Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

Ferris wheel at SF’s Golden Gate Park could soon be moved to Fisherman’s Wharf

Published

on

Ferris wheel at SF’s Golden Gate Park could soon be moved to Fisherman’s Wharf


SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — San Francisco Port Commissioners have adopted a revitalization plan that could bring the Ferris wheel in Golden Gate Park to a pier in Fisherman’s Wharf.

The plan still needs a couple more approvals, including one from state officials, but it could become reality within the next month.

“I think if you do it right, you do it tastefully, it’s going to look great,” says Matt Balestrieri who grew up in San Francisco.

Most of those walking around the wharf will tell you they like the idea.

Advertisement

“Seeing something new in the city is always eye-catching,” said Steph Aguirre.

VIDEO: Here’s what the views look like from San Francisco’s new Ferris wheel in Golden Gate Park

“I haven’t seen much change around the pier in a long time so it would be really cool to see something new,” said Balestrieri.

The Ferris wheel has been up in Golden Gate Park for the last three years, in the shadows the Academy of Sciences and the De Young Museum, but a shift to the wharf would put it front and center, or high and towering above the bay with beautiful views of Alcatraz, even if some may question the look.

“It may make the area a bit cheap perhaps? Because there’s no other amusements here. Is there much? asked Philip Benbow who was on vacation with his wife when we spoke with him.

Advertisement

Benbow says he and his wife have done everything else, no doubt they would have done a Ferris wheel too if it was already in the wharf.

“We’ve been on the cable car and we’ve been on the Alcatraz,” said Benbow.

“So if there was a Ferris wheel down here you’d go on?” we asked. “I think you’d have a good business really!” said Benbow.

MORE: Pier 39, Fisherman’s Wharf comeback underway after 87% drop in visitors during pandemic

You don’t have to go far in Fisherman’s Wharf to find empty storefronts, some officials that we talked with believe that bringing a Ferris wheel to the area could bring people back.

Advertisement

“It’s a good fit, it’s the right place, it kind of has that Coney Island feel and I think folks will embrace it. It will be an attraction that will help Fisherman’s Wharf during this recovery period,” said San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.

The supervisor, who is in favor of the plan, says it’s never really felt like the Ferris Wheel ever belonged in Golden Gate Park, saying the plan to move it will soon go in front of a state agency for approval.

They’re also still in the midst of testing to make sure the Ferris Wheel isn’t too heavy for the Pier or the soil below.

The goal is to have the Ferris Wheel in the Wharf in one month, just in time for the APEC economic forum starting on Nov. 11.

Supervisor Peskin says the initial agreement to bring the Ferris wheel to Fisherman’s Wharf involves a short-term plan for six months.

Advertisement

If you’re on the ABC7 News app, click here to watch live



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco's legal battle over EPA water permits gains unlikely allies

Published

on

San Francisco's legal battle over EPA water permits gains unlikely allies


San Francisco has found unexpected support from fossil fuel groups in its Supreme Court challenge to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water regulations, arguing that the rules are too vague to comply with.

Pamela King and Miranda Willson report for E&E News.


In short:

  • San Francisco claims EPA’s water discharge limits are too generic, leading to compliance difficulties.
  • Fossil fuel industry groups back San Francisco, fearing increased liability under the current EPA requirements.
  • EPA defends its approach, stating the permits are clear and necessary to prevent water pollution.

Key quote:

“The issue here is whether San Francisco and other permit holders across the nation can be found in violation of generic prohibitions against impacting water quality that don’t identify any specific requirements that we’re supposed to follow.”

Advertisement

— Jen Kwart, spokesperson for San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu

Why this matters:

City officials contend that the one-size-fits-all approach of the EPA does not account for the unique environmental and infrastructural circumstances faced by different municipalities. This has led to significant difficulties in meeting the prescribed standards without incurring excessive costs or resorting to temporary fixes that may not be sustainable in the long run. For San Francisco, and potentially other cities across the nation, this battle with the EPA could set a significant precedent for the future of water management policy.

Related EHN coverage:



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco takes down controversial 'Appeal to Heaven' flag from in front of city hall

Published

on

San Francisco takes down controversial 'Appeal to Heaven' flag from in front of city hall


A historic but controversial flag that has become a symbol of the far right was taken down in front of San Francisco City Hall over the weekend. According to a city official, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag was swapped with an American flag on Saturday. Officials say the controversial flag was initially raised on Flag Day in 1964 at Civic Center and wa…



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco Takes Down Flag Found at Justice Alito’s House and Called a ‘Jan. 6 Symbol’ by the NYT — After Flying It for the Last 60 Years

Published

on

San Francisco Takes Down Flag Found at Justice Alito’s House and Called a ‘Jan. 6 Symbol’ by the NYT — After Flying It for the Last 60 Years


(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The city of San Francisco has taken down an “Appeal to Heaven” flag that’s flown in its Civic Central Plaza for 60 years after the The New York Times described it as a “January 6 symbol” in a piece noting that it flew at a beach home owned by Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito and his wife.

The white flag, which depicts a pine tree in the center of it with the words “An Appeal to Heaven” emblazoned above it, was taken down by the city on Saturday, around three and a half years after the January 6 Capitol riot took place and just a few days after the Times piece castigating Alito for flying it came out.

It was first raised by the city in 1964 as part of a project to highlight various flags of historical significance to the country. The Appeal to Heaven flag was designed by George Washington’s private secretary and flown by the commanding general of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Pine trees were a symbol of resistance in revolutionary-era New England and the quote comes from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government.

Advertisement

Nevertheless, the Times insinuated — and Alito’s left-wing critics insisted — that it constituted proof of the Justice’s allegiance to 2020 election conspiracy theories. “Justice Alito’s Beach House Displayed ‘Appeal to Heaven’ Flag, a Jan. 6 Symbol,” read one of the headlines affixed to the article.

In a letter rejecting calls for his recusal from January 6-related cases on Wednesday, Alito wrote that he “had no involvement in the decision to fly that flag” and noted that his “wife is fond of flying flags.”

He continued:

I was not familiar with the “Appeal to Heaven” flag when my wife flew it. She may have mentioned that it dates back to the American Revolution, and I assumed she was flying it to express a religious and patriotic message. I was not aware of any connection between this historic flag and the “Stop the Steal Movement,” and neither was my wife. She did not fly it to associate herself with that or any other group, and the use of an old historic flag by a new group does not necessarily drain that flag of all other meanings.

“A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal,” added Alito. “I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request.”

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending