Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

49ers Listening to Trade Offers, Vikings–Giants Proposals for No. 3 Pick

Published

on

49ers Listening to Trade Offers, Vikings–Giants Proposals for No. 3 Pick


Day 2 of the 2024 NFL draft is here and here’s what we know in front of Rounds 2 and 3 …

 

• The San Francisco 49ers are going to listen to offers for Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk, but they’re not married to the idea of trading either of them. Selecting Florida receiver Ricky Pearsall, though, does give them a little more flexibility.

 

Advertisement

At a baseline, taking Pearsall with the 31st pick is a play for 2025. The team has Aiyuk and Jauan Jennings going into contract years, with Samuel signed through ’26. One way or the other, all three won’t be around a year from now, so getting top-end talent in the pipeline now makes sense for a team that doesn’t have many immediate needs.

 

The 49ers did look at the idea of trading back five or 10 spots for Pearsall. But chose not to due to the tackle supply running thin, a number of receiver-needy teams right behind them (Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, Los Angeles Chargers and Washington Commanders could take one, too) and Xavier Worthy getting picked by the Kansas City Chiefs in front of them. Second, there was the benefit of getting the fifth-year option on Pearsall.

 

On the second point, you’d normally associate that concept with quarterbacks, but the events of the past week helped tip the scale here, with Amon-Ra St. Brown getting $28 million per year and A.J. Brown getting $32 million per, and Justin Jefferson and Ja’Marr Chase megadeals coming down the pike (eventually). Having the option helps the 49ers with Aiyuk (a late first-rounder in 2020), and lacking it hurts with Samuel (a high second-rounder in ’19), so there’s another reason for San Francisco to want it with Pearsall.

Advertisement

With Brock Purdy on his rookie contract, the Niners could easily keep everyone. But they could also move someone, and it could be Samuel, who might be more tradeable with the terms left on his contract, with a plan to keep Aiyuk, who’s viewed as the team’s best pure receiver. Either way, having Pearsall, who drew some comparisons to Adam Thielen with the team, gives San Francisco options.

 

So we’ll see how the next few hours work out.

 

• So much was made of the Commanders’ mass prospect summit—some 22 players were in town for their 30 visits at once and, yes, the festivities kicked off at Topgolf—and what it meant for Heisman Trophy candidate Jayden Daniels’s chances of, and desire for, landing in the nation’s capital.

Advertisement

 

Turns out, he did get some special attention.

 

All four quarterbacks in town got one-on-one time with the football operations people, but the LSU quarterback was the only one to have an extended, exclusive meeting with new owner Josh Harris. The Commanders kept that detail under wraps for obvious reasons as the draft neared, but it telegraphed what was obvious. Daniels was the pick at No. 2—and that was pretty much through the draft process.

 

Advertisement

The hire of ex-Cardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury, a spread-offense guru, as offensive coordinator was another sign of it, as was the signing of Marcus Mariota to be the veteran bridge quarterback.

 

Which is to say all the hysteria just wound up being a blip.

 

• The Minnesota Vikings and New York Giants did make offers to the New England Patriots for the No. 3 pick to take Drake Maye. Earlier this week, Minnesota offered the Nos. 11 and 23 picks, and its 2025 first-rounder, with pick swaps favoring the Vikings as part of the proposal; and that offer ticked up with New England on the clock. The Giants, meanwhile, did wind up putting their 2025 first-round pick in their offer to move from No. 6 to No. 3.

Advertisement

 

Ultimately, nothing came close to moving the Patriots off their choice. In fact, that Kevin O’Connell and Brian Daboll were the head coaches interested, only emboldened New England to stay put.

 

The Giants, of course, got a weapon for Daniel Jones, selecting star receiver  Malik Nabers. The Vikings, meanwhile, were emboldened to draw a line in the sand on trade terms, and work within their boundaries by the alternate plan to wait for J.J. McCarthy—knowing that the Atlanta Falcons had a visit with McCarthy canceled, the Giants were Maye-specific at the position, and the Arizona Cardinals, Los Angeles Chargers, Tennessee Titans, Chicago Bears and New York Jets wouldn’t take a quarterback—and use the trade-up assets to build around him. So they let the Michigan star come to them, flipping picks at ith the Jets just to be sure.

