Parks & Recreation
Open spaces are cherished sanctuaries where solitude and the opportunity to commune with nature are found within the midst of the
city. Residing, myself, only one block from the open-space gem of the southeast, John McLaren Park, has given me a real
appreciation of what an asset it is to have, nearby, a refuge from the harried pace of city life. As the father of two school-aged children
and a dog owner, I value the many benefits our parks and recreational facilities have afforded my family. As such, I strongly believe
that for maintaining a healthy quality of life within an urban environment, a key component is having clean, safe parks and
energized recreational programs available for all our residents.
PARKS FUNDING
I will work hard as your Supervisor to ensure that the adequate funding of our neighborhood parks and recreational
facilities receives prioritized attention by the Board of Supervisors. I am committed to pursuing innovative financing approaches for
funding the delivery of recreational services, and the restoration and improved maintenance of park facilities.
I adamantly oppose the misspending, by City officials, of monies from the Open Space Fund which is intended for fixing
up long-neglected park facilities, recreation centers and playgrounds, as well as, the enhancement of park recreational services and
after-school programs. I agree with the Neighborhood Parks Council’s assessment that the Open Space Fund has been treated as a de
facto “crisis fund”, steadily undermining its original intent and purpose. Note that the incumbent, Maxwell, has been complicit in
the misuse of the Open Space funds, by signing off on the transfer of $1.8 Million dollars of that money for use in the purchase
of a small parcel (less than ¼ acre) for cosmetic expansion of an adjacent North Beach playground, while District 10 park facilities
(such as, the Silver Terrace Playground) remain in deplorable states of disrepair.
As your Supervisor, I will support an increase in the amount set-aside from property tax revenue that is earmarked for the
Open Space Fund. Certainly also worth exploring is the “Seattle Model” of community-driven recreation programming. This
model employs a public / private partnership approach that has generated $8 million in added revenue for their Park & Rec.
Department. Of particular benefit is that this model uses a broad range of neighborhood specific programs at varying fee levels.
Because wealthier neighborhoods can generate enough revenue to cover their costs, Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP)
could then re-deploy their staff to attend more needy facilities serving lower income communities, such as those found within District
10.
NEIGHBORHOOD GREENING
I am a strong supporter of establishing a “Green Infrastructure” throughout our district neighborhoods. Investing in planting
programs that convert vacant lots into garden plazas (or pocket parks), interconnected by tree lined streets, is one creative way to
infuse greenery into our urban community setting. Whether it’s on the grand scale of Visitacion Valley’s “Greenway Project” or more
modest efforts, such as the restoration of Bayview’s “Le Conte mini-park”, I believe these projects are essential to enhancing the quality
of life for our residents.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
I support joint ventures between the DRP (Department of Recreation and Parks) and private entities that can benefit our parks system.
Vanguard citizen groups such as the “Friends of Esprit Park” and the “Friends of McLaren Park” have played an integral role, both
through their hours of volunteerism devoted to the maintenance of our parks, but also through the contribution of their park vision and
advocacy. Additionally, partnerships with non-profit groups, such as “Literacy for Environmental Justice” (LEJ), offer opportunities
for educational enhancements to our public park system, like LEJ’s “Living Classroom Project” in Bayview.
I strongly advocate the improvement of the public outreach process with regard to capital parks projects. I believe that
community input on the appropriate use of park bond funds is essential, if City leaders truly want to develop a Recreation and Park
system that is of service to all San Francisco residents. As Co-Founder of my neighborhood’s improvement group, CAPS (Community
Alliance of Portola & Silver Terrace), I incorporated the position of a Park Affairs Liaison, so that we could effectively serve as a
conduit between our community and the DRP. I am proud that our selection for the liaison post was so eminently qualified on park
issues, that he was appointed to represent District 10 on the City’s “Parks and Recreation Open Space Advisory Committee” (PROSAC).
RECREATION FACILITIES
While many of our playgrounds (e.g. Palega, Visitation, Hilltop, Jackson, etc.) are in need of added attention, some – such as the
Silver Terrace Playground – are in such a state of disrepair that they are, in fact, dangerous to our children. As your Supervisor, I will
fight to ensure that communities (such as, District 10) with high numbers of “At Risk” youths, get the prioritized attention to
improve playgrounds and swimming facilities (like the deteriorating Coffman Pool), as well as, expand recreation
centers’ programming, during the critical after school hours.
