Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Fight Privatization Of San Francisco Parks-Vote No On Prop B Bonds
The fight is on against the privatization of San Francico parks and the corpora shills who Mayor Ed Lee has appointed to the Recreation and Parks Commission
Fight Privatization Of San Francisco Parks-Vote No On Prop B
http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2012/November/Nov2012_VIP_Web_EN.pdf
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition B
There’s no money? Really?!
San Francisco Rec & Park Department (RPD) has wasted millions from the 2008 Park Bond to privatize San Francisco’s parks and recreation areas, while neglecting rou- tine maintenance.
At this very moment millions of our tax dollars and our Park Funds are “subsidizing” the billionaire’s America’s Cup.
There is money.
It’s just not in the right places.
The bond’s proponents’ “argument” is platitudes and pablum.
Did you know that they give
NO guarantee as to which park really will get funds
Bond Report is NOT legally binding!
Don’t allow vague promises lull you into voting for it!
RPD has squandered millions on lawsuits, all because of its failure to respond in good faith to public input. RPD spent $1M on a flawed EIR in order to justify violating the Golden Gate Park Master Plan.
Our parks are not real estate to lease to private bidders!
Generations have fought to keep parks open to the public; now RPD requires us to pay again to use what we’ve already paid for with our taxes.
RPD’s new policies make the park system increasingly inac- cessible for San Franciscans.
Please don’t reinforce these destructive policies and prac- tices.
Our next park bond CAN be done right to reflect the will of the people.
We love our parks; that’s why we are urging you to Vote NO on this bond!
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Take Back Our Parks
San Francisco Tomorrow
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
38-EN-N12-CP65 Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B 65
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition B
San Francisco’s Neighborhoods OPPOSE Prop B!
CSFN urges you to say NO to this Park Bond at this time!
This bond was originally scheduled for 2014 because the money from the 2008 Bond hasn’t all been spent yet... and there is a lot of uncommitted money left from that Bond: 49% of the 2008 Rec & Park Bond is still unspent!
We need to know where all the 2008 bond money went before we give the San Francisco Rec & Park Dep’t (RPD) one more dime.
• It’s a matter of trust.
The RPD has not disclosed how or where they will spend $61.5M of this proposed bond.
Rec & Park has not been responsive to the neighborhoods in this; it is neither transparent nor accountable.
• Rec & Park must earn the public’s respect.
San Francisco’s Rec & Park Dep’t is no longer improving our parks for use by the people of San Francisco. Instead, it’s building facilities in our parks that benefit private corpora- tions.
The RPD is no longer the steward of our open spaces; they are now developers who broker our taxpayer-supported parks and recreation facilities to the highest bidder.
Don’t reward their poor performance and bad behavior with even more bond funding!
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
with Sunset Parkside Education & Action Committee (SPEAK)
Established 1972
48 neighborhood organizations
Vote NO on Prop B!
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
WE OPPOSE THIS BOND WITH HEAVY HEARTS AND GREAT REGRET.
Our parks are deteriorating. Recreation facilities are understaffed, neglected or shuttered. Public access is more costly. Green spaces are being covered with hard surfaces and toxic artificial turf.
While this bond would enhance some facilities, it would reinforce the destructive practices of the Recreation and Parks Department.
RPD has become a self declared “enterprise” agency bent on extracting maximum possible revenue from our parks for the city’s general fund, behaving like an autonomous private corporation, created to make money.
RPD has imposed excessive entry and use fees that exclude many residents. It is leasing and renting club- houses, swimming pool lanes, and other public spaces to private interests. This has undermined its paramount responsibility to provide accessible parks and recreation facilities for the public.
RPD routinely sets up conflicts between residents and private interests. Contractors, lessees and concession- aires become investors in the “enterprise” and fight to keep their business, thus catalyzing more privatization of public space. Citizens’ voices are routinely ignored.
In 2010, RPD fired 166 recreation directors, who were mentors to latch-key children and youth, and who took responsibility for the sites where they worked. These career recreation professionals were replaced by part-time private coaches and other casuals who work on an “as needed basis.”Then RPD hired a highly paid staff in its Property Management Division to ferret out further money extraction opportunities.
Because bond funds can legally be used only for capital improvements, this measure will not meet our parks’ most dire needs for the dedicated recreation directors, and more gardeners, custodians and mainte- nance workers. Let the wayward parks department resume its appointed role as steward of our cherished parks. Then we will gladly vote for more money.
