Dave, Following this note below is the last public comment you made on the subject, on February 25, almost five months ago. Good to hear from you again. Josh Hart shared this with the "MLK Coalition" that was roaring ahead at that time with the support of many community environmentalists including Josh, Cheryl Brinkman, Rich Coffin, Andy Thornley, Peggy DaSilva, Leah Shahum, Craig Dawson, Sue Vaughan, Susan King. Since that time, the SFGP, and the Transit Justice Coalition have done much work on MUNI and other issues related to our Transportation goals, but the grass-roots momentum of the MLK campaign has dissipated into a small "ad-hoc committee" discussing Ross's Resolution on the Surface Transportation Plan, and an even smaller ad-hoc committee drafting the November initiative that the MCCP is negotiating through the Mary Hughes and Nancy Connor. This initiative to stop MLK Drive from increasing to four traffic lanes was the only positive result of our CEQA/Prop J litigation, unless you consider the ten months of time since Judge Warrren's partial ruling last August that we had to organize to stop the Cross Park commuter traffic, and realize the things that Jeremy Nelson and Leah and Josh have each advocated for so eloquently. Dave, we need you and the Transit Justice Coalition and TLC and the SFBC and Walk SF to help remind the Mayor, Aaron, Jake, Gerardo, Tom and the other Democrats on the Board that there was an original baseline promise to get the commuters OUT of the Concourse. Jake said this could be done and should be done. Now they are all telling Ross that he doesn't have the votes. The question arises: Do you/we/the SFGP turn up the heat on these uncooperative Supervisors, even if it makes it uncomfortable for them? Or do you "compromise" further in order to accomodate these Democrats who have collaborated in the privatization of the Park? John Rizzo says they are really tired of dealing with the issue. I can see why they want it to go away. Respectfully, Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! Begin forwarded message: (From Dave Snyder) PROP J HISTORY The SFBC supported the DeYoung Museum's efforts to go downtown, where they would be more accessible by all transportation to the regional audience they expected to attract. A small group of people including Jill Wynns and Margaret Brodkin and others (sorry I don't know the entire group) wanted them to stay in the park. Compromises--including a children's art museum in the park with the main one downtown--were considered but rejected. Harry Parker and other museum leaders insisted that if they were to stay in the park, automobile access and parking would have to be improved and guaranteed. Finally, with the leadership of Michael Yaki, they proposed a "grand deal" between the museum and proponents of people who wanted the museum to stay in the park. Environmentalists were never in on those discussions. The grand deal was that the museum would stay and rebuild in the park, with public money, and that an underground garage would be built to provide access from outside the park so that Sunday and Saturday park road closures would not affect them, and that the garage would be paid for with private money. That was necessary because a bond needs 2/3, and they felt they could get 50% approval for the garage and 2/3 approval for the museum if none of the money would fund the controversial garage. I and about a dozen other people sat in on meetings sponsored by Yaki where he asked us what would make this a greener proposal. We asked them to add provisions such as several million dollars of transit improvements up front (which was granted) to a requirement that all parking spaces removed from the surface would be from the eastern portion of the park (which was rejected). Those were the issues I pressed and which I remember. Someone else may have pushed for outside entrances, the pedestrian oasis, etc. I can't remember. It may have been they were in there from the beginning, as they make for good soundbites to dupe the public into supporting a "green garage." I don't think anybody, from the Sierra Club to SF Tomorrow to the SFBC, made any promise to change their position on the garage as a result of getting its provisions improved somewhat. I certainly didn't. I think these issues may have been what convinced Dennis Antenore to support the garage. Although it was a car issue and not a bike issue, the SFBC opposed Prop J vigorously, including paying for a ballot argument (perhaps our first ever) and dedicating the equivalent of thousands of dollars of what was a small budget at the time. The SFBC also opposed the DeYoung bond, even though its proponents, including several donors to the SFBC (who never spoke to me directly about this), said it had nothing to do with the garage. The bond was narrowly defeated. Unfortunately, Prop J passed due to a misleading campaign by its proponents and an ineffective campaign on our part, who focused on environmental issues instead of making common cause with motorists, who will now be forced to pay for parking that used to be free. (We of course believe in motorists paying for parking, but our adherence to that principle blinded us to what would have been an effective political argument.) Later, in a controversial deal that I helped broker, the SFBC took no position on an Academy bond measure, on the grounds it had nothing to do with the already-approved garage, and negotiated from the Academy a promise which is still valid: they will support Saturday closure of JFK Drive after an underground garage with access from outside