francisco. everybody at the port of san francisco was wonderful to work with. everybody i work with at the park is great to work with. they are very diligent about sign ainge and making sure you do things a certain way. i think this ordinance is not necessary at all, and i think it needs to be rewritten so you are not costly hand cupping the people doing their job there. that is it. >> dennis antonori. about 2.5 years ago, the department of parks and recreation embarked on a radical new policy. that radical policy was to create the rec and park department as an enterprise agency. those words were used by the director at that time.

the president of the commission said to us at a meeting that his job as the president of the commission was to find value in our parks and extract them. there was no mention of providing services to the public. it was to extract the value from our parks. in carrying out that policy, there was no discussion with the public, no involvement with the public. this ordinance gives us the opportunity to involve the public in this very critical decision. that is what it is all about. it is very simple. there has been a big smokescreen. there has been numerous red herring thrown out in order to try to confuse the public about this measure. it is much more simple than all of those allegations pretend. the big issue for all of us is how do we find the parks. that is the big question we

keep getting asked. the people of san francisco have repeatedly voted money for the parks. they have never turned down the park's bond. by 2/3 votes they have provided $170 million. they have extended the open space. if this policy continues within the department, there are so many angry people in the city that will no longer vote to support our parks. people are angry, saying we have done all we can to support our parks but are having them taken away, having access taken away. if you really want to fund the parks, adopt this ordinance and go to the people for support for our parks. if you do not, the people are no longer going to support the parks. supervisor avalos: thank you. i have a few more cards to read. jude lang, nancy wuerful, todd

david, michelle parker, elias moussa, julie christiansen. >> i am jude lang. i am not supporting this ballot measure. i agreed with many of the think the gentleman from the chamber said. also, i think it might discourage creative new activities to become part of our parks scene. these are tough economic times. i see these as being road blocks. i hope you will pull it off the ballot. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is julie christensen.

i have been volunteering for 16 years. i am on my fourth part project. i oppose this ordinance. i regret the way it was introduced and the way it will be implemented. i regret the fact that it makes the general manager out to be some sort of mad king sifting through doubloons as he closes clubhouses. it is important to remember how we got into the situation. past mayors and your predecessors have sy continued to drastically reduce the funding available for the recreation and parks department. 10, 12, 15, and 17% cuts year after year. sometimes that has been because of a lack of revenue. really, it has been because the mayor and supervisors have decided to take money that once went to the department and spend it elsewhere. i have also watched the cost of

renovating and building parks increased with the exception of a couple of dips. part of that is due to labor and materials. part of that is due to the fact that the supervisors have placed social change barriers that are admirable but cost money to the department. we look to you for a handout. instead, the department is getting a wrist slap. i think this process, which encourages people to pump their fists in the air and make demands of the department without offering any real solutions to the problem is, i am sorry to say, not progressive, but a little two- party -- tea party. i would like you to withdraw this ordinance and take another step getting to the root of the problem.

>> my name is todd david. i am here on behalf of the action community. a lot to talk about the opportunity for groups to work together to ford revenue for rec and park. i think there are a lot of natural allies who want to see more money and more services going to wreck and parks. this legislation feels more like an unfunded mandate than the goal of getting more money to reckon park to be providing more services to the citizens of san francisco. i think part of that was a result of the process being rushed. i think we have a real opportunity to move the ball forward.

i think this legislation needs to be removed and we thought, and brought back to a larger community-based where we can all look together. we need to provide more money from the general fund to provide more services to san francisco. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is michelle parker. i am president of the san francisco parent pac. i am here to oppose this proposal. you're probably familiar with the article in the chronicle about families fleeing the city. i think it is critical that we offer services. our park department has had to come up with creative solutions, but we need to make sure we are serving families in

this city. there can be a bigger discussion about what that looks like. by taking this back to shareholders, we can come up with something better. i think the language is very vague. this green sheet that has been passed out today -- i have questions myself about -- i do not think the language in the ballot measure is specific about that. there are a lot of ways we can make it better and stronger and serve the interest of a lot of different constituents. before i heard about this proposal, i have had so many parents come up to me in the last few weeks, talking about the amazing things this department is doing for the family -- the access, the low costs of camps. i would like to see that continue and for us to work on that. thank you.

