[Sustain] One More Note: Re: Draft 2 - SFGP Parks Anti Privatization Plank

[Eric Brooks]

Note: On industrial facilities, I'm assuming we are making a special 
exception in our position to support the HANC recycling center in case 
it is considered industrial, and we should codify that exception.

Eric B

On 4/27/2011 1:49 PM, Eric Brooks wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've finally taken most of your comments and incorporated them into 
> the Parks platform.
>
> See the attached word document, or below after 'Here is the Platform'
>
> Please suggest any further proposed amendments soon so that I can try 
> to work them in before tonight's meeting.
>
> A few things I left unchanged.
>
> 1) Pierre's request that we allow fees for use impacts. While I agree 
> with doing this for large events (and added this) for smaller scale 
> uses it becomes a sort of regressive tax. Remember that many people 
> use public places and facilities because they cannot afford to spend 
> money as wealthier people do on paid activities. So, since the wealthy 
> have created a situation in the first place where they have highly 
> disparate undue paid access to a huge amount of what ought to be 
> public right-of-way and activity, it makes sense for us to 
> redistribute wealth from them to our public places through increased 
> taxes going to the general fund.
>
> 2) Public process. I agree there are big issues, but I think we should 
> hash those nuances out in a live meeting, and likely in a larger 
> discussion on vastly improved public access to City decision making in 
> general, not just around Rec & Park
>
> 3) Industrial spaces defined. We can probably get this from City code. 
> I just didn't have enough time to look it up.
>
> 4) I left the 50-50 nonprofit-donation vs City inputs as is, however I 
> am personally very open to cutting the portion from nonprofits down 
> even further, and I also favor banning it at times, -especially- in 
> the cases of the Botanical and Zoological societies. Let's kick this 
> around more at the meeting tonight.
>
> 5) Listing and describing specific positions we have taken on specific 
> cases. Good to add, I just didn't have time to do so; and I'd like to 
> delegate that task to someone else... ;)
>
> 6) I didn't add the term 'mandatory' fees because of a change I made 
> higher up in the doc about nonprofits charging donations for expenses, 
> and also because the section in question was specifically barring 
> -excess- fees that would go to the City or Rec & Park
>
> 7) I didn't add specific language on food cart size because the other 
> changes I made around allowing small local business, tangentially 
> cover that (by removing all profit motive to the Department) but we 
> still could specifically limit cart sizes in specific types of places 
> - let's discuss tonight.
>
> 8) On supporting the City charter calling for votes on industrial 
> facilities in public places, I personally worry that opening such 
> stuff to public votes could actually make the situation worse because 
> private actors have so much freedom to buy ballot elections, so I'm 
> thinking we should just stick with a ban, and then if some unforeseen 
> use is badly needed, Supes, the Mayor or the public can do the work 
> proactively to get a measure put on the ballot for it.
>
> Ok - Here is the Platform:
>
> SFGP Policy Platform: Public Parks, Recreation Properties, Commons & 
> Open Space
>
> I. Opposes the sale or transfer of any public park, recreation 
> properties, commons, or open space to private ownership, and supports 
> the progressive transfer of private land and facilities to become 
> public park and recreation property, wild open space, public gardens, 
> and public commons to the greatest extent possible in San Francisco
>
> II. Opposes any fees charged to any person for access to, or use of, 
> public parks, recreation areas, commons, open space, or public 
> recreational facilities; which should all instead be paid for via San 
> Francisco's general fund; with the exceptions that 1) special large 
> performance events which occur once per year or less frequently may 
> charge for entry and may reimburse the City for (and only for) added 
> expense necessary to police, maintain and restore public areas during 
> and after the event; and 2) sports and other not-for-profit activity 
> leagues, clubs or associations may charge fees sufficient to cover 
> their own expenses
>
> III. Opposes the operation of any business or nonprofit in public 
> parks, recreation areas and commons, in which the City receives a part 
> of the profits of those operations above and beyond what is necessary 
> to maintain the operations themselves and mitigate their impacts on 
> City property
>
> IV. Supports a complete ban on formula retail establishments in public 
> parks, recreation areas, commons, or open space; only non-formula 
> local retail should allowed in any public spaces, and only with the 
> assurance that their presence is only for enhancement of the 
> experience of public spaces (with no profits going to the City as 
> indicated in point III.)
>
> V. Opposes the management of any public park, recreation area, 
> commons, or open space, by a for-profit private corporation or 
> partnership; and insists that any outside nonprofit management should 
> be strictly hired by contract with the City, with no ongoing funds 
> provided /to /the City by the nonprofit managers, and with one-time 
> donated funds or expenses for capital improvements provided by a 
> nonprofit for a space or facility which it manages being at least 
> equally shared by the City (as noted in point IX.)
>
> VI. Opposes the leasing or renting of any part of a public park, 
> recreation area, recreational facility, commons, or open space to any 
> person, private club, or for-profit corporation or partnership; such 
> parks, areas, facilities and commons, should be perpetually open and 
> free for public use; and the SFGP favors sign-up/waiting lists on a 
> first-come first-serve basis as a better method of equitably 
> allocating use of public spaces and activity facilities, with 
> stipulation that City staff will allocate uses judiciously with 
> overall public good as its top priority
>
> VII. Opposes the use of fees on any private business or non-profit 
> activity in public parks, recreation areas, recreational facilities 
> commons, or open space, in order to gain operating or capital funds 
> for the City, or the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, 
> its facilities, or operations
>
> VIII. Opposes the placement of industrial facilities of any kind in 
> public parks, recreation areas, commons, or open space
>
> IX. Supports the requirement that no private donation of funds, 
> construction, recreational facilities, equipment, or ongoing 
> facility/equipment maintenance, may be made to City and County of San 
> Francisco public parks, recreation areas, commons, or open space, 
> unless the City and County matches or exceeds each such donation in 
> kind and value; and that such donations may only be made after very 
> thorough public input on how any given section or facility of San 
> Francisco public parks, recreation areas commons, or open space should 
> be used toward the common good of the community
>
> X. Supports a complete ban on the use of chemical pesticides or 
> fertilizers in public parks and wild areas, and supports a ban on the 
> use of artificial turf and other infrastructure that may have toxic 
> and or environmentally degrading impacts on public spaces
>
> XI. Supports changes in the appointment process to the Rec & Parks 
> Commission such that at least one half or more of its voting members 
> are either 1) appointed by the Board of Supervisors or 2) elected by 
> San Francisco voters, with 11 members, each being elected by 
> Supervisorial district
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sustainability mailing list
> Sustainability at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20110427/e4816988/attachment.html>