there is nothing in the ordinance that says that any revenue, net income, if there is any, is going to be used for there is nothing that says that it will save any jobs. this leads to busting public employee unions. i looked at this chart for the tea garden revenue. if you look carefully, the first five years show a drop in income.

please rescind the fee. thank you. >> madame chair, my name is -- the fee has more from the sandstones botched the sand dunes now to a site specific revenue generator. these are all excuses to taking it as a comments. the garden will turn into sand dunes. when they cannot get a fee for all, -- told the rec and park

commission that we will start by charging non-residents. this was the starting point, not the ending point. remember the japanese tea garden that used to be free? now, less than 5% of all visitation is by residents. fees to access the comments are part of the privatization strategy under the cover of economic collapse caused by the corporations and the banks. the nonresident feed has excluded the visitors and 40% of

the visitors based on the study which recreation and park to not tell you about. i urge you to vote against the fee ordinance. the city fired regular workers in 2009 and hired six-figure managers. thank you. >> i am a 26-year resident of san francisco. i was talking -- i was working as a unionized machinists. i am here today to urge you know against the tax on working

people to go to the park. that is what this is. this comes in the context of hard budget times where something like that. let me show you how to solve the problem. during the eisenhower administration, the highest tax bracket was 91%. in 1966, off the average ceo was paid 60% as much. what we have seen is a general money for the rich and the general taking away of rich for them working people. -- for the working people. this continues the trend of

taking away money from working people and it comes in the context of yesterday's oral will vote to give $57 billion to $8 billion corporation, twitter. i would hope that the board next week votes against this feet and rescinds its vote on the $57 million giveaway. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i am here to encourage you to extend the fee.

>> thank you. >> it seems we have a pattern here of the supervisors' kowtowing to the partners in san francisco. you will hurt working people in california and in san francisco. you want to give tax subsidies to billionaires. you are really saying that you represent the billionaires. you want to pit the park workers, who need their jobs, against the public. they do not give a shit about the working people of san francisco. this is a sham deal in which

your budget analyst said that they put a false budget representation on the board about the money that they will get. they're not getting the money, they are lying. they are non union clerks taking the money. this is not union jobs that people are getting. what we have is supervisors with working people. what we have our supervisors to represent billionaires'. their agenda is to make this a private park.

you go to the park, we go to the park, it is and tea. it is and the. this is a sham going on here. -- this is empty. this is empty. >> please refrain from of loss. -- from applause. co>> i am opposed to the fee. the supervisors failed san franciscoslashyear in imposing a fee. they did not want it. so, they have been voting with their feet. nobody goes to the park any more.

on a day, you will see very few people there. san franciscans resent this fee. as a result. you have prime land that is run as a private feedstock. if you look at both -- if you look at the will, the park was supposed to be free if the city maintains it. if not, this was supposed to go to berkeley. we were promised hundreds of thousands of dollars.

the capital expenditures have not been included. there was all kinds of construction, buying kiosks, all of those costs were secretly funded by the society which is in a position to do so. >> thank you very much. >> i am a resident of the arboretum neighborhood for many years. i have shared my apartment with many people from foreign countries who come here on tv set. this is not include a resident proof of id.

the entry fee to the arboretum is their number 1 draw. this shows that they are only representing the wealthy that can afford the membership and they can only think of themselves as number one. the botanical society has a budget of $2 million a year. this is short only 150,000. where is the love there? this is feet that it has nothing to do with the arboretum, this is about corporations who pay no taxes and are the ones who want to ultimately privatize not just this park as their own private country club but every other social service. believe me, once they have got it all, they do not care anything about unions, jobs, children's programs. thank you. please take the fee away. >> thank you, next speaker.

>> last year, i was in the same chamber when we passed those fees. the board of supervisors approved the ordinance for the fees. there was stipulations in an ordinance that indicated that the board at that time was right the skeptical about these fees. first, they said that the fees would sunset and a year. second, they said that accounting must be made weekly and available to the board. third, they said that these were the sunset if they got more money from the general fund. on november 20th if, san francisco voters improved the vote which in crews -- the vote which has improved the rate.

i am angry. i went out on the streets and i helped bring proposition n in. i want you to live up to the promises that you made it to us last year. i note that two of the board members here today were not of their last year but the three of you were and you voted unanimously to approve a resolution that had a clause about money coming into the general fund. i want you to respect your promise of last year. i have one more short story to tell you. i was there in front of the ticket office. two people came up behind me, a young man and young women. they got married here and now they have to go pay to get in? we cannot afford to live in san francisco. they started crying.