supervisor avalos: if there are people in the overflow room who want to give public comment on this item, please come in with your cards. thank you. >> good afternoon. and the wife of the founder and owner of [unintelligible] we offer a healthy, unique japanese food. it is an expression of our culture of japan. it is also unique and healthy, which beats the culinary demand in the diversity of san francisco. we are first-time business operators. we operate at justin harmon plaza every day and off the grid at two locations. we truly appreciate the park department and city of san francisco for giving us this opportunity to be able to do business in city parks. we are a small business that

supports our family. this would prohibit us from expanding in city parks or moving from our current locations, adjusting from one plaza, which is my understanding, since this measure will prevent food vendors from operating anywhere other than the current locations. if my understanding is incorrect, i apologize. but the way it was written was a little bit vague. this would also mean lost revenue not only for us, our family, but also lost revenue for the park department. this is critical and is going to be damaging to overall business if we are unable to expand or change locations. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. >> i am from a neighborhood council, speaking in support of

the measure. that is not saying i believe the way in which the rec and park system is funded is great. there is a fundamental and basic problem with a public-private partnership based around parks. the nature of that public- private partnership is that the public pays and the partners profit. there is something fundamentally wrong about that. the difficulty is revenue generated in the parks do not stay in the parks. people seem to have forgotten that fact. there is no charge for protection, no nothing for revenues in the park going anywhere but the general fund. that is the reality. yet bond measures that are passed for recon park facilities only go for recon park

facilities -- for parkin breakfast selectees. -- for rec and park facilities. there is no guarantee it gets transferred into public use. we now have the parade of terrible that presented itself to you today in which concessionaires and private folks earning public profits continue that, while undermining broad public financing of those facilities. it starts and ends with the public. that is why this measure needs to be passed. it gives the public the guarantee that parks will remain free. then we all roll up our sleeves. all of our bosses, the people of the city and county of san francisco, have spoken. we will figure out how to pay

for it. but first comes the mandate. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. >> i am nancy wuerful. i think the supervisors for their courage in fighting privatization in our public parks. i support this privatization and control measure. each year, the controller's office schedules fines and service charges from each department that has such charges, as well as the revenue they generate. here is the master fee schedule for the city and county of san francisco. nothing on this fee schedule is affected by the bell at schedule. -- ballot schedule. there is nothing to do with leases. it is these leases that the

ballot measure seeks to address, not the permits in the schedule. the march of urbanization -- of privatization in once public places cannot continue. the public pays for upkeep while the benefit goes to a few entities. let the voters decide. right now before the supervisors, you are going to see a budget that has a $1 million increase in subsidies for the rec and park department. $127 million is what they had last year. i do not want to hear anything more about these layoffs. it is not true. the intent of this is to tell you we do not like the direction that philip ginsberg is taking this department. that is why we are up behind this measure. we want you to tell everyone.

>> thank you, supervisors, for sponsoring this measure. i am a long-term resident of the city. a previous speaker mentioned shareholders. wait a minute. we paid for those parks. we, the residents, for 150 years, have been supporting these things. now rec and park is allowing a few small corporations and small businesses to privatize them. even if it is a non-profit, if they are charging twice what it is charging before, that is a cost to the citizens of san francisco. this is a measure to stop the creeping privatisation of our parks. they belong to the people. this is not a stockholder situation. ginsberg hired 10 new staff

people making $100,000 each that are selling our parks. how many rec and park directors could be retained if he had used that money differently? this is an emergency. we need to start stopping the selling of our public land and our public services. we can have lots of creative programs. we can have lots of permits and fees. but let us keep san francisco for san franciscans. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. nice to see all of you today. i do not like this bill either. the vagaries of the wording is not done well. one of the problems we have when we look at this is we do not know where the funding you're going to cut out is going to come from. we basically look at it and say where are you going to get money. people are saying general fund.

but isn't it every year you guys are talking about 10% general fund cuts from every department made year? where is that going to come from? parks should be free, but we cannot afford that in this economy. it just does not work, unfortunately. please do not pass this bill. thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please come forward. >> i represent parkwide bike rental. we oppose this measure. bike rentals are an amenity to city parks, adding value to locals and visitors. this ordinance would block any future growth for us. our programs will initially create a minimum of 20 jobs for san francisco residents, as well as generate city funding through our rent payments,

approximately $127,000. although we agree that with the sentiment, we believe this measure will unnecessarily punish advocates of the park. supervisor avalos: next speaker. >> i come to you as a san francisco resident opposed to this measure. i feel rec and park and their leader are to be commended for how well they have been able to run this department in the face of/revenues. in that respect, i would say they are forced to find other sources of revenue. these strategic partnerships are perhaps a creative way, but yet

another revenue source. this measure does feel like it will stifle that and stop it. somebody mentioned earlier that had this happened 20 years ago, where would we be. we probably would be looking at a lot of closed parks and closed programs, programs that are vital to this public, adults and children alike. i will admit to being perhaps a little naive to the process. but it seems confusing to have budgets continually slashed. i think mr. of a los -- avalos is saying this money could come from the general fund. why/it in the first place if it is going to be put -- why slash it in the first place if it is

going to be put back? something has to be done in the form of other sources of revenue. i am an optimist. perhaps these tax streams will increase as the economy increases and things get better, and one by one that money could come back, but i am opposed. supervisor avalos: robert watkins, tess welbourne, barry galvin, aki konetmatzu, tim colon, anna king claus. please come forward.

