Why can’t we have a little trailer in Dolores Park to help with the bills? Why is that so bad? I like to eat tacos. Why should I have to walk all the way over there, when we can have one right here in the park?

 

For some people, its just the idea that a park is for recreation and leisure. The placing of a commercial entity in the park is just bad Ju Ju. They don’t like the idea of it. Some people like the expanse of greenery, uninterrupted by a trailer with a line, and all that goes with it.

 

For some, it’s that the food vendors nearby have invested in the neighborhood, and should get the profits for their diligence and their commitment. And their high rents. And bathroom facilities.

 

There are some who think of the slippery slope, that one trailer will lead to more and more. And we will have a food court, RPD demanding that the park generate enough money to pay for all its upkeep. People don’t like the idea of driving on the grass. People don’t like the idea of a generator. These are all valid concerns.

 

But the reason I am here isn’t for any of those reasons. I just don’t like sneaky capers. They were trying to steamroll this community. And that is just not going to happen.

 

We are too smart to be pitted against each other. We are too savvy to be told that “It’s too late to stop it, it’s out of our hands” at the first meeting. And believe it. We are the power here. We are the people. And although they will try to tell us differently, we make the decisions.

 

And we are not done talking about it yet.

 

We all know that one person makes all the difference. It just took one person and a cheap, absurd jest of a “Puke In”, and this issue is on fire in the blogs instead of NOT ONE PERSON knowing about it. 3 weeks ago, no one knew that the trailer was coming to Dolores Park.

 

Now?

 

Well….

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=87449&tsp=1&plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:69fa0060-d6e8-4cc7-a8b3-b7a00246f70a

 

http://uptownalmanac.com/2011/04/mature-debate-surrounding-commercialization-dolores-continues#comment-24965

 

http://sf.eater.com/archives/2011/04/20/puke_in_rallies_against_la_cocina_in_the_park.php

 

http://missionlocal.org/2011/04/chaac-mool-owners-say-chicken-johns-issue-is-with-the-city/comment-page-1/#comment-179264

 

http://sfist.com/2011/04/20/dolores_park_food_vending_battle_is.php

 

That’s just a sampling. There are 35 articles last I checked. Thousands of San Franciscans are now talking about this issue. And they should. It’s important.

 

This week we are talking about our very own RPD. Why are they so fucked up?

 

Lets take a look at some legal problems RPD is having… but first, a word from Rev. Billy about our bodies: The only means that we have to resist the corporate takeover of public space is our bodies.

We now are witness to the obscene dissolving of the things that we shared, the parks, libraries, school - the commons that came from good government.  As the unprecedented shift of money to the richest Americans takes place, we are forced to cooperate with the privatization of all we owned together.  The politicians plead that "we are broke" - but clearly a theft has already taken place.

But we still have our bodies, which when we enter the commons, are a threat to the privatizers because all change that has taken place in our country, including the founding of The United States of America - involved the retaking of public space as a physical act.  Nothing ever changed on-line.  Pixelated petitions are a joke.  Bodies are powerful and the history of power is the history of what our bodies have done in public. All the movements that brought us freedom - labor, civil rights, women and gender rights - all came directly from physical occupation of public space.

Public puking is an elegant idea, squarely in the revolutionary tradition of reclaimed public space, from the Boston Tea Party to the taking of the Wisconsin capitol rotunda. Disorient the flaccid consumers.  Give the media something they must ignore, erase, or accept as tabloid trash.  Puke for freedom!  Puke-a-lujah!

Reverend Billy
NYC

 

Now, Dolores Park needs $1,000 a month rent from a taco truck…. Hmmmmm…. Could it be because of the $1.5+ million dollar legal consultation fee (See below)? I mean, that’s just for legal ADVICE. RPD is mis-managing its allocated budget, then crying to us that we need to pull our weight. How about some accountability, Phil “fucking fire me” Ginsburg?

SF Park Department seems to court contention; attitude costs lawyers’ bills and trust
April 20, 2011

San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department is snared in a disturbing pattern of front-page controversies—and lawsuits.

In a department that is laying off gardeners and closing recreation centers, how many resources could be saved if it listened to its constituents instead of battling them? Too often the public feels that it has no recourse but going to court. Legal costs are draining city funds that should be maintaining basic park services. Further, these cases expose systematic failures in the department’s policy-making process.

Sharp Park
On March 2 the Sierra Club and several other environmental organizations filed suit over the department’s killing of endangered species at the golf course in San Francisco-owned Sharp Park in Pacifica. Even the department has long been aware of the problems here. Why was the controversy allowed to fester into litigation?

Recycling center
In another legal battle RPD is the plaintiff. The Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC) has operated a recycling center at Frederick and Arguello in Golden Gate Park for over 30 years. In December, department general manager Phil Ginsburg sent HANC a notice that in 90 days (by March 4), it would have to vacate the site. HANC responded with a letter stating that it has an annual lease, and therefore the order to vacate is invalid under state tenant law. When HANC did not vacate, the department filed an unlawful detainer against HANC for its continued presence. RPD filed its legal action on the same day that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution urging RPD to “negotiate in good faith” with HANC. Department spokesperson Sarah Ballard said, “We don’t have to do what the Supervisors want” (San Francisco Chronicle, March 8). True perhaps, but not the statement we’d expect from a department trying to show “good faith”.

Boathouse At Golden Gate Park’s beloved Stow Lake Boathouse, the current operator has been contracting with the department to run the boathouse with a fleet of rental boats since the building was built in 1949. In recent years, the department has repeatedly refused to offer more than a month-to-month lease.

