- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

RE: [Transpo] great event!
by Jerry Path 29 Jan '05

29 Jan '05

Hi, Well it seems I've come down with the flu - or at least something which is making me feel miserable. I only contacted people from the church over the phone, so would not recognize any of them. I tried calling them today, but so far haven't made any contact.. Jerry > [Original Message] > From: John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> > To: <transpo(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: 1/27/2005 10:31:03 AM > Subject: [Transpo] great event! > > That was a great event last night; thanks to those of you who did the > work organizing it. We raised over $350 (after expenses), and got a > lot of new people for our mailing list. > > Sue, can you thank the panelists who participated, and ask them if > they'd be interested in doing it again? I think that since we had > to turn away several dozen people last night, we should organize > a repeat performance ASAP. > > Jerry, were any members of the Unitarian church present last night? > If so, make sure they'd be OK with a similar event, and get them > to confirm the cost. Bruce Wolfe also recommended holding an > event at CCSF or SFSU, as he has contacts in those places. I'd > still like to organize one at USF if we can make contact with > students there. And we had a high school teacher ask us to organize > showings in high schools (although we wouldn't be able to raise > money there). > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] great event!
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 29 Jan '05

29 Jan '05

Yes, it was a fabulous event. All the panelists have agreed to do a repeat performance except Ross -- he left before I was able to ask him. However, Richard Heinberg says he is going to be really busy until after June. He didn't say doing something before then was impossible (in fact I got the impression he was also impressed with the turn out and the other panelists) I will contact all the panelists and Dave Room thank them. THe guy who does all the tech stuff at Lowell High School (near SFSU) was at the building for the poetry reading across the hall, but when he saw us turning away people he gave me his contact information. However, it might be byond our means -- he charges $40 an hour and then the school would charge something for use of the auditorium on top of that. I'll look into it nonetheless. Sue On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:31:00 -0800 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > That was a great event last night; thanks to those of you who did > the > work organizing it. We raised over $350 (after expenses), and got > a > lot of new people for our mailing list. > > Sue, can you thank the panelists who participated, and ask them if > they'd be interested in doing it again? I think that since we had > to turn away several dozen people last night, we should organize > a repeat performance ASAP. > > Jerry, were any members of the Unitarian church present last night? > If so, make sure they'd be OK with a similar event, and get them > to confirm the cost. Bruce Wolfe also recommended holding an > event at CCSF or SFSU, as he has contacts in those places. I'd > still like to organize one at USF if we can make contact with > students there. And we had a high school teacher ask us to > organize > showings in high schools (although we wouldn't be able to raise > money there). > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

great event!
by John-Marc Chandonia 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

That was a great event last night; thanks to those of you who did the work organizing it. We raised over $350 (after expenses), and got a lot of new people for our mailing list. Sue, can you thank the panelists who participated, and ask them if they'd be interested in doing it again? I think that since we had to turn away several dozen people last night, we should organize a repeat performance ASAP. Jerry, were any members of the Unitarian church present last night? If so, make sure they'd be OK with a similar event, and get them to confirm the cost. Bruce Wolfe also recommended holding an event at CCSF or SFSU, as he has contacts in those places. I'd still like to organize one at USF if we can make contact with students there. And we had a high school teacher ask us to organize showings in high schools (although we wouldn't be able to raise money there). JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Re: Updated flyers for Wednesday Event
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Jan '05

22 Jan '05

Also, does Don know about our pre-screening of The ENd of Suburbia at your place on Sunday? Sue On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:21 -0800 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > Thanks; I've printed enough of these for tonight's event. > If you want more to hand out elsewhere, we can xerox more > of mine. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Rally against widening of MLK Drive, hearings and the Ralph Nader event at the Women's Building -- need fliers
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Jan '05

22 Jan '05

I'd like more for the Tuesday night event with Ralph Nader at the Women's Building. I'll also be at a rally to oppose the widening of MLK Drive on Sunday mid-morning (9th Avenue and Lincoln Way) and have two hearings to go to late afternoon on Tuesday. I can xerox some, but would love it if some can do this for free. Sue On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:56:21 -0800 John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> writes: > Thanks; I've printed enough of these for tonight's event. > If you want more to hand out elsewhere, we can xerox more > of mine. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://www.dolorespark.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > >

