Hi Debbie,
Let me join Marcy in welcoming your feedback, even though I was one of those who urged that we support Proposition H and oppose Proposition I. I'm not expecting you're going to agree with me, but I'll respond to some of your points below to share where I'm coming from...
The city isn't trying to transform currently "tranquil" spaces to recreational use, as the LP of San Francisco argues.
I think you have a point that we could have worded that argument better.
There's a myth that the Beach Chalet fields are somehow "pristine meadows" or a haven for wildlife.
I've never described them in such terms, but I do think that grass is a heck of a lot more nature-friendly than plastic turf is ever going to be. Not all wildlife comes in large, mammalian varieties. You might be surprised at the amount and variety of tiny critters that live in your lawn, or use it during their lifecycle. Worms, insects, slugs and snails, birds that feed on them. Perhaps small lizards and snakes. Even the much-maligned gopher. More larger critters might use the fields if they weren't fenced off, but that's a separate issue.
My kids played soccer for 13 years in San Francisco. The turf fields are vastly superior, at least in San Francisco. I invite anyone to visit Kimbell, the Crocker Amazon fields, and any other turf field. (I'm happy to give a tour.) See what thriving community centers they are.
I played soccer for 9 years myself, and greatly prefer natural grass. For sure it's not the wilderness, but being in the midst of living, growing things still feels different than being in a wholly man-made environment. I guess I'm not a sports purist. For me, playing was about having fun. I saw the imperfections -- gopher holes, slightly uneven surface, and what-not -- as making the game more interesting, not less. Games cancelled because of rain? In the league I was in we used to play in the rain, unless it was really coming down at the start of the game, and I recall those rainy matches as being among the most fun. Kids slipping and sliding and falling in the mud, the ball and your cleats too slippery to always connect with shots the way you normally would. It all made for an extra challenge, an added element of chaos and unpredictability and excitement. We'd come out of those games streaked with mud, our uniforms taking on the new color of brown, feeling like war heroes.
They are beautiful. They are in constant use. Kids can go on these fields without paying a penny.
Forgive me if I don't see a plastic lawn as beautiful! Kids can go on the fields without paying a penny now, just like you can walk across the Golden Gate Bridge without paying a penny now. They're trying to change that, and charge pedestrians and bicyclists a toll. In the future, people might use the excuse that "the government built it" (a plastic turf field) as a justification for government to charge for it, in a way they wouldn't be able to do as credibly in the case of a natural lawn.
What's more, turf fields save the city money. More than half of the installation cost is paid for by a private donor. There is very little maintenance of these fields, so over time they pay for themselves.
Do they? In that case, the proponents of Proposition I were foolish not to include a provision guaranteeing those savings would be given back to taxpayers. Such a provision might well have earned the measure LPSF support, or at least a neutral stance. But I am skeptical. Government officials, and supporters of their projects, frequently claim those projects are "investments" that will save money in the long run, even if they're asking us to pay more up front. And all too frequently, those supposed savings turn out to be based on unrealistic estimates and projections. Or any savings simply get eaten up by other priorities, like salary increases.
The LP has suggested the city is just trying to get more fees from teams and users. This is nonsense. The city charges just as much on a grass field. The only difference is that, without more turf fields, teams and players who desperately need places to play have to wait in line even longer because of the shortage. And ultimately the city could end up charging even more for fields, because, well ... supply and demand. The demand is huge. The supply is inadequate.
You dismiss the LPSF's suggestion that the city government might be aiming to get more money in fees as nonsense. But look at how many things they are nickel-and-diming park users for. This trend caused a recent controversy you may have heard about in the Mission, when some tech company folks paid a fee ($27 per hour if I recall) to reserve a local field that some neighborhood kids were playing on, which historically had always been first-come, first-play. They charge fees to reserve picnic tables in the parks. The Mime Troupe had to pay many thousands of dollars just to put on its traditional series of free public shows in SF parks (yes, I don't necessarily agree with all their politics either, but I do support free speech and free entertainment). They even keep trying to put parking meters in Golden Gate Park, although so far public outrage has stopped this greedy move.
Most important of all — the Beach Chalet project was already approved, many times over, after a very long, drawn-out process that included many, many hearings. (I spoke at some of them.) The last approval was unanimous. Thus opponents are trying to totally undermine a very open, transparent process — one that should have gone forward by now.
The last approval may have been unanimous by the government bureaucrats involved, but as the significant ongoing opposition shows, it was very far from unanimous in the community. If the city government or its departments are going to embark on new projects, shouldn't they focus on doing ones that enjoy widespread consensus and support, instead of trying to push through stuff that a large percentage of the public opposes, thus wasting everyone's time on all those hearings and all that process? A majority imposing its will via government on a minority may be the democratic process, but democracy isn't the be-all, end-all.
Anyway, I hope you found most of our ballot stances more to your liking, and can forgive this point of disagreement. Whether you're Libertarian (registered with the party) or just libertarian (philosophically for freedom), you're welcome to come by one of our meetings and say hello or stick around and get involved. Members of the public are welcome too if you're just curious and want to see what we talk about. We meet the 2nd Saturday each month at the San Francisco main library, usually in the 4th floor community meeting room unless it's booked, from 3-5pm, and those who feel like sticking around often go out to eat afterward and chat over dinner at nearby Ananda Fuara vegetarian restaurant.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
(415) 625-FREE