The department created a committee to conduct a nationwide search for a “suitable” tenant, and promised that it would include good independent community representation. In fact, however, none of the committee members represented the users of the Boathouse, and every one of them had a direct tie-in to the department, as a city staffer, Park and Recreation Commission member, or park contractor. Through this process the department selected a chain from New Mexico (which plans to offer souvenirs and “high-end food”) and told the current tenant to vacate. On March 4 the current tenant asked the Superior Court to delay the order, and on March 10 the court agreed. The tenant is now filing an appeal and documenting the department’s alleged violations of public policy.

Candlestick Stadium The big-ticket number for the department has been its decade-long battle with the 49ers about Candlestick Stadium. The 49ers wanted the department to perform maintenance and improvements; RPD wanted fees for parking. On March 16, the department announced a settlement, giving the team more money for repairs and more say in how and which repairs are done. The deal is worth about $15 million to the 49ers during the newly extended five-year lease. What were the legal bills for the resolution of this conflict, and could they have been avoided? Couldn’t this money have been better spent on gardeners and recreation-center directors?

Why so much litigation? Why did all these matters have to come to court?

We think there’s a problematic pattern. On matters of great public concern and controversy, the city has had a closed process. The Recreation and Park Commission is the only place where the public gets a say on most park decisions. Currently, all appointments to the commission are made by the mayor. The department’s general manager also reports to the mayor. This leads to a one-sided dialog. For example, after a three-hour hearing where 70 speakers asked the commission to keep the recycling center at its current location (and 30 speakers wanted it moved), the commission took less than 15 minutes to vote unanimously to end the lease.

It may not be possible to reach perfect agreement on all issues, but we do need a process that enables the public to feel that it is listened to and its concerns taken seriously. If the general manager and commission members were seriously committed to such a process, they could make it happen. In any case, its time for some of the commission appointments to be made by the Board of Supervisors, to broaden the commission and to encourage it to listen carefully to the public.

How much do these legal battles cost the taxpayer?

How much does the city spend on such litigation? It should be a matter of public record, but the city does not volunteer this information; it waits for a formal request under the Public Records Act and then takes its time to respond. For example, it has not revealed the costs for the Candlestick battle. We can guess that these sums are substantial.

The department’s 2010 – 11 budget allocates $1,304,000 for fees to the Department of the City Attorney. The proposed 2011 – 12 budget allocates $1,504,000. These amounts don’t include damages for stubbed toes or in fact any of the above litigation, but apparently are only for on-going legal advice.

We can guess that unnecessary litigation costs the department hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars every year. This is money not spent on operating parks.

It’s time for RPD to listen to its constituents, reduce its legal fees, and put more money into open and free access to our parks and recreation centers.

WhatYouCanDo

Contact Mayor Edwin Lee and your supervisor at:
mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org
and Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

"District"    ""    "Supervisor"    "Phone"    "Email"

"1"    "Eric Mar"    "554-7410"    "Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org"

"2"    "Mark Farrell"    "554-7752"    "Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org"
 "3"    "David Chiu"    "554-7450"    "David.Chiu@sfgov.org"
"4"    "Carmen Chu"    "554-7460"    "Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org"
"5"    "Ross Mirkarimi"    "554-7630"    "Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org"
"6"    "Jane Kim"    "554-7970"    "Jane.Kim@sfgov.org"
"7"    "Sean Elsbernd"    "554-6516"    "Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org"
"8"    "Scott Weiner"    "554-6968"    "Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org"
"9"    "David Campos"    "554-5144"    "David.Campos@sfgov.org"
"10"    "Malia Cohen"    "554-7670"    "Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org"

"11"    "John Avalos"    "554-6975"    "John.Avalos@sfgov.org"
"Clerk of the Board"    ""    "Angela Calvillo"    "554-5184"   
"Legislative Aide          Rick Caldeira         554-7711   rick.caldeira@sfgov.org"

 
Tell them it is time to open up the Recreation and Park Commission with appointments made by the Board of Supervisors. We need new commissioners and we need a new General Manager. Commissioners are volunteer watchdogs that are supposed to show the people’s will and be fair, balanced and neutral voices of reason when it comes to spending taxpayer money and being stewards of the public trust. How is it possible that 99% of the things that the staff of RPD comes up with, the commissioners vote yes on? Because if they go against staff, they will be removed. That’s what happens when the are all chosen by the mayor. We want a split appointment. 4 chosen by the Board of Supes, 3 chosen by the Mayor. This way, there can be different voices. This is an example of Newsom poisoning. We are going to be living with his dysfunctional regime for another decade. Or maybe we want to put legislation on the ballot where WE select the commissioners? How could that work? We ha ve to do something, because it’s pretty obvious to me this isn’t working….

The chair of the commission, Mark Buell, is a developer. He doesn’t even live in SF. It’s crazy. You go to the meetings, and they talk to you like your bothering them. You end up listening to the general manager Phil “Fucking Fire Me” Ginsburg ramble on and on about how wrong you are and how smart he is. It’s gross. I’m going to ask you to go to a RPD meeting with me to turn in the Petition. You can see for yourself.

Tomorrow’s thesis is about our parks clubhouses, which RPD is renting out (sometimes with 20 year leases) to private compainies. These were clubhouses that were used for after school programs and stuff. For 20% of market rate. No public input. No outreach. No choice. That's privatization. That's what's comming to ALL parks in SF, if Phil "fucking fire me" Ginsburg gets his way...

chicken