Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
City Contractor And Union Buster Randy Shaw Supports Privatization Of Botanical Gardens
City contractor and Executive Director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic which gets $22 million a year is now supporting privatization of the San Francisco Botanical Gardens with a permanent fee.
City Contractor And Union Buster Randy Shaw Supports Privatization Of Botanical Gardens
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9063#more
SF Botanical Gardens
The Strange Story of San Francisco’s Botanical Garden Non-Resident Fee
by Randy Shaw‚ Apr. 07‚ 2011
0digg
As San Francisco faces its most brutal budget cutting in history, everyone is looking for ways to either save or raise money without sacrificing essential services. One would think that an obvious strategy would be to continue a $7.00 fee on non-residents choosing to attend the city’s Botanical Gardens. After all, unlike San Franciscans, non-residents do not pay taxes to maintain the Gardens, so paying a user fee to cover the cost of their attendance seems only fair. And considering that the Board’s progressives are always looking for ways to increase revenue, charging an admissions fee to non-residents is a painless way to raise at least $250,000 to fund at-risk city services. That logic prevailed in 2010, when the Botanical Gardens fee was first imposed. But a fee backed by former Supervisor Chris Daly in 2010 is now being opposed by his closest Board ally, John Avalos, who is sponsoring a measure to eliminate it. It’s a strange story, and the Board's decision next Tuesday could reverberate throughout the budget process.
I ran into the head of a nonprofit group this week and learned that the Human Services Agency was cutting their budget even more than expected. She asked me for advice, and I told her what I have often written---that she needed to show the Supervisors where they could find money to fund her group. And I added that she should not rely on the obvious places that Beyond Chron has harped on for years----such as excessive and overpaid Fire Department upper management---as they were just as likely to survive this year’s budgetary process as in the past.
Later that day I read an article about the controversy over the Botanical Gardens non-resident fee, and efforts to eliminate it. While the original legislation creating the fee in 2010 said that it would be removed if voters approved tax increase measures---which they did last November---one might assume that the state and local budget crisis would lead the Supervisors to do everything in their power to stop another $250,000 hit to the general fund.
But that assumption would be wrong. It would also be wrong to assume that supervisors who backed measures like last year’s proposed alcohol fee would be the group leading the fight to keep the non-resident Gardens revenue. Instead, a fee that Chris Daly described last year as “not one of the hard” budget decisions has become extremely controversial.
Ginsburg’s Agenda v. Budget Realities
Opponents of maintaining the fee argue that the Gardens should be free for all, that San Francisco residents get frustrated when they are denied free entry because they lack identification, that the administrative costs are too high (Harvey Rose reported 59% of fees in past year went for administration), and, most importantly, that the fee is part of Park and Rec Head Phil Ginsburg’s broader plan to “privatize” the Park.
Proponents cite the city’s critical need for revenue, the specific need for money to keep the Gardens open for school visits and other weekday uses, and the fact that the money is being raised from non-residents who are otherwise not financially supporting the Garden’s upkeep.
Underlying this dispute is Phil Ginsburg’s controversial decisions to change the longtime vendor at Stow Lake, and to close the Park’s recycling center long run by the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council. While some oppose the fee on the grounds that city parks should be free to all, the Japanese Tea Garden generates $2 million annually from non-resident fees without controversy. This says to me that Ginsburg’s other decisions have built opposition to the Gardens fee that would not otherwise exist.
One does not have to like Ginsbugh to conclude that a fee not even paid by local residents is preferable to layoffs of city or nonprofit workers or cutbacks in vital services. San Francisco needs the $250,000 the fee raises to avoid these results (proponents argue that the revenue generated will steadily grow, and that the past year was misleading because the fee was not collected in the hot tourist period of July and the first week of August).
A Premature Vote?
If the non-resident Gardens fee were up for Board consideration after the mayor’s budget was released and groups were storming City Hall to protest budget cuts, I find it hard to believe that the Supervisors would reject an easy way to secure at least $250,000. But the Board will instead decide the fee's fate at next week's meeting, well before budget cuts to specific groups are announced. And while there was a large turnout at the April 6 committee hearing on the fee, many groups dependent on city funding are likely still unaware of the issue.
I keep reading that the upcoming cuts will be more brutal than ever, and that the “easy” cutbacks were all made during the last two budget cycles. Well, it’s hard to think of an easier fund raising plan than to charge non-residents a fee to use a facility that residents are funding through their taxes.