 

Advertisement

• A big part of why the Patriots selected Maye was his makeup, which they hope will lead to the development of his blue-chip traits.

 

The Patriots were immediately impressed with his football intelligence, and how driven he is by the sport. Then, there were the leadership qualities he very clearly brought to the table, and were displayed when New England drilled him on his 2023 struggles. With conditions around him changing after his breakout ’22 season, Maye’s play suffered last year. Yet, he refused to blame anyone else, player or coach, or anything else for any of it.

 

That kind of accountability went a long way for the Patriots staff.

Advertisement

 

• As for the quarterback who went after Maye with the eight pick, the Falcons did plenty of homework on Michael Penix Jr. A big group, led by GM Terry Fontenot, coach Raheem Morris and offensive coordinator Zac Robinson, flew from Atlanta to Seattle on the morning of April 6 to work Penix out privately, and to get to know him better.

 

Rumors thereafter percolated that the Falcons had fallen for Penix, who crushed the workout, and the McCarthy workout being called off solidified that they were a one-quarterback team like the Giants were with Maye.

 

Advertisement

Few figured the Falcons would actually take Penix at 8. Fewer knew just how much Atlanta liked him. He was the third quarterback on the Falcons’ board, behind only Chicago’s Caleb Williams and Daniels, and some in the organization actually had him second. And so with owner Arthur Blank said to be fond of the idea of having a succession plan at the position—something Atlanta lacked at the end with Matt Ryan—an idea became a reality.

 

• The Chargers’ decision to take Notre Dame OT Joe Alt may have been one of the simpler decisions any team made in the first round. Coming out of meeting with Alt, GM Joe Hortiz scrawled in his notes, You’d love to have this guy.

 

Now, he and coach Jim Harbaugh do.

Advertisement

 

Alt’s athleticism, length, presence, demeanor and intelligence painted the picture—in the Chargers’ eyes—of a guy with a very high floor nowhere near his ceiling. L.A. thinks he’ll get there because of his drive, and here’s where the Joe Thomas comps we had earlier in the week come into play. Thomas’s tape coming out of Wisconsin could be seen, at times, as unspectacular. But that was only because he was so smooth and athletic, and made things look easy. And where you could nitpick Thomas, he’d do the same, and fix problems.

 

All of that goes for Alt, too. Add that to the background of Harbaugh and Hortiz, who’ve always poured resources into their offensive line and the match was, again, easy.

 

Advertisement

• Two inquiries shot down over the past few weeks: The Chargers trading Justin Herbert (and a few teams called spurred by the idea that Harbaugh might go get McCarthy in the draft) and Washington trading the second pick.

 

• Iowa’s Cooper DeJean is among the best available players, and the Bills, sitting at 33, would be an excellent fit. Buffalo’s also taken calls on moving the pick.

 

• We mentioned Monday that Texas RB Jonathan Brooks could be in play for the Dallas Cowboys in the second round. Well, Jerry Jones said as much Thursday. Which means, if a teams wants him, it might want to take him ahead of Dallas, which picks at 56 tonight.

Advertisement

 

• How the tackles come off the board will be interesting, with New England (No. 34) and Washington (Nos. 36 and 40) having a big need, and Houston’s Patrick Paul, BYU’s Kingsley Suamataia and Washington’s Roger Rosengarten available, too.



Source link

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni

Published

on

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni


A parcel tax plan to rescue Muni would charge most homeowners at least $129 annually if voters approve the policy in November.

The finalized tax scheme, which updates a version presented Dec. 8, comes after weeks of negotiations between city officials and transit advocates.

The plan lowers the levels previously proposed for owners of apartment and condo buildings. They would still pay a $249 base tax up to 5,000 square feet of property, but additional square footage would be taxed at 19.5 cents, versus the previous 30 cents. The tax would be capped at $50,000.

The plan also adds provisions limiting how much of the tax can be passed through to tenants in rent-controlled buildings. Owners of rent-controlled properties would be able to pass through up to 50% of the parcel tax on a unit, with a cap of $65 a year.

Advertisement

These changes bring the total estimated annual tax revenue from $187 million to $183 million and earmark 10% for expanding transit service.

What you pay depends on what kind of property you or your landlord owns. There are three tiers: single-family homes, apartment and condo buildings, and commercial properties.