Take Back Our Parks.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: members ofTake Back Our Parks.org.
38-EN-N12-CP70
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
The Department of Recreation and Park (RPD) has turned its back on protecting Golden Gate Park and instead is rushing to pave, commercialize, and priva- tize San Francisco’s premiere park.
Although the bond designates some money for Golden Gate Park, there is no clear commitment to which proj- ects will be built or if the Golden Gate Park Master Plan guidelines will be followed faithfully. Will the money be spent to enhance parkland or used on projects that raise revenue at the expense of our open space?
We cannot trust RPD to protect Golden Gate Park from bad projects.
RPD must first clearly demonstrate how bond money will be used to protect our parkland for future genera- tions.
Vote NO on “B.”
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: members of Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON THE PARKS BOND
We do not trust the current Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) management to spend taxpayer money wisely. RPD wants to evict HANC’s community garden, built at no cost to the City, and spend $250,000 to replace it with a community garden.
RPD has not agreed to maintain or run what it builds. It has locked out the public to sell or lease our parks to the highest bidder. Families have been priced out of many park venues. Free or low-cost events have been cancelled or moved out of the parks because of exces- sive fees.These include outrageous fees to the Park Patrol, which has been mired in scandal. RPD’s mission should be to provide parks and recreation centers for the public, but it prefers being a “public- private partnership” profit center.
After last June’s election, RPD entered into a lease for CoitTower that ignored the will of the voters. Ignoring public opinion has caused RPD to spend millions of dollars on legal fees.
We support improving our parks and recreation centers, but only when they remain free and open to all.
Don’t trust RPD, vote NO on Proposition B.
38-EN-N12-CP71
Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council http://www.hanc-sf.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
The Recreation and Parks Department has become a rogue agency that limits public access through high fees and privatization. Moreover, the RPD Commission routinely votes to allow new development to cast shadows on our Parks, in violation of the voters’ will.
Paid Arguments – Proposition B 71 Friends of Ethics
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Larry Bush, Charles Marsteller, Eileen Hansen, Marc Solomon, Robert Dockendorff, Aaron Peskin, Paul Melbostad.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
RPD plans ignore disability input and safety.
RPD plans favors rich / politically influential people, ignoring diversity. Prop. B funds this bias.
No.
Bob Planthold
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Bob Planthold.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
FORMER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ PRESIDENTS URGE NO ON B
San Francisco’s Recreation & Parks Department and its Commission no longer serve the interests of SF citi- zens and taxpayers.
This City Department must abandon its reckless stew- ardship policies and irresponsible fiscal practices before voters authorize more bond funding.
Instead of managing our parks for public use and enjoyment, Parks’ leadership is bent on squeezing out maximum possible revenue from our parks. Instead of properly maintaining its infrastructure, the Department has adopted a policy of replacing infrastructure by relying on taxpayer-funded bonds. In 2010 the Department eliminated 166 recreation directors while creating a six-figure salaried Property Management Division – a sales force to lease, rent and monetize our parks.
No more borrowing with bonds which obligate taxpay- ers for severe interest costs until or unless they reform their ways.
VOTE NO ON B!
Aaron Peskin (President 2005-2009)
Matt Gonzalez (President 2003-2005)
Quentin Kopp (President 1976-1978, 1982-1983)
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez, Quentin Kopp.
We support our parks, and have supported bonds to improve them. Not this time - - they’ve lost our trust.
Vote NO on B!
San Francisco Tomorrow
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San FranciscoTomorrow.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Friends of Ethics urges a No vote on the Park Bond.
We are deeply troubled by the Commission’s efforts to use loopholes and delay to avoid complying with clean government safeguards. Last year a judge con- cluded that the Commission’s relationship with a lob- byist did not pass the “smell test,” showed “a lack of judgement” and urged adopting a hands-off policy toward lobbyists.The commission failed to adopt the judge’s recommendation. Last year the SunshineTask Force found the commission in violation a number of times on a separate issue, when it first denied that records existed and then claimed a loophole allowed it to pretend no records existed.
This year the Commission will pay hundreds of thou- sands of dollars to settle a lawsuit about Park Police abuses, whose managers include some fired from prior jobs for illegal conduct.Yet the Executive Director has taken three years to study reforms and ended deciding to pay large legal settlements and still not fire those responsibile.