It’s not Phil Ginsburg’s job that’s at stake if the fee is eliminated; rather, it’s the unionized gardeners, recreation center staff, or even social service workers whose jobs are lost to make up for budget shortfalls in Park & Rec.
As San Francisco prepares for layoffs and cuts to vital services, this is the wrong time for the Board to send a message that saving non-resident Botanical Garden visitors a $7.00 fee is more important than maintaining parks for residents, or protecting vital nonprofit and city jobs.
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9063#more
SF Botanical Gardens
The Strange Story of San Francisco’s Botanical Garden Non-Resident Fee
by Randy Shaw‚ Apr. 07‚ 2011
0digg
As San Francisco faces its most brutal budget cutting in history, everyone is looking for ways to either save or raise money without sacrificing essential services. One would think that an obvious strategy would be to continue a $7.00 fee on non-residents choosing to attend the city’s Botanical Gardens. After all, unlike San Franciscans, non-residents do not pay taxes to maintain the Gardens, so paying a user fee to cover the cost of their attendance seems only fair. And considering that the Board’s progressives are always looking for ways to increase revenue, charging an admissions fee to non-residents is a painless way to raise at least $250,000 to fund at-risk city services. That logic prevailed in 2010, when the Botanical Gardens fee was first imposed. But a fee backed by former Supervisor Chris Daly in 2010 is now being opposed by his closest Board ally, John Avalos, who is sponsoring a measure to eliminate it. It’s a strange story, and the Board's decision next Tuesday could reverberate throughout the budget process.
I ran into the head of a nonprofit group this week and learned that the Human Services Agency was cutting their budget even more than expected. She asked me for advice, and I told her what I have often written---that she needed to show the Supervisors where they could find money to fund her group. And I added that she should not rely on the obvious places that Beyond Chron has harped on for years----such as excessive and overpaid Fire Department upper management---as they were just as likely to survive this year’s budgetary process as in the past.
Later that day I read an article about the controversy over the Botanical Gardens non-resident fee, and efforts to eliminate it. While the original legislation creating the fee in 2010 said that it would be removed if voters approved tax increase measures---which they did last November---one might assume that the state and local budget crisis would lead the Supervisors to do everything in their power to stop another $250,000 hit to the general fund.
But that assumption would be wrong. It would also be wrong to assume that supervisors who backed measures like last year’s proposed alcohol fee would be the group leading the fight to keep the non-resident Gardens revenue. Instead, a fee that Chris Daly described last year as “not one of the hard” budget decisions has become extremely controversial.
Ginsburg’s Agenda v. Budget Realities
Opponents of maintaining the fee argue that the Gardens should be free for all, that San Francisco residents get frustrated when they are denied free entry because they lack identification, that the administrative costs are too high (Harvey Rose reported 59% of fees in past year went for administration), and, most importantly, that the fee is part of Park and Rec Head Phil Ginsburg’s broader plan to “privatize” the Park.
Proponents cite the city’s critical need for revenue, the specific need for money to keep the Gardens open for school visits and other weekday uses, and the fact that the money is being raised from non-residents who are otherwise not financially supporting the Garden’s upkeep.
Underlying this dispute is Phil Ginsburg’s controversial decisions to change the longtime vendor at Stow Lake, and to close the Park’s recycling center long run by the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council. While some oppose the fee on the grounds that city parks should be free to all, the Japanese Tea Garden generates $2 million annually from non-resident fees without controversy. This says to me that Ginsburg’s other decisions have built opposition to the Gardens fee that would not otherwise exist.
One does not have to like Ginsbugh to conclude that a fee not even paid by local residents is preferable to layoffs of city or nonprofit workers or cutbacks in vital services. San Francisco needs the $250,000 the fee raises to avoid these results (proponents argue that the revenue generated will steadily grow, and that the past year was misleading because the fee was not collected in the hot tourist period of July and the first week of August).
A Premature Vote?
If the non-resident Gardens fee were up for Board consideration after the mayor’s budget was released and groups were storming City Hall to protest budget cuts, I find it hard to believe that the Supervisors would reject an easy way to secure at least $250,000. But the Board will instead decide the fee's fate at next week's meeting, well before budget cuts to specific groups are announced. And while there was a large turnout at the April 6 committee hearing on the fee, many groups dependent on city funding are likely still unaware of the issue.
