Demo Avalos Supports Privatization of Golden Gate Botancical Gardens to "Save Jobs"

editorial(at)savethemanatee.com

Subject: Sellout to Sam Lauter on the Arboretum

Date: May 20, 2010 7:45:54 PM PDT

To: John.Avalos(at)sfgov.org

Supervisor Avalos:

I think that by not killing this fee you do a disservice to the people of San Francisco, especially those of low income whom you claim to represent.

1) This fee proposal has been a tremendous timewaster on the part of everyone save Sam Lauter (whose firm has made a princely sum from it).

1a) Supervisor staff time has to be wasted fielding phone calls, meeting with Sam Lauter, etc. This time could have been better spent

2) It has no merit on the basis of filling any budget gaps.

2a) It would not make money. (I can't repeat this too often, as nobody seems to be taking notice!)

2b) Cuts will be worse next year if this goes through. This fee will cause a net deficit, thus necessitating the need for further cuts next year.

2c) Not one of you has demanded that Park and Rec give you the complete plan in a cogent, intelligible form.

2d) This is because they dont have one; they have been taking their cues from McKechnie

3) I can put you in touch with low income people who are local here and passionately against the fee.

3a) There is a direct connection between Sit/Lie and this fee, because this is intended to restrict access.

4) This is a tiny part of the Rec and Park budget. I have never seen this type of absurd quid pro quo before. Why should a specific number of gardeners be held hostage to a fee? Especially when the fee is not shown to have made money?

I might point out to you that - given your propensity for trumpeting the rights of the disadvantaged (which I both embrace and applaud) - the disadvantaged, homeless, and undocumented will be excluded from entry here.

And there are thousands of such people in this side of the City, not to mention those visiting from your district.

This is a historical change in San Francisco, and it deserves better than your playing cagey political games with bogus, costly "sunset" amendments.

The Society is trying to take advantage of this entire budget crisis by putting this through.

I think you owe all of us an apology. If you "progressives" had made it clear to Ginsburg that this outrageous fee proposal will be categorically rejected, then we could have relaxed and moved on to other things a long time ago.

Finally, let's not be naive. Sam Lauter has a lot of connections with people who can bring you a tremendous amount of campaign donations. If you take on BMWL, whom Chris Daly correctly excoriated in an Op Ed piece, then you will have a harder time getting re-elected.

Mark Buell and his wife, Hilary Clinton's best friend, also have immense fundraising powers through their "Democracy Alliance."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democracy_Alliance

I am sure that any supervisor who has the courage and intelligence to vote against this will be less likely to get funding from the Buells.

That's the reality: We have the best government money can buy.

I'd be as happy as you are to not have to deal with this attempt at privatization for a second year in a row.

I don't appreciate your trivializing the impact of this on low income people. This is another budget cut (in the form of a tax this time) that will most definitely affect them. Restrictions on access to a community commons most definitely impact the low income; I think you need to add this to the equation.

All you needed to do was kill this in committee. Mirkarimi would have voted with you to do it. You failed all of us.

If this fee goes through it will never disappear, will grow to include residents, will be increased greatly over time, and will impact generations to come.

I notice that your flippant response covered your tracks: Now, if you dare, tell me the genuine reasons why you sent this timewaster on to the Board (where it might well get passed). :'(

Thosands of hours of time that might have been spent more productively are going to be headed down the drain because you and Supervisor Mirkarimi failed to stand tall.

Harry S. Pariser

PS: Here is the e-mail I would like to have written:

Dear Supervisor Avalos:

Thank you for doing the correct thing in killing the Arboretum fee in committee. The fee made no sense, as it would have made no money after expenses. It is good to have a Supervisor who actually stands up for progressive values, instead of merely playing lip service to them.

[Sadly, I am unable to write that e-mail].

PPS: There is no need for you to meet with Sam Lauter and the pet trustees of the Society he drags in under his arm, rather like Sarah Palin uses Trig. I notice I don't see his meetings with Chris Daly online.



Hey Harry

Sam bought me a nice house and a new car and oh yeah my wife a mink coat.
He's not a bad guy when you get to know him. Oh yeah, Mr. McKechnie was
there too. He gifted me a rare orchid from the mysterious fog-shrouded
Skull Island. You know, the one inhabited by King Kong and all them
dinosaurs we thought were extinct.

When you're done with all your pseudo radicalism come fight alongside all
the low income people of color who may be losing a good part of their
safety net services in this budget crisis.

If not, go take a flying you know what.

Euphemistically speaking,

John

John Avalos
Supervisor District 11
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-6975 phone
415-554-6979 fax



From: "Harry S. Pariser" To: John Avalos Date: 05/20/2010 07:35 AM Subject: Sellout to Sam Lauter on the Arboretum




Dear Supervisor Avalos:

I have been amazed by your sellout on this issue.

The proposed ordinance will:

1) Restrict access to the undocumented as well as to those local residents
who can not show ID.

2) Give an astonishing amount of power to the Botanical Garden Society, who
will determine who has access to the grounds. Their members will get in
free.

What is even more alarming is that the Botanical Garden Society will be
given a blank slate to write their own terms; the Ordinance does not set
any terms whatsoever.

3) Restrict access to the Hall of Flowers to the Anarchist Book Fair and
others. (Have you read this clause?)

3."Individual or Nonprofit Organization " means (a) any person renting the
County Fair
Building or Botanical Garden in his or her individual capacity for private
use, or (b) any entity
qualifying for tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. $ 501(c)(3), engaged in
community or social
activities in which there are no monetary transactions (admission charge,
donation, ticket sales, or
product sales) during or in connection with the activity or (c) any garden
club or flower society
using the County Fair Building or Botanical Garden for fundraising
activities.

4) Send a message loud and clear: you can be purchased by lobbyists. John
Avalos declares his "likely" opposition to the Arboretum fees on the 21st.
He then meets with Sam Lauter on March 26th - a corrupt corporate
lobbyist who is being paid $10,000 per month by the Botanical Garden
Society - and is offered something (what?) for his 'conditional' support
of a fee.

What did Sam Lauter promise you?

Other points:

A rescindable fee makes no sense because implementation costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars (hiring personnel, printing tickets, making signs).

Pretending a fee will vanish after a year is utter nonsense, almost as
ridiculous as the entire Park and Rec budget which is based on pixie dust.
Once enacted, this fee will be there forever - and will increase over
time!

The Botanical Garden Society has plans for a major expansion, including a
$15-millon greenhouse, and admission fees will skyrocket.

Even with the fee revenues (which will not materialize, as I have
previously shown you conclusively), the Park and Rec budget will not be
balanced!

The discriminatory fee for visitors to Coit Tower is also reprehensible!

I am very disappointed in you.

The one constant we San Franciscans can count on is that self styled
"progressive" supervisors always sell us out!

Shame on you! You should have stood tall and firm against this. Instead,
you allowed a horrible recommendation to go to a regressive Board who may
very well pass it.

I know that I can not count on the likes of Alioto-Pier and Sean Elsbernd
to do the right thing. They are the toadies of the "liberal" wealthy -
the Buells and the Gettys. However, I am absolutely distraught that you
would stand for injustice and discrimination on this issue!

The only option will be civil disobedience. If this passes, our government
will have failed us once again!

Harry S. Pariser