Puke and privatization in Dolores Park

|
(44)

Editors note: the vow by Chicken John Rinaldi to vomit in Dolores Park has gotten a lot of media attention -- but there's a real story behind it that the press has missed. Chicken sent us this opinion piece presenting his side of the story.

By Chicken John Rinaldi

It happened pretty quickly, when privatization came to Doritos Park. Sorry; Dolores Park. I keep forgetting they haven’t sold the name yet.

It didn’t come like a wraith with icy fingers or an immense monster with an army of lawyers. Privatization came to Dolores Park in the form of a nonprofit incubator for immigrant women entrepreneurs called La Coucina. For a progressive city like San Francisco, you can’t get much more cuddly than that.

I hear the Trojan horse was adorable, too. It had a cute mane and soft eyes and was made of really high quality lumber. You’d be a fool to criticize that kind of craftsmanship. But it was privatization of a park, even so. Selling space on public land without the public’s consent.

And there was resistance, of course. But the resistance was met with the oddest enemy. The resistance didn’t find itself fighting against people who believed that the park should be privatized. The resistance debated with people who did not know what privatization was. The resistance debated with people who did not know it was coming. The resistance debated with people who knew what it was, but refused to recognize it.

“Yummy tacos!” they chirped, as though that actually was an answer. Enron served tacos, too. Every Tuesday. The problem wasn’t the tacos: it was Enron.

“It’s just a food truck!” they said. “For immigrant ladies! No one who gives work to immigrant ladies could ever be involved in something bad!” This kind of thinking, that anything is okay as long as it also raises money for a good cause, is what will sink our own City of Art and Innovation: San Francisco.

The people who resisted asked questions: Why can’t they park the taco truck on the curb, where cars belong? Why drive a truck on the grass? Why not rent a parking space for the truck? Ummmmmm….. “Yummy tacos!!!” They said, looking around the room for approval.

The people who resisted pointed out that the public outreach that was supposed to be done before this kind of thing is authorized was never done. They told us at the first meeting that it was too late to stop. They did that thing where they create the illusion of inevitability.

Some things are almost impossible to undo once they’ve happened. Sacking the city of Troy, for instance. Or detonating a neutron bomb. Or kissing your best friend. Or doing all the cocaine in the cab before you get back to the party. Privatization is like that. Once a government starts getting easy revenue from a public trust, it doesn’t want to go back. Then it starts taking everything else with it: once one park has a food concession, every park that doesn’t have a food concession starts to look like a drain on the budget. Once one park gets a gift shop, every park needs a gift shop. Pretty soon you end up with a city full of park-themed malls. Well, in the rich neighborhoods anyway. The poor neighborhoods will have fences around the parks. Because they can’t carry their weight.

This is what a class war looks like. Straight up. RPD (mainly the general manager, Philip Ginsburg) has declared class war on San Francisco.

We’ve seen where this leads before: like in the news industry. Back in 1967, network news was almost … almost … a public trust. There was tight regulation. There was no consolidated corporate ownership. The people who owned the stations had zero influence on what was broadcast. Most importantly, no one expected network news to turn a profit. It was something the networks did, for the public good, as a condition of getting access to the public airwaves. It wasn’t perfect, but it tended to be solid news about factual issues that were relevant to the times.

That began to change in 1968, when CBS started a show called “60 Minutes,” and for the first time in network history a news show made a profit. Suddenly all news had to make a profit. And then it had to make a bigger profit, and then a bigger profit. It was a slippery slope. By the 2000 election we had FOX news.

As part of this trend, facts got replaced with opinions – because opinions are cheap and profitable. You want to make more money? Cut your foreign reporters, replace them with a pundit who once visited France. Need to make more money? Cut your congressional reporters and replace them with a couple of hacks arguing about congress.

As a result of the rush to make a profit, news coverage has become completely tabloidized … which is why some idiot with a cause needs to throw a “Puke-In” to get attention to a relevant issue like the privatization of parks. And it worked.