1 0

Updated flyers for Wednesday Event
by christine mcclintock 22 Jan '05

22 Jan '05

Hi, all. I just tried to send an email attachment that might not have worked - so here are the updated flyers (again)... (hopefully). Take care, Christine

2 1

SC letters to MTA
by howard strassner 20 Jan '05

20 Jan '05

Are the Greens going to be working with us on a parking tax increase? Howard

1 0

Re: [Transpo] letter on plank
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

My two cents below. Sue > Dear Supervisor xxx, > > Congratulations on beginning another (for Ross: "your > first") > term with the Board of Supervisors! > > The San Francisco Green Party is currently working on a > platform that, unlike our California and national party platforms > (both of which are available on the web), deals exclusively with > local > issues. We're happy to report that the first plank in the > platform, > dealing with Transportation issues, was adopted by consensus at our > General Membership meeting in October. > > We've enclosed a copy of this plank in hopes that you will > find our positions helpful in crafting Transportation-related > legislation during your term. In particular, the San Francisco > Green > Party is concerned that due to the current budget problems, Muni > fares > may be raised or services cut in order to close the gap. In the > short > term, we instead recommend raising the money by enacting one or > more > of the policies discussed in our plank, e.g., increasing the costs > of > parking, raising the transit impact fees paid by developers, or > creating a local car registration fee. We're encouraged to hear > that > some of you are already looking into these possibilities. In the > long term, we hope additional funds can be raised through progressive > taxation: public transit should be primarily funded in the same > ways as public parks, schools, and libraries, rather than through user > fees (which are essentially regressive taxes, but unfortunately much > easier to increase). In the long run, we hope additional funds can be raised through progressive FORMS of taxation. We believe that public transit should be primarily funded in the same ways as are public parks, schools, and libraries. Funding for public transportation should not be based primarily on user fees. These are essentially regressive taxes, and unfortunately, are much easier to increase than progressive forms of taxation. > > If you have any questions or want clarification on the > issues > ed in our platform, we'd be happy to set up a meeting with > members of our working group, or answer questions by email or > phone. > Our current co-chairs are John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org, or > 285-5696) and Sue Vaughan (susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com, or 668-3119). > > The San Francisco Green Party is continuing to revise and > add > to our platform, and we expect to adopt additional planks this year > dealing with other important local issues. We hope you'll take a > look > at these as well. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org)

1 0

letter on plank
by John-Marc Chandonia 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Hi, I've formatted the plank as a PDF (posted on sfgreens.org) and written the following letter to the Supes to go with it. Please give me any corrections, and I'll print up letters for Sue and I to sign at the General meeting. Text follows: Dear Supervisor xxx, Congratulations on beginning another (for Ross: "your first") term with the Board of Supervisors! The San Francisco Green Party is currently working on a platform that, unlike our California and national party platforms (both of which are available on the web), deals exclusively with local issues. We're happy to report that the first plank in the platform, dealing with Transportation issues, was adopted by consensus at our General Membership meeting in October. We've enclosed a copy of this plank in hopes that you will find our positions helpful in crafting Transportation-related legislation during your term. In particular, the San Francisco Green Party is concerned that due to the current budget problems, Muni fares may be raised or services cut in order to close the gap. In the short term, we instead recommend raising the money by enacting one or more of the policies discussed in our plank, e.g., increasing the costs of parking, raising the transit impact fees paid by developers, or creating a local car registration fee. We're encouraged to hear that some of you are already looking into these possibilities. In the long term, we hope additional funds can be raised through progressive taxation: public transit should be primarily funded in the same ways as public parks, schools, and libraries, rather than through user fees (which are essentially regressive taxes, but unfortunately much easier to increase). If you have any questions or want clarification on the issues discussed in our platform, we'd be happy to set up a meeting with members of our working group, or answer questions by email or phone. Our current co-chairs are John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org, or 285-5696) and Sue Vaughan (668-3119). The San Francisco Green Party is continuing to revise and add to our platform, and we expect to adopt additional planks this year dealing with other important local issues. We hope you'll take a look at these as well. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://www.dolorespark.org/