Owners of single-family homes smaller than 3,000 square feet would pay the base tax of $129 per year. Homes between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet would pay the base tax plus an additional 42 cents per square foot, and any home above 5,000 square feet would be taxed at an added $1.99 per square foot.

Source: Jeremy Chen/The Standard

Commercial landlords would face a $799 base tax for buildings up to 5,000 square feet, with per-square-foot rates that scale with the property size, up to a maximum of $400,000.

The finalized plan was presented by Julie Kirschbaum, director of transportation at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, at a board meeting Tuesday.

Advertisement

The plan proposed in December was criticized for failing to set aside funds to increase transit service and not including pass-through restrictions for tenants.

The tax is meant to close SFMTA’s $307 million budget gap, which stems from lagging ridership post-pandemic and the expiration of emergency federal funding. Without additional funding, the agency would be forced to drastically cut service. The parcel tax, a regional sales tax measure, and cost-cutting, would all be needed to close the fiscal gap.

The next steps for the parcel tax are creating draft legislation and launching a signature-gathering campaign to place the measure on the ballot.

Any measure would need review by the city attorney’s office. But all stakeholders have agreed on the tax structure presented Tuesday, according to Emma Hare, an aide to Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose office led negotiations over the tax between advocates and City Hall.

“It’s final,” Hare said. “We just need to write it down.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge

Published

on

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge


A San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed claims in a lawsuit against Proposition K, the ballot measure that permanently cleared traffic from the Great Highway to make way for a two-mile park. 

One advocacy group, Friends of Sunset Dunes, said the legal action affirmed Proposition K’s legal standing and called the lawsuit against the park “wasteful.” 

Advertisement

Proposition K passed with more than 54% of the vote in November 2024, but the debate didn’t end there. The Sunset District supervisor was recalled in the aftermath of that vote by residents in the district who argued their streets would be flooded by traffic and that the decision by voters citywide to close a major thoroughfare in their area was out of touch with the local community. 

What they’re saying:

Friends of Sunset Dunes hailed the judge’s decision in the lawsuit, Boschetto vs the City and County of San Francisco, as a victory. 

Advertisement

“After two ballot measures, two lawsuits, three failed appeals, and dozens of hours of public meetings and untold administrative time and cost, this ruling affirms Proposition K’s legal foundation, and affirms the city’s authority to move forward in creating a permanent coastal park to serve future generations of San Franciscans,” the group said in a statement. 

The group added that their volunteers are working to bring the coastal park to life. Meanwhile, “anti-park zealots continue to waste more public resources in their attempt to overturn the will of the people and close Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

“Now that they’ve lost two lawsuits and two elections, we invite them to accept the will of San Franciscans and work with us to make the most of our collective coastal park,” said Lucas Lux, president of Friends of Sunset Dunes. 

The supervisor for the Sunset District, Alan Wong, doubled down on what he had stated earlier. In a statement on Monday, Wong said he is “prepared to support a ballot initiative to reopen the Great Highway and restore the original compromise.” The compromise he’s referring to is vehicles allowed to drive along the highway on weekdays and a closure to traffic on the weekends. 

Wong, in his statement, added that he’s talked to constituents in his district across the political spectrum and that his values align with the majority of district 4 residents and organizations. 

Advertisement

When he was sworn in last month, Wong indicated he was open to revisiting the issue of reopening the Great Highway to traffic. He also said he voted against Proposition K, which cleared the way and made Sunset Dunes official. 

Engardio’s two-cents

Last September, Joel Engardio was recalled as the Sunset District supervisor in a special election. The primary reason for his ouster was his support of Sunset Dunes, the park which also saw the support of other prominent politicians, including former Mayor London Breed, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and State Senator Scott Wiener. 

Advertisement

Engardio on Monday issued his own statement after the judge dismissed all claims in the lawsuit against Prop. K. 

“It’s time to consider Sunset Dunes settled. Too many people have seen how the park is good for the environment, local businesses, and the physical and mental health of every visitor,” Engardio said. “Future generations will see this as a silly controversy because the park’s benefits far outweigh the fears of traffic jams that never happened. The coast belongs to everyone and it won’t be long before a majority everywhere will embrace the wonderful and magical Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

San FranciscoPoliticsNews



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Commentary: Let’s Do Better in 2026 – Streetsblog San Francisco

Published

on

Commentary: Let’s Do Better in 2026 – Streetsblog San Francisco


Editor’s note: special thanks to all our Streetsblog supporters! We fulfilled our 2025 fundraising goals. If you’d like to help us do even more, it’s not too late to donate.

