There are several good reasons why diverse groups including the San Francisco Republican, Democratic and Green parties; good government groups San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association and Plan C; business leaders and organizations; and labor leaders and organizations all urge San Franciscans to vote no on Proposition A.
The majority of opposing organizations and individuals would support Prop. A if it were just about competitive bidding for garbage disposal contracts, but it isn’t. It is a convoluted, difficult-to-administer scheme that does not guarantee lower rates.
Prop. A puts the Board of Supervisors in charge of setting the rates and gives the supervisors the power to amend the ordinance without voter approval.
It requires The City, for no good reason, to own the processing and transfer facilities used by the contractors and requires that the facilities be located in San Francisco. It may be more cost-effective to have the processing and transfer facilities outside of San Francisco.
Prop. A requires City Hall to administer five separate contracts rather than one. City Hall could potentially have to monitor the performance of five separate companies, leading to an increase in city bureaucracy or overtime.
Vice chairman of communications
San Francisco Republican Party
Tower isn’t a party zone
It is not credible for Recreation and Park Department General Manager Phil Ginsburg to claim that money generated from privatizing neighborhood park clubhouses and exploiting historic icons such as Coit Tower funds basketball hoops and recreation.
Money generated from leases and rentals goes directly into the city general fund, and not an additional dime goes back to parks. Money saved from closed park facilities and fired recreation directors are what replace ragged hoops.
Rec and Park has done a dismal job of competing for its annual budget. Contrary to the mantra being fed to the public, once-commonplace recreation programs are now limited to only 25 of 220-plus sites. What is funded is public relations staff who feed misinformation to a public not getting what they pay for nor accounting for why services constantly diminish while costs escalate.
Coit Tower is delicate and cannot take the pounding of a party house, but rather needs kid-glove treatment as the icon it is. Yes on Prop. B.
Prop. B won’t hurt parks
In your “No on Prop. B” editorial (“Coit Tower initiative would hurt parks,” May 15) you state “Rec and Park is in a dire budget situation.” I feel the Recreation and Park Department has brought on such a situation through its own actions.
For example, General Manager Phil Ginsburg fully supported the new vendor for the Stow Lake concession knowing full well that his department was leaving significant rent revenue on the table. The selection process was a charade. Both bidders agreed to refurbish the boathouse and provide new boats. The lease term is 20 years, and the potential revenue loss is more than $1 million.
Don’t let the fox watch the hen house any longer. YES on B.
GG Park now a risky place
Golden Gate Park is one of the most magnificent man-made parks in the world. It was designed by a man of peace and vision; William Hall wanted a promenade for both humanity and his great love of wildlife.
In the 1960s, artists and the disenchanted youth of a turbulent era in our history were drawn to the Golden Gate Park and Haight-Ashbury scene to peacefully explore a new and different perspective.
How do I reconcile history with reality? My friend Robert Musial was brutally attacked and killed (“Suspect No. 2 held in slaying,” May 15) by a disgraceful group of homeless people who desecrate Hall’s vision; squatters who intimidate families with their filth and abrasiveness.
The people of San Francisco have allowed these soulless creatures to take over a treasured legacy. Shame on you.