This bond is written to allow yet more loopholes, including the ability to use the funds to support the Port’s privatization plans for the America’s Cup and a multi-million dollar development at Pier 70. The authors of the bond admit in the bond language that no deci- sion has been made “on how bond proceeds would be allocated” for $34 million along the waterfront.
Vote NO on this bond measure to give them the power to shift and consign capital funds to insiders without further voter approval and without real reforms.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
72 Paid Arguments – Proposition B
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON BOONDOGGLE B!
This second multi-million dollar bond measure, since 2008, is lacking accountability, transparency and truth- fulness.
Prop B hides the true cost of bonds, like the interest due on another $195 million dollar loan - motivating city bureaucrats to use pollsters to tell them when to take another dip in the taxpayer honey pot.
Don’t be tricked into paying more when the 2008 bond money ($185,000,000) isn’t even half spent!
Cut executive salaries, pensions, polling firms, and lobbyists. Restore park directors and negotiate more favorable taxpayer revenue from behemoth events like Outside Lands.
Vote No on Prop B – It’s a Bold Money Grab on Beleaguered taxpayers by a Bloated City department.
SF Taxpayers Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San FrancisoTaxpayers Association.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON PROP B - It Rewards Bad Behavior!
Recreation and Park wants millions more taxpayer money despite not having spent $78,000,000 autho- rized by voters only 4 years ago.
Rec and Park and Prop B fail to:
Honor City Hall’s own adopted Capital Plan which promised no further Park bond request until 2014.
Dedicate sufficient monies for basic infrastructure, such as sprinklers and water fountains
Guarantee implementation and completion of bond projects.
Address past practices of using 2008 bond money to destroy thousands of trees.
Abide by the requirement that park staff be suffi- cient to operate facilities that use capital improve- ment funds.
Allow for genuine public review and input.
Vote No.
Good Government Alliance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Good Governement Alliance.
38-EN-N12-CP72
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: California Waste Solutions.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
JOINTHE SAN FRANCISCOTENANTS UNION IN VOTING NO ON B.
Prop. B is bad for tenants. In an era of skyrocketing rents, Prop. B will pass the costs of this unnecessary and premature $195,000,000 bond to San Francisco tenants via rent increases. It’s not fair and it’s not right.
Tenants have been disproportionately affected by Recreation and Parks’ constant fee increases.Tenants have been disproportionately impacted by Rec and Parks’ policy of closing Rec Centers and leasing them out to private, for-profit entities.
VOTE NO ON B--IT MEANS HIGHER RENTS
SAN FRANCISCOTENANTS UNION
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San FranciscoTenants Union.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
For 15 years, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has been ranked by national surveys as one of the 5 best funded Recreation and Park Departments in the country – yet they are routinely unable to perform basic maintenance and gardening tasks other departments throughout the country perform as a matter of course.The fact that this has gone on for 15 years indicates that there is a deep- seated culture of incompetence in the Department which must be rooted out.
For 15 years, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has demonstrated total contempt for the express wishes, concerns, and opinions of San Francisco citizens, whether by routinely ignoring majority sentiment in hearings, written comments, and ballot measures, or by using staff time and department resources for political organizing to manipulate public sentiment.The fact that this has gone on for 15 years indicates that the Department has a deep-seated culture of contempt for the public, and for the very concept of accountability, which must be rooted out.
The Department will not be accountable until the voters hold it accountable. Accountability begins with a NO vote on this Bond Issue.
Committee Against Park Mismanagement
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee Against Park Mismanagement.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N12-CP73
Paid Arguments – Proposition B 73
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Edward Dunn, 2. David Looman, 3. Aaron Peskin.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
SPEAK opposes “B.”
The public cannot trust Rec and Park (RPD) to use the Bond funding in accordance with the peoples’ wishes.
Rec and Park hid the GOLDEN GATE PARK Beach Chalet soccer complex in the 2008 NEIGHBORHOOD Parks Bond. RPD approved the project over the objec- tions of thousands of individuals as well as 25 neigh- borhood, environmental, and historic preservation organizations that did not want 150,000 watts of stadium lighting and over 7 acres of artificial turf in Golden Gate Park, next to Ocean Beach.
This project does not have to be in Golden Gate Park. If RPD had considered the best alternative, they would not have wasted over $1 million on a flawed Environmental Impact Report.