2 1

Trees Not Cars Lawsuit: Explanation and Update
by Jym Dyer 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Trees Not Cars Lawsuit: Explanation and Update 1-16-05 Dear Friends: Thank you all so much for all your letters, faxes, public testimony, showing up up at rallies etc. to try and ward off the city's proposed (boneheaded) widening of Martin Luther King Drive in Golden Gate Park to make it easier for motorists to access the monster (boneheaded) mega-garage in our previously beautiful, previously world-class, previously premier public park. Some of you may not understand why this misguided venture is even happening. It is in response to a court order demanding that the city honor promises it made to voters in 1998 when the horrible idea of building a garage in the park was first hatched. Back then, voters were manipulated into voting for a garage buried in an initiative called "The Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act," which promised to reduce the impact of cars on Golden Gate Park. The widening of MLK is just the latest of a long line of broken promises the city has made ever since. In December, 2003, the final signature was put on the (by then thoroughly corrupt) garage project by city officials. The Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Rec and Park Commission, and Concourse Authority all approved it either unanimously or by overwhelming majorities, and then-Mayor Willie Brown gave it the final go-ahead right before leaving office. But the ink was barely dry on all these signatures before the city went to court and filed a "validation" lawsuit, a relatively new type of litigation designed to establish high enough bond ratings to reassure skittish investors wanting to invest in risky projects. It also opens a 30-day window for people to submit objections; after that, no further lawsuits can be filed. This begs the question: if the public officials who approved the garage were doing their job properly, why did the city need court validation for it? That is, if everything the legislative and executive branches did was kosher, why bring in the third branch of government, and limit the public's ability to sue? As it turns out, there were plenty of things our representatives in City Hall turned a blind eye to in approving this project. Prop J represented a balance between those who wanted a garage in the park -- mostly museum trustees and out-of-towners -- and those who understood its drawbacks. J is packed with mitigation measures intended to allay voters' concerns about allowing private interests to violate our public park. These promises were so compelling that they induced even powerful environmentalists to either withdraw their opposition, or publicly come out in support of Prop J. That's why J was virtually impossible to defeat. Among these promises were: all the entrances and exits would be outside the park, making the park even safer and more car-free for bicyclists and pedestrians; the Music Concourse would not be harmed by construction; the garage would be paid for exclusively through private donations; control over the garage would rest forever in public hands; and best of all, a new City Charter amendment ensured that all parking fees, after normal operating and maintenance expenses, would be diverted to the perpetually cash-strapped Rec and Park Department. As a friend of mine once said, "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is." What started out as quid pro quo began to reseble more closely a corporate bait-and-switch: take what you want and swindle the rest. The banking heirs and wealthy trustees who insisted that a garage in the park was necessary didn't really care about bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, or a traffic-calmed park; they just wanted their garage. They turned over complete control of the project to a new non-profit, the Music Concourse Community Partnership, which is not subject to Sunshine laws. The MCCP razed historic pedestrian archways, clearcut cherry trees in full bloom, located an entrance in the center of the park, and sliced and diced the City Charter to siphon off garage revenue to pay back their construction loans, in direct contradiction to Prop J. That's where Trees Not Cars comes in. We filed our objections to the validation lawsuit last January, before the 30-day deadline was up, and we have been pressing on ever since to force the city to comply with what voters voted for. In August, Superior Court Judge James Warren ruled that we were correct on one point: all access to the garage needs to originate outside the park. But more than one city official has publicly admitted that the design the city came back with, widening MLK, is worse than the original design, the one the judge ruled illegal. We are appealing Judge Warren's decision on the basis that it doesn't go far enough -- we believe the diversion of garage revenue, the lack of traffic-calming, the formation of the MCCP, and the siting of an entrance inside the park are all illegal, and must be stopped. We are determined to hold the city's feet to the fire: to uphold the City Charter and the democratic process, and to keep private interests from running roughshod over our ideals. And so far, we're winning! We were declared the prevailing party in the August ruling. And we are determined to persevere until we bring this project in line with what the voters were promised. We will not stand by placidly and watch Golden Gate Park being sold to the highest bidder. All this work takes lots of time and costs lots of money. It's how rich and powerful people deter us from getting in their way. We are fortunate to have been adopted by an umbrella group, the Forest Conservation Council, which has programs devoted to preserving urban green space. All donations to FCC are 100% tax deductible. Trees Not Cars doesn't have Warren Hellman's resources, but we do have you. We could really use your help. Please send checks made out to "FCC" to: Katherine Roberts 466 Frederick #4 San Francisco, CA 94117 You can also phone me at 415-933-8967, or e-mail me at grrlfriday@ scorcher.org. I will gratefully accept any help you are able to offer. Thanks for caring, and I look forward to speaking with you soon. Cheers, Katherine

1 0