the park is built. That bond narrowly passed. MY OPINIONS LATELY After Prop J passed, I moved my energies on to fighting other parking garages that would cause much more driving elsewhere in the city. Thankfully, Kathy and Steve and others have sued them to hold them accountable at least to Prop J, which was bad enough even if faithfully followed. Of the many issues that are against the spirit of Prop J, one of the big issues now is the southern entrance. I worked behind the scenes about six months ago to stop that by talking to a few people with a suggested compromise that didn't go anywhere: just build the pod in front of the DeYoung. By focusing on that, they would have had it opened by the time the museum opens; you can call it phase 1 so that you're still theoretically planning to build phase 2 to get to Prop J's minimum of 800 cars at some point (Prop J didn't specify a timeline); you could have just one entrance from Fulton Street; you could spend much less money so that your bonded indebtedness is less so that money from parking fees starts flowing to the park much sooner; if you wanted to expand it (which I would have been against), you could plan it more carefully than is possible on the current expedited timeline. I wish I had worked harder on that compromise. None of the people I talked to, however, liked that compromise. One of the crimes of Prop J was that a ballot measure was unnecessary to give the DeYoung their garage. The Supervisors were perfectly able to approve a garage on their own. It was Yaki's greatest "fuck you" to the public that he put this on the ballot instead of negotiating with his colleagues on the board and with park advocates and professional park planners, who could have, through that process, come up with a much better way to ensure the DeYoung its access without the terrible specific designs of Prop J. Anyway, though I've told everyone I've talked to that I think this is a terrible project and I oppose the whole thing, some people think I actually support some aspect of it because I haven't written anything down. So here you have it. I oppose the garage. I oppose the southern entrance. I oppose the widening of MLK, except that I support the addition of bike lanes to MLK. I oppose allowing car traffic through the Concourse, though I support taxi dropoff zones in front of the museums. Now, I also oppose the northern entrance, and the failure to remove 800 parking spaces from the vicinity of the garage, and the failure to design MLK bike lanes. I also oppose the JFK bike lane proposal as currently drafted, for that matter, because the bike lanes should be wider and the car lanes narrower. I oppose all these things. In the real world, it makes sense to focus your opposition things you have a chance to stop, or, even if you don't, by opposition you educate the public about the folly of an action and strengthen your movement for a future gain. That's why opposing the Muni fare increase and service cuts is important, even if it's unlikely the Supervisors will double parking garage and meter rates which is what would be necessary to accomplish that goal. In the real world, this is what I think should be the priority of folks fighting to preserve some pedestrian sanity in the Concourse area: 1) stop MLK widening but gain MLK bike lanes 2) maximize rates and parking policies so that garage revenues begin flowing to the park as soon as possible* 3) prevent through traffic through the Concourse 4) prevent the southern entrance In negotiations, I hope the litigants keep these priorities in mind. While the MLK widening is the most heinous idea which is why I put it first, the biggest crime is #2, in my opinion. Because Warren Hellman couldn't convince his rich buddies to donate all the costs of the parking garage, they've had to issue more than $40 million in bonds to build the garage, money which will be paid back to rich bond owners, with interest, by the motorists parking in the park, for decades (in my opinion; Mike Ellzey expects it sooner than 20 years) before the first dollar starts flowing into the park or city coffers. Perhaps they could bond another million or two to improve bicycling and walking conditions in the park? We could do well with a couple million bucks, as long as it's not spent on that cultural shuttle but rather really poured into bicycle and pedestrian safety. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___ __0 | | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike |___| _ \<,_ | | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport (*)+---(*)/ (*) | | | | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua@... Dave Snyder <dave@livablecity.org> wrote: First, a correction for the record: Steve, I was never a part of any deal brokered with Michael Yaki. I never, ever, agreed to support the parking garage under any circumstances whatsoever, and never did. I explained the history of our meetings in an earlier email, which perhaps you should review. Thanks. On the substance of this email, I really hope a ballot measure is unnecessary. Perhaps I don't understand the judge's ruling, but it seems if we went as a united front to the judge against widening of JFK Drive, and no "voter" showed up to protest it, the judge would permit the south entrance without widening, which is of course a damn shame but the result you're going for with the ballot measure. If you're going to negotiate something to put on the ballot, put "no through traffic in the Concourse" on there. That's a worthwhile victory. Dave "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com