Let RPD know that they must listen to the public instead of listening to private interests.
Vote NO on “B,” and let’s work together for a better Bond in the future.
SPEAK - Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: members of SPEAK.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Grassroots conservation and environmental justice advocates urge you to vote NO on Proposition B.
The Recreation and Park Department (RPD) is pursuing anti-environmental projects that lose money while mismanaging our parks:
RPD loses up to $300,000 a year subsidizing an endangered species-killing golf course in San Mateo County. restoresharppark.org.
Park Patrol’s corrupt overtime practices resulted in a $250,000 legal settlement, but RPD refused reforms that would prevent corruption in the future.
Proposition B will make matters worse: it will allow RPD to pursue wasteful projects without any manage- ment reform:
• Proposition B eliminates safeguards found in previ- ous park bonds, so voters have no assurance that bond money will be spent as promised.
•
Proposition B will force RPD to build new capital projects but provides no funding for their opera- tion, even though RPD can’t keep up with existing maintenance needs.
RPD must be reformed for parks to become economi- cally and environmentally sustainable. Burdening RPD with environmentally harmful capital projects will make its problems worse. Vote NO on Proposition B.
Wild Equity Institute
Building a healthy and sustainable global community for people and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth
wildequity.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Wild Equity Institute.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Over the past 22 years, 46 general obligation bond measures have been brought before San Francisco voters, and 21 have been rejected. Proposition B should be the 22nd.
San Francisco (as well as the State of California and the Federal Government) needs to get its fiscal house in order.
The City needs to get its priorities straight.There need to be sufficient gardeners, recreation directors, and security personnel to ensure that our parks are cared for, club houses such as J. P. Murphy which were built with 2008 bond monies are open for business, and newly constructed playgrounds aren’t trashed by vandals.
Furthermore, Prop. B is unnecessary at this time because nearly half of the projects planned under the 2008 bond measure, have yet to be constructed. Let’s finish that job before we ask homeowners, residential and commercial property owners, and renters to pay more
Vote No on Prop. B.
Jason P. Clark
Candidate for the Assembly 17th District
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Clark for Assembly. 2012.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Jason P. Clark, 2. CharlesT. Munger Jr.,
3. Laura Peter.
http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2012/November/Nov2012_VIP_Web_EN.pdf
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition B
There’s no money? Really?!
San Francisco Rec & Park Department (RPD) has wasted millions from the 2008 Park Bond to privatize San Francisco’s parks and recreation areas, while neglecting rou- tine maintenance.
At this very moment millions of our tax dollars and our Park Funds are “subsidizing” the billionaire’s America’s Cup.
There is money.
It’s just not in the right places.
The bond’s proponents’ “argument” is platitudes and pablum.
Did you know that they give
NO guarantee as to which park really will get funds
Bond Report is NOT legally binding!
Don’t allow vague promises lull you into voting for it!
RPD has squandered millions on lawsuits, all because of its failure to respond in good faith to public input. RPD spent $1M on a flawed EIR in order to justify violating the Golden Gate Park Master Plan.
Our parks are not real estate to lease to private bidders!
Generations have fought to keep parks open to the public; now RPD requires us to pay again to use what we’ve already paid for with our taxes.
RPD’s new policies make the park system increasingly inac- cessible for San Franciscans.
Please don’t reinforce these destructive policies and prac- tices.
Our next park bond CAN be done right to reflect the will of the people.
We love our parks; that’s why we are urging you to Vote NO on this bond!
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Take Back Our Parks
San Francisco Tomorrow
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
38-EN-N12-CP65 Local Ballot Measures – Proposition B 65
Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition B
San Francisco’s Neighborhoods OPPOSE Prop B!
CSFN urges you to say NO to this Park Bond at this time!
This bond was originally scheduled for 2014 because the money from the 2008 Bond hasn’t all been spent yet... and there is a lot of uncommitted money left from that Bond: 49% of the 2008 Rec & Park Bond is still unspent!
We need to know where all the 2008 bond money went before we give the San Francisco Rec & Park Dep’t (RPD) one more dime.
• It’s a matter of trust.
The RPD has not disclosed how or where they will spend $61.5M of this proposed bond.
Rec & Park has not been responsive to the neighborhoods in this; it is neither transparent nor accountable.