I was on my way to dinner with friends on Christmas Eve when my westbound K Ingleside train was turned back at West Portal without explanation. I waited for the next train. It was turned back too. I asked one of the Muni drivers what was going on, and he said no M Ocean View or K Ingleside trains were running past the station.

I guessed it had something to do with the weather—the rain was coming down in sheets. I realized getting an Uber or Lyft at the station, with everybody else doing the same thing, probably wasn’t going to work. I had a good umbrella and rain coat so I started to walk down West Portal Avenue, ducking under awnings as I looked for a good spot to call a Lyft.

I didn’t get far before I saw why the trains were stopped, as seen in the lead photo.

Advertisement

I don’t know exactly how this blundering driver managed to bottom out his car on the barrier between the tracks. But, for me, it symbolized everything that’s wrong with San Francisco’s auto-uber-alles policies that continue to put the needs of individual drivers above buses and trains full of people. Mayor Lurie reiterated San Francisco’s supposed transit-first policy in his end-of-year directive. But if it’s a transit-first city, why are motorists still prioritized and permitted to drive on busy train tracks in the first place?

Photo of West Portal Ave.’s original configuration, before it was “upgraded” with angled parking and to allow drivers to use the tracks. Photo: Open SF History

Why isn’t the barrier in West Portal positioned to keep drivers from using the tracks, as it was historically? Why do we even have pavement on the tracks? And why haven’t we banned drivers from using West Portal Avenue and Ulloa Street as thoroughfares in the first place, where they regularly interfere with and delay trains?

I should have stopped walking and summoned a Lyft. But being forced by the shitty politics of San Francisco, combined with a shitty driver, to call yet another car, pissed me off. I thought about all the people who got off those trains who can’t afford to call a ride-hail. I thought about the hundreds of people trapped inside trains that were stuck between stations. I continued walking and thinking about all the times I’ve visited Europe and been through similarly busy, vibrant merchant corridors such as West Portal with one major difference: no cars.

Amsterdam. Not saying to turn West Portal into a pedestrian mall necessarily, but it shows what’s possible. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

Yes, even on “car-free” streets in Europe, typically cars and delivery vehicles can still cross and access the shops directly for deliveries. But some streets are just not meant to be a motoring free-for-all. Anybody who doubts that merchants flourish in car-free and car-lite environments should either get a passport, or they should take a look at the merchant receipts after a Sunday Streets event. On the other hand, Papenhausen Hardware, which helped block a safety plan that prioritized transit movements through West Portal, went out of business anyway in 2024.

As I walked in the driving rain, my thoughts drifted to 2024’s tragedy, in which a reckless driver wiped out a family of four when she crashed onto a sidewalk in West Portal. San Francisco had an opportunity to finally implement a transit-first project and prevent a future tragedy by banning most drivers from the tracks and preventing them from using West Portal as a cut through. And yet, a supposedly safe-streets ally, Supervisor Myrna Melgar, aligned with a subset of the merchants in West Portal and sabotaged the project.

Since then, I’m aware of at least one other incident in West Portal where an errant driver went up on the sidewalk and hit a building. Thankfully, there wasn’t a family in the way that time. Either way, West Portal Avenue, and a whole lot of other streets that have hosted horrible tragedies, are still as dangerous as ever thanks to the lack of political commitment and an unwillingness to change.

Advertisement
Another look at the car that blocked Muni on Christmas Eve. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

I finally got to my friends’ house, 35 minutes later. They loaned me some dry clothes and put my jeans in the dryer. We had a lovely meal and a great time. My friend drove me to BART for an uneventful trip home (not that BART is always impervious to driver insanity).

In 2026, advocates, allies, and friends, we all need to raise the bar and find a way to make sure politicians follow through on transit first, Vision Zero, and making San Francisco safe. Because the half-assed improvements made in West Portal and elsewhere aren’t enough. And the status quo isn’t working.

On a closely related note, be sure to sign this petition, demanding that SFMTA finish the transit-only lanes on Ocean Avenue.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending