By Luke Thomas
April 12, 2011
DCCC Chair and former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin made an impassioned plea last week calling on the present Board of Supervisors to vote against an ordinance on today’s Board agenda that seeks to extend the charging of non-resident entrance fees to the Golden Gate Park Arboretum.
The ordinance, sponsored by Mayor Ed Lee, seeks to close a funding shortfall due to a mandated 20 percent budget cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation.
“Don’t tell me the money isn’t there,” Peskin said during a rally held last week in Golden Gate Park. “How is it that we can find $47 million in tax breaks for Twitter but we cannot keep the Arboretum free.” Peksin also cited $37 million the City will spend in preparation for the 2013 America’s Cup and $1 million allocated to make the president’s dais in Board chambers wheelchair accessible.
The Arboretum needs $195 thousand to keep the 71-year-old institution free of entrance fees, according to Peskin. If it passes, the ordinance requires non-resident adults to pay a $7 entrance fee; non-resident youths aged between 12 and 17 would be charged a $5 entrance fee; and children aged between 5 and 11 would be charged a $2 entrance fee. Non-resident senior citizens would be charged a $5 entrance fee.
In what is expected to a close vote, Peskin said, “We’ve got five votes. We need only one more vote.”
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
April 13, 2011 at 11:57 am
@ marc
Again, I agree with you ideologically but find it difficult to believe this fee actually contributes to changing tourism policy. Also, at this time, San Francisco is dependent on tourism even if you think it is a bad idea. Its budget is intricately tied to tourism (hotel tax, etc.) and if the city nickels and dimes for everything and tourism drops (this garden fee has not brought in the money planned), all that revenue is reduced with no replacement plan ready. This fee is not about changing tourist policy but baby steps to charging SF residents to use its own parks in the very near future.
Each location has positives and negatives, and change requires a sustainable plan based on current reality not philosophical ideal conditions. You could move to Nevada and pay no taxes to compensate for economic tourism effects but then you’d also have to live in the shadow of those casinos……
Maybe the revenue lost to Twitter in tax breaks and extra city services would have helped the rest of the community keep access to public land free.
April 13, 2011 at 11:04 am
@Hope, if the inflationary economic policies of tourism and internet bubbles, not to mention FIRE and deal making continue to dominate San Francisco’s future, then those will price most of us out of the City and we’ll be nowhere near these facilities to enjoy them.
The price of everything in SF rises due to these economic pressures. If we do nothing, it only gets worse because those economic sectors have no intention of paying their freight and will continue to outsource those costs onto SF residents.
-marc
April 13, 2011 at 10:23 am
@ Daniele
You’re right – this is a very important issue. That’s why it’s disappointing to watch the opportunistic politicians use it as a one-time grandstanding occasion, a self-serving tactic that has not only been continually unsuccessful for the average person but also erodes public trust in the left.
@marc
Agreed (but, see my above comment to Danielle, too). Although, “financial consideration” is a vague term that just might arguably encompass the “just reaping the harvest” definition you provide.
San Francisco depends on tourism. It just does, whether we wish it didn’t or not. It is an expensive enough city for those tourists to visit already and there is one beautiful free rose garden in front the Eiffel Tower that they might eventually decide is a better choice for a vacation. Charging to enter the gardens for anyone is a terrible precedent definitely headed in the direction of privatization of land for the use of those with the ability to pay.
April 13, 2011 at 9:15 am
@Hope, is Peskin being given financial consideration by anyone to influence legislation? That’s the trigger.
Aaron is just reaping the harvest of those hundreds of Special Assistant seeds he sewed into the bureaucracy along with the declining revenues in the ill-advised business tax settlement he engineered.
That said, we need to make sure that, for San Franciscans, there are no new fees added onto any city facilities that are currently free, and that all city facilities that charge admission must offer steeply discounted admissions for SF residents.
We need to make the tourists pay for the inflationary effects that tourism has on the local economy.
-marc
April 13, 2011 at 8:24 am
it’s an important issue if you know the arboretum—i mean really know it. i have a feeling most of the supervisors don’t. then it becomes easier to vote the way they did. but it’s no excuse.
April 12, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Is this the best issue Peskin can find to remain relevant? Good….
April 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm
What’s up with Peskin’s use of “we”?