• Rec & Park must earn the public’s respect.
San Francisco’s Rec & Park Dep’t is no longer improving our parks for use by the people of San Francisco. Instead, it’s building facilities in our parks that benefit private corpora- tions.
The RPD is no longer the steward of our open spaces; they are now developers who broker our taxpayer-supported parks and recreation facilities to the highest bidder.
Don’t reward their poor performance and bad behavior with even more bond funding!
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
with Sunset Parkside Education & Action Committee (SPEAK)
Established 1972
48 neighborhood organizations
Vote NO on Prop B!
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
WE OPPOSE THIS BOND WITH HEAVY HEARTS AND GREAT REGRET.
Our parks are deteriorating. Recreation facilities are understaffed, neglected or shuttered. Public access is more costly. Green spaces are being covered with hard surfaces and toxic artificial turf.
While this bond would enhance some facilities, it would reinforce the destructive practices of the Recreation and Parks Department.
RPD has become a self declared “enterprise” agency bent on extracting maximum possible revenue from our parks for the city’s general fund, behaving like an autonomous private corporation, created to make money.
RPD has imposed excessive entry and use fees that exclude many residents. It is leasing and renting club- houses, swimming pool lanes, and other public spaces to private interests. This has undermined its paramount responsibility to provide accessible parks and recreation facilities for the public.
RPD routinely sets up conflicts between residents and private interests. Contractors, lessees and concession- aires become investors in the “enterprise” and fight to keep their business, thus catalyzing more privatization of public space. Citizens’ voices are routinely ignored.
In 2010, RPD fired 166 recreation directors, who were mentors to latch-key children and youth, and who took responsibility for the sites where they worked. These career recreation professionals were replaced by part-time private coaches and other casuals who work on an “as needed basis.”Then RPD hired a highly paid staff in its Property Management Division to ferret out further money extraction opportunities.
Because bond funds can legally be used only for capital improvements, this measure will not meet our parks’ most dire needs for the dedicated recreation directors, and more gardeners, custodians and mainte- nance workers. Let the wayward parks department resume its appointed role as steward of our cherished parks. Then we will gladly vote for more money.
Take Back Our Parks.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: members ofTake Back Our Parks.org.
38-EN-N12-CP70
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
The Department of Recreation and Park (RPD) has turned its back on protecting Golden Gate Park and instead is rushing to pave, commercialize, and priva- tize San Francisco’s premiere park.
Although the bond designates some money for Golden Gate Park, there is no clear commitment to which proj- ects will be built or if the Golden Gate Park Master Plan guidelines will be followed faithfully. Will the money be spent to enhance parkland or used on projects that raise revenue at the expense of our open space?
We cannot trust RPD to protect Golden Gate Park from bad projects.
RPD must first clearly demonstrate how bond money will be used to protect our parkland for future genera- tions.
Vote NO on “B.”
Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: members of Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON THE PARKS BOND
We do not trust the current Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) management to spend taxpayer money wisely. RPD wants to evict HANC’s community garden, built at no cost to the City, and spend $250,000 to replace it with a community garden.
RPD has not agreed to maintain or run what it builds. It has locked out the public to sell or lease our parks to the highest bidder. Families have been priced out of many park venues. Free or low-cost events have been cancelled or moved out of the parks because of exces- sive fees.These include outrageous fees to the Park Patrol, which has been mired in scandal. RPD’s mission should be to provide parks and recreation centers for the public, but it prefers being a “public- private partnership” profit center.
After last June’s election, RPD entered into a lease for CoitTower that ignored the will of the voters. Ignoring public opinion has caused RPD to spend millions of dollars on legal fees.
We support improving our parks and recreation centers, but only when they remain free and open to all.
Don’t trust RPD, vote NO on Proposition B.
38-EN-N12-CP71
Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council http://www.hanc-sf.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
The Recreation and Parks Department has become a rogue agency that limits public access through high fees and privatization. Moreover, the RPD Commission routinely votes to allow new development to cast shadows on our Parks, in violation of the voters’ will.
Paid Arguments – Proposition B 71 Friends of Ethics
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Larry Bush, Charles Marsteller, Eileen Hansen, Marc Solomon, Robert Dockendorff, Aaron Peskin, Paul Melbostad.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
RPD plans ignore disability input and safety.
RPD plans favors rich / politically influential people, ignoring diversity. Prop. B funds this bias.