A cleverly worded publicity stunt that claimed I was going to “Fill Dolores park with vomit and watch the trailer of privatization float away on a river of puke” got attention. News organizations that never would have run a headline like “parks department fails to consult with residents” were tripping over themselves to be the first to run headlines like “Incensed man vows to puke on immigrants” and “park activist to puke on vendors.” All told, 57 stories appeared online and in the papers.

 Eventually, most of them mentioned that the park was going to get privatized. It was ugly, but it was a win – and with the media the way it is, everything’s ugly.

After it had been going on for two weeks, I had to explain to people that my cheap and obvious publicity stunt was a cheap and obvious publicity stunt. This lead to more headlines. But come on – “puke in?” That’s funny! But for the record, no, I’m not going to throw up on immigrants. I do have $750 worth of novelty vomit, but all I’m really doing is collecting signatures for my petition: Did anyone really think I could puke on another human being … someone who I didn’t know … just because we had different opinions on the location of a taco truck? After I ran for mayor for second place? After Porneokie? After a career in San Francisco spent producing benefits and rallies and meetings and art incubators and pot luck dinners and bus trips to amazing places?

Well, actually… yes. People thought I was going to go assault someone. Welcome to San Fransandiego. Whatever. The point is: the Recreation and Parks department is trying to rent out public parks to make money, and they’re not consulting the neighborhoods. And while they’ve found the nicest, sweetest, bestest cause they could find to rent the first plot of your land too, the next time it might be FOX news. It might be Exxon. It might be Goldman Sachs. They don’t care: they’re just in it for the money.

Privatization came to Doritos Park. Shit, I did it again. Sorry. Privatization came to Dolores Park. And the progressive left of the Mission showed up. We showed up and we showed that we have a gag reflex. We let Mr. Ginsburg know that privatization makes us nauseous. If they’ve got budget problems, close a few golf courses, they’re horrible for our ecology anyway. Endangered species; frogs and what have you. Lowering kids services 30% and then raising your payroll 670% is not gonna work. Duh. You can’t fire all the kids’ teachers that were making $35K a year, close the clubhouses and then hire thirteen $120K a year bureaucrats and not start a class war. There should be 50 neighborhood groups at your door with torches and pitchforks!

If the Recreation and Parks Department needs more money, they should show good faith and manage what they have better first, before selling our future with privatization. And if they need more money from the General Fund, then lets find it! Lets partner with them to seek solutions or restructure how the financial system works so they get the money they need without ruining our city.

As for us eating each other alive over this issue? I think it’s worth our time to talk this out, argue it out. Work it out. It’s definitely worth poking taco truck sized holes in this moral justification for selfishness. Which is what I think we have here. I think fighting that is worth signing a petition, and worth protesting. And it’s worth a cheap publicity stunt. I bet I can think of another one, too.

Chicken John is a San Francisco showman. Here is the petition:

Comments

You can't even spell La Cocina correctly and I'm supposed to take you seriously? Or was that an intentional misspelling, as some sort of childish insult?

Some if us just disagree with you; we think that adding commercial activity to a public recreational space can make it more vibrant and enjoyable. Especially if it's done in the right way (e.g., locally owned, culturally appropriate). So given that context, calling this 'class war' is just idiotic.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 11:57 am

If I wanted to go shopping or get food I would go to the Mall. If I want to go to the park I go the Park. I don't want my Park to turn into a Mall.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

"You can't even spell La Cocina correctly..."
"Some if [sic] us just disagree with you..."

That was pretty funny. Thanks, Guest. But the point is, you are free to disagree with those who disagree, whether they call it a class war or not. That doesn't invalidate their point.

Posted by torroid on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

Sorry. I really am. I have a 7th grade edeucation, letters are foreign to me. If spell check doens't know it, neightr do I. I am not spell checkng this letter so you can see how bad it is. So basily, you are making fun of someone who has learning problme. Kinda like someone who english is'nt there first language.

I did not misspell La Coucina on purpose.

This is a class war. I have evey confidence that although you dont' see it now, you will soon.

chicken

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

Pick up, dust-off. Okay, nice enthusiasm. Man how I love privatization being brought up - maybe I'm just strange in that sense, I'll admit. Took years to get here, too.

