GREEN CITY A broad coalition of politicians and activists is supporting Proposition A, the $185 million parks bond on the February ballot, with the rare unanimous support of the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Gavin Newsom.
But just how big an impact can this bond, which requires 66 percent voter approval, make? The city has spent the $110 million bond that voters approved in 2000 to repair parks and recreation centers, and an independent 2007 analysis identified $1.7 billion in backlogged park needs.
"This is one of an ongoing series of measures that we need to do every five or so years," board president Aaron Peskin told the Guardian.
The bond allocates $117.4 million for repairs and renovations of 12 neighborhood parks that were selected, Recreation and Park Department director Yomi Agunbiade told us, according to seismic and physical safety needs and usage levels.
The bond also earmarks $11.4 million to replace and repair freestanding restrooms. Noting that his department added 35 custodians in the last budget cycle, Agunbiade said, "So when we fix a bathroom, we'll have staff to keep it open from 6 a.
m. to 11 p.m. seven days a week."
Some aren't keen on the bond's inclusion of $33.5 million for Port of San Francisco land projects, including the Blue Greenway, a continuous walkway from Heron's Head Park to Pier 43. San Francisco Community College trustee and Sierra Club member John Rizzo supports the measure but raised concerns about projects on Port land, particularly improvements at Fisherman's Wharf.
But Peskin sees the Port lands inclusion as overdue: "For the first time there's the recognition that the Port should not be treated as a stand-alone enterprise that has to do everything itself." As for the improvements around Pier 43, which is in his district, Peskin said, "Fisherman's Wharf, like Union Square, is one of those geese that lay the golden egg" in terms of revenue from tourism.
The bond also earmarks $8 million for improvements to playing fields. Agunbiade said many fields are in terrible shape and in desperate need of work, "but this bond only affects about 7 percent of the city's park land."
Some Potrero Hill neighbors are sounding environmental alarms about plans to install artificial turf at their local recreation center, but Agunbiade said there are also environmental benefits to turf, including decreased water and pesticide use.
Arthur Feinstein of the Sierra Club and San Francisco Tomorrow told us he strongly supports Prop. A, largely because it earmarks $5 million for trail restoration.
"The evidence is not in on the ill effects of artificial turf," Feinstein said, "but its ability to be in constant use frees up land for other uses, such as trail reconstruction, which makes a huge difference not just for native species and plants but people too, who need nature, especially in densely urban areas."
Isabel Wade, executive director of the Neighborhood Parks Council, says her nonprofit supports Prop. A, and she cited its inclusion of $5 million for an Opportunity Fund from which all neighborhoods can apply for matching funds for small park projects.
"A lot of little parks are not on the list because the capital costs of seismic ...
But (this time my own), the article states that the parks did more money because the $110 million the voters approved under Prop A in 2000 has run out. But, what about the Prop C money that the voters approved in the same year. That provided the parks with 2 and one half centers for every $100 dollars property tax assessments for the succeeding 30 years. In '07 it reaped a wapping $30.850 million. From 2001 to the present, the tax set aside, not bond, accumulated well over $200 million. Why aren't we seeing the effects of that money in our parks as the voters intended. The Annual Appropriation Ordinance shows its going for unintended purposes, such as those that Barbara Mascunas warns will happen with Prop. A money if the bond passes.
There needs to be better management, more accountability, more transparency, more equitable distribution and honest rendering of bond proposals before the unwitting taxpaers are asked to hand over more of their hard earned dollars.
Franco Mancini
Park Activist
(& former member of the Neighborhood Parks Council and the Parks & Recreation Open Space Advisory Committee)
The rubber component of the turf is made from waste tires and contains harmful chemicals, lead and arsenic. For this reason legislation (Bill A09503) recently introduced in New York by Democratic Assemblyman Steven C. Englebright would ban new synthetic fields pending further study on public health and environmental impact.
Additionally, artificial turf lacks the natural antimicrobial activity of real grass, thus bacterial colonies survive longer on artificial turf. With the emergence of antibiotic resistant staph infections (MRSA) among athletes across the country, the increased risk posed by artificial turf cannot be ignored.
Field managers have to apply disinfectant to the artificial turf regularly. The artificial turf companies acknowledge the problem and sell their own turf disinfectant products. These disinfectants will make it into the environment.
There are 24 proposed sites that range from Potrero Hill to Dolores Park to the Richmond and Sunset districts. Covering our athletic fields with plastic and rubber should not be part of our green agenda. Vote NO on Proposition A.
More information here:
[link]
Comment on: Money for parks
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
