What the ballot measure is asking voters is, “should there be a “locked in,” automatic amount set aside just for Golden Gate Park? Or, to say it more bureaucratically, should there be automatic funding for the department that manages Golden Gate Park?
Prop B with its “locked in” guaranteed annual amount proposal on the upcoming ballot is one of those things that more people are recognizing as very short-sighted. This reporter has been getting an earful of the pros and cons of implementing this Prop B. Anyone who has lived in San Francisco long enough begins to recognize the short-sightedness of City government and all its various departments. Of course that can be said of just about any city anywhere. But there is something about San Francisco that when things get really short-sighted people who care speak up. And, usually those who truly and really speak up are the ones who actually live there.
Richard Carranza, the superintendent of The San Francisco United School District supports Prop B and do many others. Yet, The San Francisco Chronicle and local neighborhood and Golden Gate Park advocates are urging SF voters to say “No” and to recognize how such measure if passed would only add to the power-base of one of the most powerful departments in the City; that of Recreation and Parks. Community activist Jean Barish contacted me back in May to explain some of the points that others I have talked to note as critical.
“Prop B is the SF Recreation and Parks Charter Amendment that gives the Department over $4.5 Billion (yes, with a ‘B’) over the next 30 years to spend as they please with no oversight by either elected officials or concerned citizens.
Proposition B mandates $4.5 billion exclusively for Rec and Park over 30 years with no effective public or Board of Supervisors oversight on how the money will be spent. Prop. B, she added, does not tell the public where RPD will spend most of the money.”
And this of course, is where all the alarms go off in the minds of local people. When I say local people, again, I am speaking about the people who actually consider San Francisco their home. Native born or transplant, If anyone truly makes San Francisco ‘home’ then that is when what is short-sighted, ill-planned or really outlandish, gets noticed.
Kathy Howard of Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance has been working for over a decade to safeguard the City’s most treasured, treasure. The more than 1,100 acres of park as well as other little parks and open spaces throughout the City are indeed worth investing in. No doubt, funding is important. But what Howard, Barish and others recognize is the fact that Recreation and Parks Dept. already has a significant portion of power and resources. Still, others fear that if an allotment is not guaranteed then no funds will be available at all to help with the day to day maintenance of Golden Gate Park.
For more than 15 years, the mantra of Recreation and Parks Dept. has been, “not enough in the budget, need to generate revenue.” Almost every aspect of what used to be free and open to the public for generations in San Francisco, now must generate an income. This also includes the ‘public-private partnership’ philosophy that has been implemented in many City projects and enterprises. An example of this for some SF residents like Harry Pariser, is the Arboretum and Botanical Garden in Golden Gate Park. With the help of non-profit foundations and societies, several public-private partnerships have been established, adding ‘another slice to the pie’ of who and what governs the purse strings of public spaces. “Privatization” has been one aspect of the public-private partnership debate, as well as the idea that every aspect of a public park should become a “revenue generator” to off-set costs. The power Rec. & Parks Dept. wields over Golden Gate Park and other public spaces in San Francisco is mind-boggling.
Those close to the bureaucracy and the financial ledgers of the Rec. & Parks Dept. have told this reporter, a precise and objective audit needs to be done. The private side of just about any public-private partnership is not obligated to disclose anything, including where the money goes. Or, where it is coming from.
This is what the struggle over the soccer fields was all about. Howard and local advocates tried desperately to save the soccer field meadow at the Beach Chalet, near Ocean Beach. But now it is a sports complex. When Howard talked to me briefly back in April about Prop B, it was easy to sense ‘the scheme’ to it. A mandated set-aside amount of funding, with no questions asked, wow! Rec. & Parks got its way to demolish a natural meadow in favor of an artificial turf field and sports complex. The complex is viewed as a “revenue generator” for the Rec. and Parks Department. And, now the department wants a guaranteed set annual amount of $4.5 billion. Several I have talked to over the years considered just the plan of artificial turf in the park itself a breach of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan, which seeks to preserve the natural aspects of Golden Gate Park.
Sally Stephens, columnist for The San Francisco Examiner, referred to Prop B as “a blank check.” She noted that 38 percent of the City’s General Fund already goes to Rec. & Parks. “Without adequate checks and balances…is just not smart,” said Stephens in this Sunday’s June 5th SF Examiner.
“Prop B. contains an ‘equity analysis’ with no teeth to it,” said Barish. “The Board of Supervisors would not have the authority to change that analysis if it were unfair to a neighborhood.”
I tried to verify and get some detail on this. But Legislative staff at Supervisor Mark Farrell’s office did not elaborate or call back explaining why Prop B — if passed would not require the Board of Supervisors review. Supervisor Mark Farrell (no relation to this reporter) supports the measure. “Prop. B, noted Barish takes away the possibility of using those funds for other City needs, such as housing, public health, family services or emergencies, or in the event of a disaster.” What makes this proposition even more unnerving for advocates like Barish, Howard and others is that it gets linked to stuff like the City Charter. Now, that is a scary thought, especially for those who have been seeking to safeguard Golden Gate Park. Ensuring funding by way of the City Charter for the next 30 years without any review is absurd.
What is puzzling is why? Especially since Rec. & Park has power and resources enough already. Ah, but that is the point, notes Barish, Howard and others. It looks as if it is all about power. Barish explained further. “Proposition B is a no-strings-attached give away to Rec. and Parks Dept. As we learned from our work to stop the toxic artificial turf soccer fields at the Beach Chalet, she added the Recreation and Parks Department is not responsive to the voices of thousands of San Franciscans. It would be a terrible policy to give them a huge sum of money that they can spend without regard for the will of the people of San Francisco.”