Not enough of us are out there talking about it and that's how we end up with another privatized hair-ball scheme that used to be a nursing home (circa Ronald Raygun). After getting a feel for Dolores Park through your eyes, I have to wonder - is the taco truck a domino effect deal or might this have more footing if the taco truck were, say, Mal*Wart (™)?

Posted by Guests don't kiss and tell, do they? I don't. on May. 01, 2011 @ 8:51 am

The SF Chron had an outrageous vendor at Stow Lake story today - you had the timing, they got the beef. That, or you've started a trend that has people looking at park vendors a little more.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

Do you really think, after putting one commercial vendor in the park, i.e. once there is precedent, there is going to be any feasible way to stop them from putting a Starbucks or what-have-you in there too? Do you really, seriously, honestly think they actually give a crap about whether or not it's locally owned and "culturally appropriate" (whatever that means...I'm pretty sure that the "culture" in the area around Dolores Park is steak and potatoes)? Because I'm pretty sure they just accepted whoever made a bid. Wendy's, Nestle Cafe and Subway were all also asked to submit bids, and didn't. If they had, Phil Ginsberg would have accepted them with open arms. Get real, and get educated.

Posted by LM on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 3:25 pm

why should we take you seriously if you say 'if' when you mean 'of'? why should you take me seriously if i type in all lower case? i guess we're all screw ups and nobody should listen to the ideas that we're expressing, huh?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 8:18 pm

"If they’ve got budget problems, close a few golf courses, they’re horrible for our ecology anyway. Endangered species; frogs and what have you. Lowering kids services 30% and then raising your payroll 670% is not gonna work. Duh. You can’t fire all the kids’ teachers that were making $35K a year, close the clubhouses and then hire thirteen $120K a year bureaucrats and not start a class war."

That actually sounds rational, and not "idiotic," to me.

And if it's true that the Department of Recreation and Parks did tell the public that this was going to happen whether they like it or not, then I'd say the public has a right to be mad.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

"I thought Chickensh-t John used up his 15 seconds of puke-fame long ago."

-Andy Warhol

Posted by Barton on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 1:05 pm

"If they’ve got budget problems, close a few golf courses, they’re horrible for our ecology anyway. Endangered species; frogs and what have you."

Close something I don't like, because I don't like it, so I can live in my make believe world.

Also, pounding out comments results in some terrible prose obviously me included, but if you are given the chance to write a blog here, such as it is, you should try to aspire to something beyond a teens diary entry.

Posted by matlock on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

I picked closing a golf course because they are gross. And I don't mean disgusting. They are a HUGE resouce suck, and very few people enjoy their use for what they cost. You wanna save money and injure the least amount of people? Close a few of the 13 golf courses.

My make beleive world is awesome. Sorry to hear yours isn't.

chicken

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

Have been paying taxes for decades, carpet baggers show up and know better.

Posted by meatlock on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 2:56 am

I am amazed at how so many commenters are confused on this issue. Admitedly CJ is a polarizing figure but lets not damn the message because of the messenger.
What I want is for our parks to remain public spaces where we can get away from the pressures of urban life, a refuge for people to ejoy the sun, the trees and the grass. This is not about parks raising money either, because if it was, the Dept. of Park and Rec. would be charging market rates, not a measly 1 grand a month. I doubt that little money would even cover the increased cost of cleaning up all the litter that vending is sure to creat. No, this is about privatization of public space with little or no compensation to the public. That the park and rec. are using a much beloved charity like Cucina is just a convenient ploy to devide opposition. I have no problem with a taco truck parked at the curb outside the park, that would be fine but leave the park itself alone. Park and Rec director Phil Ginsberg has a plan to sell off our public spaces to make them for profit and private. He has closed park clubhouses all over the city and laid off playground directors while hiring new administrators at $ 100,000 a pop. If you want our parks to remain free public spaces and you enjoy the escape these places provide from urban life then you should oppose the give away of public resources to private interest and you should oppose Phil Ginsberg's plan to allow vending in Dolores Park

Posted by phoenixsf on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

Um... Have you been to Dolores Park??? It's hardly the place to go if you want to escape "urban life". If anything, it's a place people go to be "IN" the city and enjoy being outdoors. If you want to escape the city, by all means, head accross the GG bridge and walk around in Muir Woods. There is a BIG difference between they type of park that Dolores Park is and places like Muir Woods.
I don't think the food trucks are going to gave kind of impact that people like you and Chicken Shit John are claiming they'll have.
I think people will enjoy them just like they enjoy having all the other food venders in the park.
Chicken John is just being a big baby because he's not getting his way. His head probaly got too big after his "triumph" over evil American Apparel. Can't win 'em all Chicken!
I wonder if he would be protesting this much if Ritual Coffee was opening a truck in Dolores Park. I also have to wonder if he would put up the same fight if Parks and Recs wanted to park a food truck in Lafayette Park in Pacific Heights. Him and his buds dont bro out there so I'm guessing, no.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

It's interesting to see how this point has divided the community so passionately, but I have to admit I am a little dumbstruck at people's gullibility on this. To me it's pretty clear that the city is using this friendly faced immigrant culturally appropriate business to slip a commercial interest in the Park without ruffling too many feathers. It's sleazy 'politics' at it's finest. Surely nobody wants our public spaces to be influenced by commercial interests. I don't feel like we are divided on this.
It's all very well to say that we want to have snacks at the park and we don't mind a Taco stand, but what happens when there is a protest, and the Taco stand calls the cops to move us on? In a decade (or less) when these small, seemingly insignificant cases pave the way for more aggressive policies which hand over more and more land to privatization, it will be too late to say "we should have listened to Chicken."
Let go of all the gossip and ridiculously hateful commentary, and see through it for what it is. A publicity stunt to get you to listen. Oh, and here you are listening. Good job Chicken.

Posted by Polly on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 2:07 pm

That some in city government are using some sort of race/immigrant thing as a red herring type thing here.

That would never happen in David Camposes San Francisco.

Posted by meatlock on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 2:59 am

i am still interested to know what the fake puke tastes like. can you post the ingredients?

Posted by taximan on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

In his retirement, my father decided to run for the township board in his small, but wealthy rural town. He is a centrist, and decided to run as a Republican because there are more voters in his township who vote a straight ballot for Republicans than those who vote split ballots.

During a recent visit home I was talking about how progressive and public-space-friendly SF is. My dad informed me that, apparently, the recent short-sighted policies SF has endorsed (civil sidewalks, selling parkland, other privatization) are the talk of state and national land-usage governing bodies. Our mistakes are covered at their conferences.

SF is seen as a decrepit case study even in cities/ towns that are bankrupt and conservative.

I don't think residents who live in the Bay-area "bubble" realize how much their city is changing.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

Am I the only one who thinks that Chicken has a really good point? That he's done a really good job of making a non-issue into the huge issue that it deserves to be?

Phil Ginsburg is a huge tool that shouldn't be in charge of parks. That much is obvious to me now, but two weeks ago? Could give two shits. So, you know, thanks Chicken.

Posted by Orin on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

Chicken John, you are the perfect embodiment of gentrification.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

How so? Is it because I'm just so fucking funny?

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

Such a funny essay!!!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

"The resistance debated with people who did not know what privatization was. "

"Privatization" means a lot of different things. My gripe with Chicken John is that he's chosen a way to define it that's narrow enough to avoid hypocrisy, but broad enough to include this specific issue. It seems entirely self-serving.

Posted by MrEricSir on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

The process of moving from a government-controlled system to a privately run, for-profit system.

It's a simple definition. There is another definition, but that has to do with a complex stock merger, and has no relevancy to what we are talking about.

Privatization is about enurement. Trading the public trust for private enurement.

Like, when ATT uses our sidewalks for their cable boxes. The sidewalks are public property. ATT uses them to make money. So, if you were against privatization, you wouldn't like that very much.

If a rich man wanted to erect a statue of his dog in his dog's favorite park when the dog died, and was willing to pay $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000.03, to have a statue that took up 4 inches by 8 inches, that's privatization.

If a senator would take 23 acres of parkland and sell it to developer to make condos, that's just STEALING, it's not privatization!!!!

Just testing you.

kisses,,,, chicken

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

But that's not what's happening here assface.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2011 @ 10:30 am

That is exactly what is happening here. They are SELLING leases to put commercial business' in a public park. Thereby, giving private enuerment to something that was up until the time they took it away, public benifit. It's a trade... the public space is replaced by a private business.

Privatization. Simple, straightforward privatization. That is what is happening here and there is no arguement. You could be for privatization, but everyone agrees that that is what is happening in DP. Yes, even Supervisor Campos.

Posted by Chicken John on May. 06, 2011 @ 10:05 pm

Chicken John is nothing but a liar. Period.
The fact he blows Steve Jones to get more attention to his lies on behalf of
the private enterprise that pays protection money to him is sick

Even more sick? After the American Apparel debacle, Chicken John advertised his "tools" to the highest bidder. He's no less a whore than any lobbyist for
corporate America !

Boycott Ritual and buy blue bottle!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Turkey Juan on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

Pays me protection money... Dude, you love to hate me so much!!! I'm your favorite thing in the whole world!!!!!

Give me your address, I wanna send you a copy of the book I wrote. I'm totally serious....

chicken

Posted by Chicken John on May. 01, 2011 @ 8:42 am

I just wanted to point out that if the concern is "privatizing public space," the curb is also public space.

Posted by kevin on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 5:17 pm
yup

Absolutly true. It's a compromise. It's not a slam dunk win. There are still arguements to make.

Lets hope their made in the open.

I've argued enough for a minute. I need a minute...

chicken

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

http://chickenjohn.us/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/chicken/20110429164814/

compromise! Puke In postponed!!!! Children Dance in Streets!!!!

Grumpy douchebag posters still complaining!!!!!!

Come visit tomorrow at noon, we can argue in person. I'll be selling fake puke for a few bucks....

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

Make an example of this political hack who clearly has no appreciation for our wonderful city and it's parks.
Maybe Gavin Newsom can give Ginsburg another public teat to suck off of somewhere else.
Get this pig out of San Francisco government, and tell him to take Mark Buell with him.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 12:24 am

I keep wondering when the hot dog stand in Golden Gate Park is going to be brought up in this debate, or is that park not hip enough to bother with?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 9:59 am

Move it to a parking spot.
Problem solved.

Posted by Fire Phil Ginsburg on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

We can talk about it now, if you'd like.

The reason why I'm not puking about a hot dog stand in GG park is becuase GG park is a different animal. Size, location, structure... all differnt. The idea here is that when privatization came to my neighborhood, I did something. I can't do something when it comes to every neighborhood, nor should I. I'm not saying that I lead the Mission, but I'm also saying that there are many people behind this, not just me. I'm just the most vocal. We did this together.

When you are in GG park, you are totally secluded. In most spots in GG park, you'd have to walk quite a ways to get a hot dog, a water or an ice cream. That's one way to look at it. There is also the idea that GG park is not a neighborhood park. I would say a hot dog cart in GG park is a service to the people. The rent for the cart is nominal. The cart is small enough that it doesn't take space away from people. It's 'techincally' still privatization, but it's referred to as partnership. ie: RPD gets some of the profit. But it's a small bite. What's happening at DP is complex. You could argue that 10 food trucks would be 5% of the entire park. There is a garbage problem there already. There is overcrowding. Urine. A million people go to that park every year. It's got some nuinces to it that make it not a cut and dry thing...

You can look at it a different way, if you'd like. What about selling the name of the park? Is that OK? How much is a name worth? How about a orthodox jews' Saturday observance? Lets say you ask a jew who observes the sabbath to drive a car on Saturday. He refuses. You say you'll give him $40,000. He says he's insulted. You reply that he is being unreasonable. He tells you that some things are outside of commerce. If 50 years ago you tried to buy the name rights to Golden Gate Park and re-name it Guest on SFBG Blog Park, there would have been NOTHING you could do to ocomplish that. Today? I bet RPD would take $500K. For a 10 year lease. What would they spend the money on? Lawyers. They are getting sued left and right.

There's more, but ya gotta respond first...

Posted by Chicken John on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 9:06 pm

=v= Dolores Park has had vendors for years, for everything from ice cream to heroin. Why, I once even bought some iced Ritual Roasters coffee there:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jym/3783436821/

One has to wonder why Chicken John hasn't announced a puke-in for any of these terrible, terrible privatizers.

Posted by Jym Dyer on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

Illegal vending (such as selling novelty vomit) in DP NEVER takes up the kind of footprint that a taco truck could. No generator. No garish adverts. No sneaky slimy RPD with their hand out, no community divided, no long line, no taking space away from the public (unless you wanna split hairs) and alas, no puke.

Now, you can get crazy specific and say that someone selling pot truffles takes away public space, and you can say that lady also ruins your park experience by offering a commercial ba da boom... but that's not what you are saying. You are saying my girlfriends coffee shop is guity of privatization because a few years ago they sold 20 iced coffee's in DP. Twice. They went to the park twice a few years ago. And yes, I floated the Ritual coffee trailer on BLM land. For the afternoon. You are saying these things to attack me, because you think that I'm the bad guy here.

But you lose. This campaign wasn't about stopping privatization. It was about education. And it sounds like now your qualified. Now go out there in the world, and have an educated opinion on what privitazation is.

Your welcome.

Posted by Chicken John on May. 01, 2011 @ 8:38 am

Really, Ritual sold 20 ice coffees twice? I like to think that I am really special, and am fortunate enough to have drunk one of 40 ice coffees sold by Ritual in Dolores Park. I had my finger on the pulse. I wish I still had my cup... perhaps it was hand-numbered and will be worth something someday.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure more than 20 people bought ice coffee on that sunny 4th of July 2 years ago. Keep manipulating the facts to make your case.

Sure, I see the difference between a bicycle cart and a food truck in the middle of a park. I also don't see why a food cart here or there in a highly trafficked urban park is such a bad thing. And even if it is, I don't think anyone who has any association with Ritual ought to be leading angry protests against Blue Bottle or any other local food purveyor for that matter. That sort of undignified, even unethical competition lost Ritual this client, and will hopefully lose it many many more.

Posted by jumunius on Jul. 03, 2011 @ 9:00 am

It's Sunday monrning. I'm signing off this debate. That was 3 weeks of my life. Solid. At the end of it all, we have to share this city together. So whatever you think, and however anything turns out, just remember there is no right or wrong, there is only process.

"The true result of any situation is not the outcome, but the intent."

Buddha

see ya in the next shitstorm

chicken john

keep up with me if you want on my mailing list chickenjohn.us

Posted by Chicken John on May. 01, 2011 @ 8:47 am

I lived overseas, traveled overseas, been to many parks with vendors, small to good sized, coffee, breakfast, dessert with coffee, little kids shows to space for concerts. Rides and horses, mini golf, to lawn bowls. Small friendly uses are ok, i don't see what is wrong getting coffee with cake or ice cream.

Posted by Garrett on May. 01, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

"The idea here is that when privatization came to my neighborhood, I did something. I can't do something when it comes to every neighborhood."

NIMBYS rule!

Solve our budget/pension problems by licking somebody else's underpants.

Or, "Not in my Puke Zone!"

Posted by Barton on May. 01, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

As new mayor, one step in the right direction would be to fire
Phil Goldstein as head of Rec/Park.
It was Phil G. who masterminded the sleazy plan to layoff Rec Directors and have them reapply for their jobs.
Bravo to Chicken guy. You have a fan in a current RPD employee
who can tell you that RPD has no idea which way is up.
Phil wants to keep the job that his friend Gavin gave him, so the
next mayor should stress how for profit plan hurts our community parks, resources,disrupts the lives of communities which are the backbone of
San Francisco.
I grew up in the City and went to the Doritos Park, errr Dolores Park
and I cherish the sweet memories of rolling down those hills and the views of
the city. My mom would pack a picnic lunch and we would walk from our flat at
South Van Ness and 20th St. up the hill.
Rise up citizens and demand for profit Recreation to cease with the next mayor.

Posted by Guest A Concerned S.F. Native and city worker on May. 02, 2011 @ 12:32 am