>> thank you. i am a public employee. i am proud to have a union job. i'm a member of -- and i'm ashamed that tend to one has taken a stand in favor of this the because this is against the interest of the workers. many of our workers to not live in the city and they will be punished by this. i have family who lives outside of the city as well. as a librarian, i have a very strong sense of the public comments and the public good.

these are not meant to raise money, they are not meant to generate revenue. as someone said earlier, the penny wise and a pound foolish. the whole atmosphere of san francisco is against having this kind of fee imposed and the privatization of the commons. i used to work for the san francisco botanical gardens society. i was there until april of last year. they have cut the library, use education back to practically nothing. they're putting all of their funding into trying to institute the fee and maintain it. we know it makes no sense financially. they are happy to have access

restricted. they think that this is only for the few. they are unhappy about what was referred to as a mere comments which does not show that she understands what the idea of the public comments is. this is good for our physical and mental health, quality of life as a tourist destination and this is completely foolish to try and impose -- to think about penny pinching. the people who can appear running social service, the social services to ask you to keep the feet, they have been misled as many of the volunteers and docents and staff has been -- have been misled by the information that has been put out. they have already gotten for $1,000 from the fee. they are not eligible to be

looking after the comments. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, could afternoon. i have lived in the inner sunset for about 20 years now. i wanted to come out against these fees. i brought a packet and supervisor avalos was supposed to pass those out to you. here is a map, no one has talked about this. here is the parking lot in the back of the flowers.

people cannot go through these gates anymore. there is a children's hospital where they are suffering from cancer and they cannot go there anymore. there is another wall here where the garden was built. there is no longer any lease. othe sierra club is proposes

because the red light fraud would be endangered by having it at that location. -- the red-legged frog would be endangered by having it at that location. >> thank you. >> i live in district 10, i am a mother, a public school parent. a couple of quick points. if we are getting 59 cents on the dollar of our revenue, then perhaps we're not charging enough. i urge you to continue this fee. i did a quick check of similar sites around the country.

in scottsdale, arizona and costs $15. in atlanta, $18, brooklyn, $10, even in boise, idaho, they charge $5 to go to their botanical garden. that might be some way to get the percentage of the fee to profit is to charge what is being charged elsewhere. this is not discriminatory to charge people to go to a garden. we as san franciscans are already paying for it. of course, we should not have to pay twice. we are asked to pay twice all the time. my neighborhood association just had to pull a permit to use our neighborhood park for a free egg hunt later this month.

when i played basketball, they are charged $50 more than daly city residents. >> thank you for this opportunity. i am the director of marketing for the san francisco botanical society. i have been in this job a very short time. the marketing program is in its

initial stages. i am here to assure you of that because -- a 7 minute because of and the manzanita that we helped to preserve and saved from the presidio. we have had to the san francisco examiner, "the san francisco chronicle," and we have been featured on -- we will be featured in the ritz carlton. we have many other things in the running and we are increasing attendance. over 31,000 people have limit

paid to enter and enjoyed the botanical gardens since the fee and over 100,000 people have entered our gates free. this is our botanical garden and people are free to enjoy that. i am the creditor for the american association of museums. i credit the gardens across the country. >> thank you.

>> hello, supervisors. i am the labor union official local 261. i would like to speak in favor of continuation of the non resident fee. we can get impolite and route towards each other as we walked and while members of the good labor union are not really about half day about what is going on with extending the tax cuts to people that don't need them, we will always speak in favor of the revenue and parks department. we want you to know that we believe that the mayor is right. we need to stop the bleeding of one of the most important parts departments that we have. the recreation and parks department is the health department and we need to make sure that we generate that revenue. our coalition is a broad

coalition and i give credit where credit is due to the people that oppose the fee. they have done it everywhere. our coalition is san franciscan. this is ethnically diverse, this is workers, this is business, and this is community. we live here, we are the residents. we have been paying 5% three years ago, 5% in two years ago. if we don't come to you and encourage you to make difficult decisions to generate revenue, when it comes time to negotiate another 2% or 3%, we are negotiating that right now, then we will make every opportunity to generate revenue.

we have an excellent relationship with the general manager and with the business community and we will have an excellent relationship with you. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i may 5 generation resident of san francisco. two of my children used to go there every day for preschool. this is a special place. as a kid walking through, this is part of golden gate park. you should pay to see something like that you are forced to find revenue generating things.

thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i support supervisor avalos and eliminating the fee. mr. ginsberg has framed the issue are around need revenue for running the department. i believe that the board of supervisors should take him up on his -- about trade-offs. he has hired a new director on deputy affairs. probably needed to appease the people who are outraged by this fee. in addition to this brand new portion, there is another half time, $300,000 police commander. between these positions, there is now $250,000 that can be eliminated by the budget thereby supporting the gardners. i am not suggesting that we

don't take on the idea of having additional funding streams coming in through the property tax. i can put on this table $250,000 without this fee. this is very very disquieting to have to deal with this problem. also, supervisor kim asked what it does for rec and park. it pays for a police officer and a representative. it limits where we can go to experience the diversity of nature and golden gate park by requiring an identification and money. please and this fee and support the spending on the new transfer tax for gardeners. thank you. >> good afternoon. i have lived and worked in district 4 and i have an infant who is 3 months old.

i'm having very difficult time to get out to my work at 3:00, go home and get -- before 4:00. a couple of times, my wife and i arrived at 3:55 and they shut the door. they handed me a business card for nancy johnson. i called and left some messages regarding this incident. that is the first issue about the arborists. the second issue that we have is that we just don't understand when we will stop. first, we start to the fee for the japanese tea garden. then, we need to charge money for the san francisco. i have been in over 203 countries.