No.
Bob Planthold
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Bob Planthold.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
FORMER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ PRESIDENTS URGE NO ON B
San Francisco’s Recreation & Parks Department and its Commission no longer serve the interests of SF citi- zens and taxpayers.
This City Department must abandon its reckless stew- ardship policies and irresponsible fiscal practices before voters authorize more bond funding.
Instead of managing our parks for public use and enjoyment, Parks’ leadership is bent on squeezing out maximum possible revenue from our parks. Instead of properly maintaining its infrastructure, the Department has adopted a policy of replacing infrastructure by relying on taxpayer-funded bonds. In 2010 the Department eliminated 166 recreation directors while creating a six-figure salaried Property Management Division – a sales force to lease, rent and monetize our parks.
No more borrowing with bonds which obligate taxpay- ers for severe interest costs until or unless they reform their ways.
VOTE NO ON B!
Aaron Peskin (President 2005-2009)
Matt Gonzalez (President 2003-2005)
Quentin Kopp (President 1976-1978, 1982-1983)
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez, Quentin Kopp.
We support our parks, and have supported bonds to improve them. Not this time - - they’ve lost our trust.
Vote NO on B!
San Francisco Tomorrow
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San FranciscoTomorrow.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Friends of Ethics urges a No vote on the Park Bond.
We are deeply troubled by the Commission’s efforts to use loopholes and delay to avoid complying with clean government safeguards. Last year a judge con- cluded that the Commission’s relationship with a lob- byist did not pass the “smell test,” showed “a lack of judgement” and urged adopting a hands-off policy toward lobbyists.The commission failed to adopt the judge’s recommendation. Last year the SunshineTask Force found the commission in violation a number of times on a separate issue, when it first denied that records existed and then claimed a loophole allowed it to pretend no records existed.
This year the Commission will pay hundreds of thou- sands of dollars to settle a lawsuit about Park Police abuses, whose managers include some fired from prior jobs for illegal conduct.Yet the Executive Director has taken three years to study reforms and ended deciding to pay large legal settlements and still not fire those responsibile.
This bond is written to allow yet more loopholes, including the ability to use the funds to support the Port’s privatization plans for the America’s Cup and a multi-million dollar development at Pier 70. The authors of the bond admit in the bond language that no deci- sion has been made “on how bond proceeds would be allocated” for $34 million along the waterfront.
Vote NO on this bond measure to give them the power to shift and consign capital funds to insiders without further voter approval and without real reforms.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
72 Paid Arguments – Proposition B
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON BOONDOGGLE B!
This second multi-million dollar bond measure, since 2008, is lacking accountability, transparency and truth- fulness.
Prop B hides the true cost of bonds, like the interest due on another $195 million dollar loan - motivating city bureaucrats to use pollsters to tell them when to take another dip in the taxpayer honey pot.
Don’t be tricked into paying more when the 2008 bond money ($185,000,000) isn’t even half spent!
Cut executive salaries, pensions, polling firms, and lobbyists. Restore park directors and negotiate more favorable taxpayer revenue from behemoth events like Outside Lands.
Vote No on Prop B – It’s a Bold Money Grab on Beleaguered taxpayers by a Bloated City department.
SF Taxpayers Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San FrancisoTaxpayers Association.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON PROP B - It Rewards Bad Behavior!
Recreation and Park wants millions more taxpayer money despite not having spent $78,000,000 autho- rized by voters only 4 years ago.
Rec and Park and Prop B fail to:
Honor City Hall’s own adopted Capital Plan which promised no further Park bond request until 2014.
Dedicate sufficient monies for basic infrastructure, such as sprinklers and water fountains
Guarantee implementation and completion of bond projects.
Address past practices of using 2008 bond money to destroy thousands of trees.
Abide by the requirement that park staff be suffi- cient to operate facilities that use capital improve- ment funds.
Allow for genuine public review and input.
Vote No.
Good Government Alliance
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Good Governement Alliance.
38-EN-N12-CP72
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: California Waste Solutions.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
JOINTHE SAN FRANCISCOTENANTS UNION IN VOTING NO ON B.
Prop. B is bad for tenants. In an era of skyrocketing rents, Prop. B will pass the costs of this unnecessary and premature $195,000,000 bond to San Francisco tenants via rent increases. It’s not fair and it’s not right.
