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