So everything is looking positive for the Warriors coming back to San Francisco? Not exactly. Critics have assembled a multimillion-dollar legal fund to fight the project at every turn, and a classic NIMBY battle between well-funded interests looms.

The main opponent “came out of nowhere” in April. The San Francisco Business Times had details:

A group of University of California, San Francisco, donors is threatening to sue or push a ballot measure against the Warriors’ potential Mission Bay arena over parking and traffic concerns. …

 

The group, a nonprofit called the Mission Bay Alliance, worries that arena traffic will bottle up to ensnarl ambulances headed to nearby UCSF Medical Center and threaten the neighborhood’s ability to grow as a biotechnology hub. Its proximity to AT&T Park and possible overlapping game days will exacerbate that, the group says.

 

Sam Singer, who is representing the alliance’s public relations efforts, [said], “The alliance wants to see the (arena) and office towers halted completely. If that doesn’t happen through the EIR and public participation process, the alliance will consider a lawsuit and going to the ballot to stop the stadium.”

Poll suggests public not sold on arena

On the eve of the supervisors’ vote, the Mission Bay Alliance released a poll of 540 voters that showed much less support than the Warriors have asserted. This is from a statement on the alliance’s website:

Based on what they know today about the proposed arena plan in Mission Bay, fewer than half of voters say they support it:

 

Support – 49 percent

 

Oppose – 42 percent

 

Don’t know – 10 percent  …

 

Once voters became aware of the facts surrounding the proposed arena and the expected regional impacts, including traffic gridlock, the lack of parking and clogged emergency access for adjacent UCSF hospitals, support for the arena plummeted even more:

 

Support – 38 percent

 

Oppose – 59 percent

 

Don’t know – 3 percent

 

Parking and traffic ranked as the two most problematic impacts, with 65 percent of voters concerned about traffic gridlock and 67 percent about a lack of parking in and around the arena. … [The project] does little to alleviate the burden the arena will put on regional transit like BART and CalTrain.

Being a popular champion helps sway debate

But the Warriors and the city leaders who back them up on the planned move could benefit tremendously from timing. San Diego voters agreed to help pay for PETCO Park for the Padres in the city’s downtown area in November 1998 — a month after the team won a rare National League title and advanced to the World Series.

The contrast is sharp with present-day San Diego and seemingly broad opposition to having local governments help the Chargers pay for a new NFL stadium. Other factors certainly come into play. San Diego’s reputation as “Enron by the Bay” has faded, but the city’s years of financial struggles have left scars. The city is debating a huge infrastructure program, prompting questions about why $200 million that might go to fix pocked roads and add fire stations would instead help a billionaire build a stadium. But it hasn’t helped the let’s-hold-our-noses-and-accept subsidies crowd that the Chargers have been hugely disappointing since their 14-2 season in 2007, rarely living up to expectations.

The Warriors, by contrast, sharply exceeded expectations in 2014-15, when they won their first NBA championship in 40 years. This season, meanwhile, they got off to the fastest start of any team in NBA history. That could be an ace in the hole for team owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber.

Incredibly, the GOP tax reform cut taxes on the rich, but imposed the infamous “waitress tax” on those poor working gals. Before then waitresses were free to make their own estimate of their taxable tips. Many figured they didn’t need to give so generously to the wastrels in D.C. like Dole. The reform gouged them up front with an estimate of their tips. How cruel.

The waitress tax was Dole’s doing that year, and somehow he got Reagan, in the midst of the Iran-Contra scandal, to go along with it. No wonder Dole was dubbed “the tax collector of the welfare state,” and voters dumped the GOP from power in the Senate.

After all that, Reagan proclaimed, “I am not a potted plant.” He went on to continue winning the Cold Warn and preventing Democrats from helping Dole attack the economy with even higher taxes.

Pelosi

That comes to mind after House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said of Republicans taking over the Senate, while keeping control of the House: “I don’t think anyone is irrelevant. We have leverage if they don’t have the votes. They have leverage because they know we will be responsible. And that allows them to be irresponsible to a certain extent.”

Democrats “responsible”? Perhaps in relation to Republicans the last time they controlled both houses of Congress, 2003-06 — when the GOP went on a wild spending binge, ran up the deficits and bankrupted the country. No wonder Democrats swept back into control of Congress in the Nov. 2006 election.

President Obama remains, of course, a Democrat. As shown by his executive order declaring an amnesty of 5 million illegal aliens, the president is determined to show he’s not “irrelevant.” And Pelosi backed him.

The good news is that we now have gridlock, meaning both sides won’t be able to pass any new scheme to waste our money, only to fund previous wasteful programs. For that, at least, Democrats are not irrelevant.