattas to be held after the Match.)
    These regattas will have approximately nine days of racing.”

    (see page 18).

    And the boats will be built to the new AC72 rule (http://cdn.americascup.com/AC72-Class-Rule.pdf), so I don’t understand why you think that there will be “a larger difference in speeds between the boats.” Catamarans built to the same rule will have similar speed, just like monohulls built to the same rule will have similar speed. And giant catamarans will be much more visible to spectators from shore than smaller monohulls.

    It’s a shame that someone who claims to be a fan of the AC voicing antipathy to holding the event in SF based on inaccurate information. You can find a wealth of accurate information at the AC34 website.

  • SFbaysailor

    Marce, Thanks for the link, and I stand corrected on the mutual consent issue. But, without competitors, how are we going to have a regatta? And I still feel 70 foot cats are a poor choice of boats for match racing in general, and particularly bad for match racing in San Francisco Bay. There won’t be close racing with the speeds these boats are travelling. In past AC’s, we’ve had a Challenger of Record immediately challenge after the regatta was decided. In the past we’ve even had teams competing to challenge. Why do you think we still don’t have a challenge as of today? The point I’ve been trying to make, and will continue to focus on, is due to a combination of factors, the AC34 does not have have the amount of participation, both in spectator-ship and competition, as it has in the past. We can differ on why this might be the case, e.g. the type of boats, economic factors, etc. But without greater participation, we can’t count on the economic forecasts based on past Cup races. My antipathy comes from the type of boats, the lack of competition, and an understanding of Cup history. It’s sad, but unfortunately the AC has morphed into something which is breeding a lack of interest. My case in point.

    I’d like nothing more than to see AC racing restored back to the glory of it’s past — the premier yacht race of the world. As the holder of the Cup, this was a fantastic opportunity for Mr. Ellison to do just that. It’s too bad he hasn’t stepped up to the plate and put this goal ahead of making a few bucks. Let him make his money off of Rome, not San Francisco.

  • SFbaysailor

    Marce, Thanks for the link, and I stand corrected on the mutual consent issue. But, without competitors, how are we going to have a regatta? And I still feel 70 foot cats are a poor choice of boats for match racing in general, and particularly bad for match racing in San Francisco Bay. There won’t be close racing with the speeds these boats are travelling. In past AC’s, we’ve had a Challenger of Record immediately challenge after the regatta was decided. In the past we’ve even had teams competing to challenge. Why do you think we still don’t have a challenge as of today? The point I’ve been trying to make, and will continue to focus on, is due to a combination of factors, the AC34 does not have have the amount of participation, both in spectator-ship and competition, as it has in the past. We can differ on why this might be the case, e.g. the type of boats, economic factors, etc. But without greater participation, we can’t count on the economic forecasts based on past Cup races. My antipathy comes from the type of boats, the lack of competition, and an understanding of Cup history. It’s sad, but unfortunately the AC has morphed into something which is breeding a lack of interest. My case in point.

    I’d like nothing more than to see AC racing restored back to the glory of it’s past — the premier yacht race of the world. As the holder of the Cup, this was a fantastic opportunity for Mr. Ellison to do just that. It’s too bad he hasn’t stepped up to the plate and put this goal ahead of making a few bucks. Let him make his money off of Rome, not San Francisco.

  • SFbaysailor

    Hi Marce, at your urging I’ve done a little more research on the AC34 website and I’m glad to see we have a challenger of record from Italy. So, I’m guessing time will tell whether or not Ellison’s decision to hold this AC in 70 foot cats will breath new life into the Cup or drive the final nail in the coffin. But, why ask San Franciscans bear the cost if Ellison loses the gamble?

    A few quotes from another message board on the decision to race in cats:

    http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=113280

    “So let’s say you’re a motorcycle guy… You ride a bike, you watch MotoGP… then someone says, hey we can get faster lap times cheaper with cars! Is it OK to run next season’s MotoGP in cars now? I’m gonna say no.

    So ya, I’m old… America’s Cup is for mono’s… Little America’s cup is for multi’s. From that alone, the boat decision for the next AC kills it for me. I’ve sailed monohulls all my life and AC was always the pinnacle of the sport, but the sport was boats I understand, not multi’s.

    IMHO they’ve changed sports. Looking forward to the next VOR… bye!”

    “My point is that these cats are lousy match racing boats. No tacking or gybing duels. Extremely fragile rigs that will be dangerous in San Francisco Bay. Maybe a spectacle for the uninformed, but not so interesting for match racing fans.”

    “Good luck with your multihull speed-drag-racing AC – I am sure you’ll find new fans. Too bad that you had to kill a great other event for this!”

    To be fair, there were supporters for the decision too. Most of the match racing fans fell on my side. Although this decision might bring in some new blood, it’s alienated your base at the same time.

  • SFbaysailor

    Hi Marce, at your urging I’ve done a little more research on the AC34 website and I’m glad to see we have a challenger of record from Italy. So, I’m guessing time will tell whether or not Ellison’s decision to hold this AC in 70 foot cats will breath new life into the Cup or drive the final nail in the coffin. But, why ask San Franciscans bear the cost if Ellison loses the gamble?

    A few quotes from another message board on the decision to race in cats:

    http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=113280

    “So let’s say you’re a motorcycle guy… You ride a bike, you watch MotoGP… then someone says, hey we can get faster lap times cheaper with cars! Is it OK to run next season’s MotoGP in cars now? I’m gonna say no.

    So ya, I’m old… America’s Cup is for mono’s… Little America’s cup is for multi’s. From that alone, the boat decision for the next AC kills it for me. I’ve sailed monohulls all my life and AC was always the pinnacle of the sport, but the sport was boats I understand, not multi’s.

    IMHO they’ve changed sports. Looking forward to the next VOR… bye!”

    “My point is that these cats are lousy match racing boats. No tacking or gybing duels. Extremely fragile rigs that will be dangerous in San Francisco Bay. Maybe a spectacle for the uninformed, but not so interesting for match racing fans.”

    “Good luck with your multihull speed-drag-racing AC – I am sure you’ll find new fans. Too bad that you had to kill a great other event for this!”

    To be fair, there were supporters for the decision too. Most of the match racing fans fell on my side. Although this decision might bring in some new blood, it’s alienated your base at the same time.

  • supertamsf

    San Francisco doesn’t need higher property values on existing real estate, which is already some of the highest priced in the nation. Increased property values will only shrink the already exclusive circle of those who can afford to buy. We are NOT suffering from a depressed real estate market.

    What San Francisco does need is an increased supply of affordable housing units. We DO suffer from a shortage of affordable housing, along with an ever dwindling supply of rental properties. I doubt Larry Ellison has a vision to build affordable housing with that sweet FREE 75 year lease he will get out of this.

  • supertamsf

    San Francisco doesn’t need higher property values on existing real estate, which is already some of the highest priced in the nation. Increased property values will only shrink the already exclusive circle of those who can afford to buy. We are NOT suffering from a depressed real estate market.

    What San Francisco does need is an increased supply of affordable housing units. We DO suffer from a shortage of affordable housing, along with an ever dwindling supply of rental properties. I doubt Larry Ellison has a vision to build affordable housing with that sweet FREE 75 year lease he will get out of this.

  • Belulah

    FREE 75 year lease? I want that!

  • Belulah

    FREE 75 year lease? I want that!