I hope by “we’ve got five votes” Peskin is referring to Supervisor Avalos, an actual Board member, and not himself.
Or is this more evidence WE need to require Peskin, Willie Brown, and Rose Pak to register as lobbyists?
April 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Correction,
I meant to say that David Chiu will vote NOT to extend the fee because he knows that Kim will vote to extend it.
Chiu’s many thing but dumb isn’t one of them. He saw the committee hearing on dogs yesterday and understands (as does Scott Wiener when it comes to dogs) and knows that as a candidate for a City-wide office (Mayor in this case) that the base he wants with him includes the likes of his campaign manager, Nicole Derse and they are intense about returning at least the Arboretum to a free for everyone status. It will be pretty much the only free space in the park should the fee be repealed.
h.
April 12, 2011 at 12:29 pm
It’s a ‘Tip’ vote for Kim,
Jane and David Chiu have been trading what they call, ‘cover’ votes for one another for the last couple of months. It’s her turn to cover for David who will vote to extend the fee forever (that’s part of Item #5 on the day’s Full Board agenda). Chiu will vote to roll back the fee and the Swells will win anyway.
Trust me, it’s been cleared with Jimmy Lazarus and he’s OK with Chiu pretending to be a Progressive for 5 minutes as long as he and Dede Wilsey win.
Go Giants!
h.
April 12, 2011 at 11:21 am
Thanks, Aaron…
May as well post my letter to the supervisors here, as it pretty much expresses how i feel:
Dear Supervisors,
As a landscape artist (and organizer of “San Francisco Landscape Artists” Meetup in the Arboretum), I wanted to shed some light on the issues that are coming to the fore byway of the vote that is before you.
As I listened to folks defending the fee, I took issue with the characterization of this place as a “museum”. I wondered why, and looked up the definition of the word “museum”. It is a place for objects. We are not dealing with objects here.
After checking Wikipedia, I understand the concept of a “living museum”, but in the case of this particular arboretum, I think one can only get onboard insofar as “they are managed much like other museums and face the same challenges”. Indeed. They need funds to operate.
The problem arises when you implement a solution, such as the one we now have, that runs counter to the very intent and essence of the place it seeks to serve.
The arboretum, in its diversity of offerings, to the sense of oneness it instills not only within oneself but in relation to nature, wildlife, as well as the people who share the space with you—that is the magic of this place. It would be foolish to read its encompassing walls as a signifier to make this into just another “attraction”. If anything, the fences help instill a sense of belonging, and reinforce that very real sense of being “held”—as there is something for everyone here, no matter your mood.
A gate, as well-intentioned as it might be, that divides people by geography or ability to pay, creating a bottleneck just at the entrance to what was specifically designed to be open and free (please see quotes below) is an injustice to those that gave so much for its creation—and to us, those it was meant to serve.
Please tell those who want the fee that Ordinance 110113 will in fact give them what they want—a sustainable Arboretum. But they will be getting it through a means that respects its spirit, a spirit even more important in these times of accelerated pace, where more people live in cities than not, and where people have been cut off from nature (and their bodies and feelings which a trip to the Arboretum, in unmatched fashion, helps restore).
I urge you to use Prop N money for the continued successful operation of the arboretum, and to have faith that the necessary monies will continue to be provided either by said source, or by an eventual change in the tax code whereby the wealth that does exist in this city, state and country will be taxed in a more equitable way.
Daniele Erville
Some quotes (and also please find an attached photograph):
Helene Strybing’s will:
“I expect that the necessary funds for the maintenance and operation of said Arboretum and Botanical Gardens will be furnished by said City and County of San Francisco.”
Master Plan for Strybing Arboretum, San Francisco—1959:
• It is important to develop the Arboretum in such a manner that it becomes an asset contributing to the quality of Golden Gate Park which is one of the treasures of San Francisco and indeed, the entire region.
• There must be careful attention paid to circulation…so as to interfere with visitors as little as possible.
• The entry to the Arboretum must be…convenient and inviting for pedestrians.
“A Garden for the 21rst Century”—the Master Plan for Strybing Arboretum and Botanical Gardens at Golden Gate Park, SF CA 1995:
The Mission
• Offer a place of reflection, enjoyment and relaxation for the public. (please note the word “offer”).