in anything, you need to have patience. see where it goes. a lot of special interest groups have things they want to get past and get done. people need to be able to speak. i am talking about everything. if we can somehow get together and write it out a little bit better and understand what is really going on, i think it would be more self-serving for the residents of the city of san francisco. thank you. >> i am a facility coordinator at joseph lee recreation center. i do not know a lot about this bill. i am learning a lot. i remember being here last year and the year before, sitting up

here fighting for jobs. the same bill you are proposing i think would eliminate jobs. where would the money come from? the first place to go is staff. it stuff will be cut, you have to get the money. i hear great ideas, but not any solutions. i think we need to put the bill back and looked at it again, like he said. i heard another young lady say we are double dipping. if we are double dipping, every city agency is double dipping. look at the water department. look at muni. i pay the water bill every month. but my kids have to go out and buy the water. we are all double dipping. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> i run off the grid in san francisco. i hope you reconsider the third party permiting for vendors and parks. off the grid was started a year ago. we employ 12 people. we work with over 50 mobile food restaurants that each employee anywhere from four to 10 people. we contribute over $60,000 to the parks department. we are a for-profit business. we are a new business. san francisco is about encouraging innovation and helping entrepreneurs work hard. thank you for your consideration. i have a permit. supervisor avalos: this is not about your permit being taken away. >> in the future for similar uses.

it would affect us if we were to do a food pot. -- pod. supervisor elsbernd: the intent is that permits do not apply, but dealing with does not reflect that. >> the ordinance states the department has spent millions of dollars to refurbish parks only to have them closed and leased to private entities. as someone who has tried to watch facilities be renovated, go to years of public meetings, and then have them unstaffed, there is a real source of frustration and anger. frustration and anger is not a good basis for proposing an ordinance. it is frustration and anger that led to things like proposition 13. it is also the basis of the tea party economics going on in washington.

there have been severe cuts to the park and recreation department. assuring in a policy of privatization of lands. you provide the appropriation, including the people who signed the ordinance. part tenrec gets their annual appropriation. in effect, -- parkin iraq -- park and iraq -- reckoned part gets their annual appropriation. they have expanded programs of modestly priced activities with scholarships for those who cannot afford it. i fail to see that is a basis of criticism. all recreation facilities shall not be released to private entities, but shall remain open and accessible to the public, yet there is no money to keep them open and accessible.

i tend to be wary of something, an ordinance that promises something for nothing. we have gone through really hard times. this is not an easy time to question the motives. i think this ordinance should be redrawn. thank you. >> jim lazarus, a former member of the recreation and park commission. i urge the supervisor and his colleagues -- you have an opportunity in the next few weeks to pull this measure from the ballot. this has unintended consequences we do not even understand at this hearing. the department, when i was a kid, you did not pay to go to the tea garden. the zoo was free. times changed. the board of supervisors 50 years ago was willing to fund

90% of the budget out of general fund revenues. but that era is gone. if you look at what we have tried to do as a city through numerous the ministrations and general managers is to fill that gap with generated revenues. think what would not have happened if this ordinance had been passed 50 years ago or 30 years ago, or 10 years ago -- a zoo admission? a coffee shop in union square? outside lands would not have happened if this had been past five years ago. that is a million dollars to the department. this will lock in mediocrity in this department, or it is going to result in an welcome cuts in general fund subsidies for other departments that i do not think you want to consider. i urge you to take this off the ballot. if we are serious about needing

an ordinance, let us have some hearings and go through the normal board of supervisors process. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> my name is lorraine bedford. i am here as a resident of district 11. i want to thank you for the hard work you have done for the community. i am a city employee on my own time. i am concerned about the unintended consequences of what might happen with this ordinance. i witnessed firsthand -- i live across the street from a recreation center -- the wonderful things that happened in terms of people and programming and usage in the last 18 months. it has been tremendous. a big part of it for me is seeing how the scholarship fund has really made a difference for the people in that neighborhood, and for people outside the neighborhood who come into use

the facility because of the changes that happened. i would really like you to reconsider the ordinance. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i on a business called in these hot dogs. -- called annie's hotdogs. the parks department has been wonderful to work with. because of the contract i have gotten, i have been able to hire 15 new employees and expand my business. we have a total of 26 employees. i work with my son. i think the people that run the parks do a really good job, and the general public, although they have all these concerns,

should not be involved in these decisions. that is my personal opinion. i think you hire people to do a job and they should be allowed to do their job. i have been in business in san francisco for 30 years. i started off at the port of san 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 watkins, tess welbourne, barry galvin, aki