>> my name is robert baker well -- bakewell. i support increasing volunteer efforts, philanthropic input, public-private investment, and public funding for our parks and recreation facilities. during 15 years of volunteer efforts to restore and stored this section of golden gate park, decrease revenue has resulted in devastating loss of gardeners for maintenance of infrastructure. we are increasing deployment of volunteers and philanthropic info. given the current budget woes, mr. ginsberg's efforts to do more with less and bring in more investment are to be congratulated.

i cannot support this measure while it is unclear how this would impact growing revenue for our part and recreational facilities. thank you. >> 10 -- tim colon. i wanted to express my deep disappointment of this measure. it has the simplicity of the republican position. no taxes, and no revenue. it is off the table and cannot be discussed. in the face of what we are looking at now -- many of you know the budget realities more than we do. you are looking at a devastating budget climate for years. this measure is counterproductive. if it was turning away people from parks -- j. p. murphy is the club house close to us that has been closed, that we do not

have the use of now. there is a terrific child care center in our neighborhood that would be a terrific win for the city. this is so counterproductive when there are ways to try to keep facilities open. the alternative to this is more devastation, less recreation. i get there is a long tradition of using ballot initiatives to turn out voters at election. there are no hard feelings on that. but i wish this was not such a toxic initiative to the quality of life and people that depend on parks and recreation. >> i have worked for many years to support parks and recreation.

i have a child in the city and use these facilities virtually every day. i believe this ballot measure is a disaster. the department always is first on the chopping block when budget cuts are made. for years, we have had to maintain our system with insufficient resources. but there is a demand they somehow continue to conjure up public funds to keep our parks beautifully maintained, our centers open, and our programs viable. those things require money. in the meantime, recreation centers are closed and vacant. there are too few gardeners to care for our parks. directors have been let go. the ability to partner to provide activities and programing in our public spaces is vital to maintaining the baseline of what we have now. who wants to see more and the

wreck centers? the choice is this or nothing. where does that money come from? if this had offered solutions the rest of us have not thought of before, great. obviously, we all want to find a solution that is going to sustain our park system. without private money, that would be fabulous. but i do not hear you coming up with alternatives are solutions that would make seeking out private dollars affordable. this is a disaster. i hope he will pull it off the ballot. it is counterproductive. it is counterproductive to our fragile parks system. i urge you to pull it from the ballot. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i am the executive director of san francisco p.a.l.

i am also the parent of two young teens. we have been actively using the parks for the entire time we have been living in the city. i encourage you to reconsider this measure. i understand your intent. we want to make sure our children have access to the park and help the activities. we serve 5000 kids through 800 volunteers. our biggest expansion areas have been in omi and>> we have workey with park and ride over the past couple of years and i want to emphasize the focus of the staff that has really been on providing more and more access to children for healthy activities. again, i applaud what your intention is.

what the unintended consequence will be is that you will be limiting opportunities for kids. let's reconsider this in and do this correctly to make sure that we are providing more opportunity and not limiting revenue when we certainly need more services for all of our children, especially those in the disenfranchised communities. and >> if anyone else would like to speak, approached the microphone. -- >> if anyone else would like to speak, approach the microphone. [reading names] >> i am here today over a couple of issues that concern me. you have heard it time and again, we have been cut $33 million. if this measure had a replacement for that, i would be

enthusiastically supporting it. i don't think anybody wants to close facilities or not have department employees providing services to san franciscans. the reality is that we don't have those revenues. to further strain us without putting something in place presence theological problem that i can't get past. one of the things i hear as i go out to the community meetings is that in the process of using these clubhouses to other community serving facilities, neighborhood people feel that they don't have the access for community meetings. i have said this publicly at the last committee meeting that we had. even though it takes longer, no one size fits all over a policy. i want them to be in dialogue

about how to incorporate those facilities being used for the community. they have an ability to get in in a timely fashion. that isn't going to work for everybody or every time, but we hear that message. finally, wearing my hat as the share of the america's cup organizing committee, this legislation would affect the 2012 use of the marine and greenhill has as the principal venue for the event authority. i have not had the opportunity because this was not vetted publicly -- [chime] but what i have seen, i think the wording represents a problem. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. >>