I keep reading that the upcoming cuts will be more brutal than ever, and that the “easy” cutbacks were all made during the last two budget cycles. Well, it’s hard to think of an easier fund raising plan than to charge non-residents a fee to use a facility that residents are funding through their taxes.
It’s not Phil Ginsburg’s job that’s at stake if the fee is eliminated; rather, it’s the unionized gardeners, recreation center staff, or even social service workers whose jobs are lost to make up for budget shortfalls in Park & Rec.
As San Francisco prepares for layoffs and cuts to vital services, this is the wrong time for the Board to send a message that saving non-resident Botanical Garden visitors a $7.00 fee is more important than maintaining parks for residents, or protecting vital nonprofit and city jobs.
For more information:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?...
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
http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/04/city-gets-59-cents-on.php
City Gets "59 Cents on the Dollar" For Botanical Garden Fee
by Chris Roberts
April 6, 2011 7:01 PM
Inefficiency, Privatization Subject of Marathon Hearing (and we're not done yet)
Since non-residents were first charged $7 to enter the Botanical Gardens, the cash-strapped Recreation and Park Department has received $355,000 in revenue -- nearly 2/3 of which was spent to collect the fee, officials said during a City Hall hearing Wednesday.
The administrative costs mean the Recreation and Park Department only collects 41 cents for every dollar paid by non-residents entering the Botanical Gardens. At least some of these costs -- building and staffing ticket kiosks, erecting a fence around the Strybing Aboretum -- will be covered by the private San Francisco Botanical Garden Society, Recreation and Park General Manager Phil Ginsburg told a Board of Supervisors committee hearing.
The fee is nonetheless "very costly" to administer, according to a Budget Analyst report, and more expensive than other similar fees charged at urban parks around the country.
The Botanical Gardens are free for San Francisco residents but out of town adults must pay $7. Rec and Park began collecting the fees in August 2010. A number of progressive supervisors, including Supervisor John Avalos, have been critical of the fee, which some call a giveaway or a privatization of the Botanical Gardens led by the Botanical Garden Society, a nonprofit comprised largely of wealthy donors.
Avalos has introduced legislation that would rescind the fee; Mayor Edwin Lee has introduced competing legislation that would make the fee permanent. Rec and Park, which has laid off many of its recreation directors and shuttered many of its recreation centers in local parks in recent years, says the fee is a necessary evil.
"It gives us no joy to charge people for anything," Ginsburg said, "but if it's a choice of keeping parks open for children and families in Chinatown, South of Market and the Tenderloin or charging tourists from Atherton or Lafayette to visit a museum quality park, the choice is clear."
Critics of the fee like Avalos noted that attendance has dropped significantly since the fee was introduced, and attendance has been well below department projections.
Rec and Park promised $650,000 in fee revenue for the current fiscal year but has taken in only $355,000, in part because of inclement weather, Ginsburg said. Some 57,000 people have visited the Botanical Gardens since August, according to Rec and Park figures.
Attendance and revenue were both below Rec and Park projections, Ginsburg admitted, but an "aggressive marketing campaign" means those figures should go up in the coming fiscal year, Ginsburg said. The Rec and Park Department's projections for revenue and attendance are "optimistic," according to the Budget Analyst, which projected the fee would net $337,219 in revenue for fiscal year 2011-2012.
Revoking the fee would mean the Rec and Park Department would need $143,445 in general fund money to balance its budget. The SF Botanical Garden Society has "verbally pledged" to contributed at least $104,000 to cover the administrative costs of collecting the fee. If the fee is rescinded, the SFBGS will withdraw its offer.
The SFBGS has been criticized in the past for hiring a public relations firm to promote the fee. The SFBGS has paid $7,500 a month in public relations costs. It's also not clear who will be conducting the Botanical Gardens' "aggressive marketing campaign."
"We're asking [the Botanical Garden Society] to furnish us with those financials," said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, himself a SFBGS member. "It's a little frustrating that [supervisors] and the Budget Analyst does not have that data."
Both the measure to revoke the fee and to keep the fee permanent were advanced to the full Board of Supervisors. Six supes will be needed to revoke the fee; it is unclear who would support a fee revocation other than Avalos, Mirkarimi and progressive comrade David Campos. Board president David Chiu and Supervisor Scott Wiener joined Budget and Finance Chair Carmen Chu in voicing support for the fee.
He believes that all parks should charge admission and be run by the Trust for Public Land.