More on SF Ballot Arguments

Activists List
1

Hi All,

Startchild had brought up this subject on the Discuss List, and I noted that we need to balance the wishes of those who want to participate in outdoor night events and those who want pristine natural environments. So, two initiatives on the November ballot -- Park & Rec fake turf and 150 watt lights in the Chalet Fields, and no turf initiatives. This article on the SF Green Party website made me think twice about the proposed intense lights in that particular location. http://www.sfgreenparty.org/issues/63-fake-turf-wars-by-mike-murphy.

Yes, it would be good if all parks were privately owned, but they are not, so we need to deal with the facts we are facing today. BTW, am I being particularly paranoid, or the Rec & Park is buying up a lot more land than it used to?

Hopefully, by the next LPSF meeting we will have had a chance to read all the measures and can have an "official" recommendation vote. Marcy

2

Hi Marcy! Thanks for posting this. When my son was playing soccer several years ago, his team did in fact play some soccer games in this particular field. As a former soccer parent, the things I remember from those years were the terrible conditions of many of the city's parks--many holes (which posed safety hazards to the kids for potential sprains) and absent or sparse grass covering. The only thing I ever heard said negatively about the turf fields is that the kids could get (minor) burn marks if they skidded on the turf during play. Us soccer parents generally preferred the turf to regular grass because games didn't get rained out and the turf fields were in better shape, but in retrospect I think natural grass is better--if it's maintained properly. I'm not sure how I'll vote on this issue.

Thanks!
Aubrey