As your Supervisor, I will actively work with community leaders to expand upon the operation of appropriate recreation facilities for
their use as central community serving venues, such as the “Visitacion Valley Club House” facility.
STANCE ON CONTROVERSIAL PARK ISSUES
Natural Areas Program
While I support the preservation of exiting “natural areas”, I adamantly oppose the divisive Natural Areas Program’s
restoration plan to return San Francisco park areas to their original dune and shrub habitats. The Natural Areas Program’s plan for
the expansion of natural areas has been pursued by the unconscionable chopping down of trees in a number of parks, including our
own McLaren and Bayview Parks.
I view our city’s open spaces as “cultural areas” — places where families can picnic, dogs can run free, and children can
escape the confines of the urban environment. Therefore, I believe the arbitrary designation of natural areas by the NAP is patently
unfair since, at the expense public access, it allows a small group of zealots to dictate the use of public space, for their own narrow
agenda.
Instead, I support more appropriate restoration efforts directed to the revitalization of areas, such as: the environs of
Islais Creek and Heron’s Head wetlands, as well as, the India Basin, Hunters Point and Candlestick Point waterfronts.
Dog Access
I believe that the incessant conflict over the issue of off-leash dogs in city parks can be resolved by the differing parties each taking
some responsibility for their part and then, in earnest, pursue compromise towards a work-able solution. That said, I believe that a
“citywide” dog policy approach is a bad idea and, instead, I support creating dog policy on a park-by-park basis.
As the parent of two school age children, as well as a dog owner, I certainly feel and understand the impassioned sentiments
expressed by proponents on both sides of the issue of shared use by both children and off-leash dogs. I strongly believe problems can
be easily prevented with a level of responsible dog ownership at one end, and responsible parenting at the other end.
I oppose, therefore, confining dogs to small fenced-in areas (un-maintained “dog pens”), however, I also believe that the
privilege of off-leash access should never mean unsupervised or uncontrolled use by dog owners.
Dog Owners always should:
• carry a leash
• leash aggressive dogs
• not leave their dogs unattended
• prevent digging and destructive behavior
• pick up and dispose of dog waste
LeGrande Water Tower
I am a strong advocate for the process of public outreach with regard to parks projects. I believe that community input is an
essential ingredient for sound and balanced decision making on park issues. As such, after careful consideration of the views
expressed by groups representing Portola and Excelsior residents living near McLaren Park, I supported the PUC plans to rebuild its La
Grande Water Tower. While I appreciated the “Friends of McLaren Park” position that viewed the tank rebuild as an opportunity to
design a more decorative structure, I believe that neighborhood residents clearly expressed that they felt the PUC design was sufficient
and their preference.
Living Classroom
I strongly opposed the placing the “Living Classroom Project” within McLaren Park and actively advocated relocating it
to a more appropriate site within the Bayview neighborhood, where it is most needed.
I do support the general goal the nonprofit, Literacy for Environmental Justice (LEJ), to build an environmental education center
(Living Classroom) for educating our inner-city – low-income, heavily minority southeast – youth about the environment. However, the
most significant matter here was the project’s funding.
LEJ had received $897,976 from the San Francisco Department of the Environment, a contribution that came from a $13 million
settlement with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. That money was specifically intended to mitigate the misery caused by the Hunters Point
power plant. Therefore, whether intended or not, I believe that LEJ’s site selection of a McLaren Park hilltop four miles away, was a
misuse of funds entitled by Bayview, tantamount to thievery from a community that had already been a victim of injustice. I
strongly feel that any mitigation money we can get should be invested back into the very community first harmed.
I would also point out that in line with my stance, the “Sierra Club”, the “Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods” and the “Friends
of McLaren Park” also urged LEJ to relocate the center back to the Bayview, as it was originally intended. Note that the incumbent,
Maxwell, has been complicit in the misuse of the mitigation funds owed to the Bayview community, by signing off
on the transfer of $2 Million dollars of that money for use in the renovation of the Conservatory of Flowers in Golden Gate Park; a
redirection of these funds should only have been considered after the harm initially causing the mitigation had, in fact, been
remedied.