Tenants have been disproportionately affected by Recreation and Parks’ constant fee increases.Tenants have been disproportionately impacted by Rec and Parks’ policy of closing Rec Centers and leasing them out to private, for-profit entities.
VOTE NO ON B--IT MEANS HIGHER RENTS
SAN FRANCISCOTENANTS UNION
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San FranciscoTenants Union.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
For 15 years, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has been ranked by national surveys as one of the 5 best funded Recreation and Park Departments in the country – yet they are routinely unable to perform basic maintenance and gardening tasks other departments throughout the country perform as a matter of course.The fact that this has gone on for 15 years indicates that there is a deep- seated culture of incompetence in the Department which must be rooted out.
For 15 years, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department has demonstrated total contempt for the express wishes, concerns, and opinions of San Francisco citizens, whether by routinely ignoring majority sentiment in hearings, written comments, and ballot measures, or by using staff time and department resources for political organizing to manipulate public sentiment.The fact that this has gone on for 15 years indicates that the Department has a deep-seated culture of contempt for the public, and for the very concept of accountability, which must be rooted out.
The Department will not be accountable until the voters hold it accountable. Accountability begins with a NO vote on this Bond Issue.
Committee Against Park Mismanagement
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee Against Park Mismanagement.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
38-EN-N12-CP73
Paid Arguments – Proposition B 73
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Edward Dunn, 2. David Looman, 3. Aaron Peskin.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
SPEAK opposes “B.”
The public cannot trust Rec and Park (RPD) to use the Bond funding in accordance with the peoples’ wishes.
Rec and Park hid the GOLDEN GATE PARK Beach Chalet soccer complex in the 2008 NEIGHBORHOOD Parks Bond. RPD approved the project over the objec- tions of thousands of individuals as well as 25 neigh- borhood, environmental, and historic preservation organizations that did not want 150,000 watts of stadium lighting and over 7 acres of artificial turf in Golden Gate Park, next to Ocean Beach.
This project does not have to be in Golden Gate Park. If RPD had considered the best alternative, they would not have wasted over $1 million on a flawed Environmental Impact Report.
Let RPD know that they must listen to the public instead of listening to private interests.
Vote NO on “B,” and let’s work together for a better Bond in the future.
SPEAK - Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: members of SPEAK.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Grassroots conservation and environmental justice advocates urge you to vote NO on Proposition B.
The Recreation and Park Department (RPD) is pursuing anti-environmental projects that lose money while mismanaging our parks:
RPD loses up to $300,000 a year subsidizing an endangered species-killing golf course in San Mateo County. restoresharppark.org.
Park Patrol’s corrupt overtime practices resulted in a $250,000 legal settlement, but RPD refused reforms that would prevent corruption in the future.
Proposition B will make matters worse: it will allow RPD to pursue wasteful projects without any manage- ment reform:
• Proposition B eliminates safeguards found in previ- ous park bonds, so voters have no assurance that bond money will be spent as promised.
•
Proposition B will force RPD to build new capital projects but provides no funding for their opera- tion, even though RPD can’t keep up with existing maintenance needs.
RPD must be reformed for parks to become economi- cally and environmentally sustainable. Burdening RPD with environmentally harmful capital projects will make its problems worse. Vote NO on Proposition B.
Wild Equity Institute
Building a healthy and sustainable global community for people and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth
wildequity.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Wild Equity Institute.
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Over the past 22 years, 46 general obligation bond measures have been brought before San Francisco voters, and 21 have been rejected. Proposition B should be the 22nd.
San Francisco (as well as the State of California and the Federal Government) needs to get its fiscal house in order.
The City needs to get its priorities straight.There need to be sufficient gardeners, recreation directors, and security personnel to ensure that our parks are cared for, club houses such as J. P. Murphy which were built with 2008 bond monies are open for business, and newly constructed playgrounds aren’t trashed by vandals.
Furthermore, Prop. B is unnecessary at this time because nearly half of the projects planned under the 2008 bond measure, have yet to be constructed. Let’s finish that job before we ask homeowners, residential and commercial property owners, and renters to pay more
Vote No on Prop. B.
Jason P. Clark
Candidate for the Assembly 17th District
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Clark for Assembly. 2012.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Jason P. Clark, 2. CharlesT. Munger Jr.,
3. Laura Peter.
For more information:
http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/el...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network