SF Politics and SF LifePosted by sasha at 18 Feb 2006 08:22 pm
Bernal Park work starts this week
According to the Bernal Heights Park Association, work on Bernal Park starts this Tuesday. They advise their supporters to
join us on Tuesday at 10AM when we sit down to watch the construction, or join us at noon at city hall. We are going for media coverage at this point - the more the merrier. Later we will write about Tuesday. Save the date and if you can….take some time off of work. It is the show-down.Our post about the Bernal Park controversy was our most-read and most-commented on in a long time. I was amused to see that despite the often-heated nature of the debate, both the pro- and anti-gate moving forces were able to agree on one thing: that I am an idiot for suggesting it wasn’t a big deal. Fair enough. We’ll see what happens Tuesday.
February 19th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I’ve been the District 9 representative to the Open Space Committee since 2000.
The community has worked togther in harmony for five years to see the entrances to Bernal Hill Park improved. Nine community meetings were held, six by a neighborhood group and three by Rec and Park. Rec and Park sent out 802 surveys and received 160 responses. 130 people participated in the final three community meetings. Many compromises were made, and in the end the community unanimously supported the plan. The plan was approved by the Rec and Park Commission and by the Board of Supervisors. Phase I on the north side is complete and loved by all. Construction for Phase II is about to begin. Since the current project came under attack in the last few weeks, many in the community have risen up and spoken out to defend it.
The Bernal Heights Park Association wants the parking area in the park expanded from the presently approved plan. There is a planning process that parking advocates can go through. A new parking lot/area can be funded as a new captial improvement, if that is what the community really wants. Before that can happen, there needs to be a public process and public hearings. Rec and Park has explain to everyone that the current project cannot be changed without a public process.
What we need to do now is work as a community to address the concerns that people have about parking, safety and access through a positive and productive dialouge on the issues, in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Jeanne Darrah
285 5957
February 19th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
You don’t have to wait until tuesday to continue your idiot status. It is not about the gate. I guess anyone with a connection is a journalist.
February 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Bernal Heights Park Association believes that parks are for people. Removing all but one handicapped parking space means that in a park that currently receives about 1000 visitors a day, there will be 4 parking spots (3 north and 1 south). All additional parking will be in the neighborhood. We cannot possibly handle 100’s of additional cars. BHPA believes that this plan is intended to privatize the park, by removing access to those who do not have the luxury of being able to walk - either through circumstance, disability or age. We do not want to build a “parking lot” as plan proponents have argued, we want to keep the parking we have.
1052 people (and counting) have signed a petition to stop the plan; nearly every signature is the result of a comprehensive community education and outreach effort.
The north entrance has no houses and never had more than 3 parking spaces. Clearly, the plan was never vetted with the community. By any standards, this was not a successful process. We have been fighting this since the end of August. Maybe you have not been listening.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Jeanne Darrah is at it again - distorting history to justify about the most stupid plan to be proposed in San Francisco in a long time.
She acts like the 9 meetings were about the South Entrance Gate - they were not. Only 3 meetings were noticed as meetings to discuss park beautification at the South Entrance. The 120 people she refers to? 80 at the first meeting; 34 at the 2nd meeting; only 12 at the 3rd meeting in 2002. And when was the decision made to move the gate and eliminate safe public access to Bernal Heights Park - at the 3rd meeting when only 12 people were present.
The source of this information: Jeanne Darrah at the 1/25/06 Bernal Heights Park Association meeting at the Library.
Her interest in safety? I don’t know about that - but she is surely not interested in our safety at the South Entrance to Bernal Heights Park - or she wouldn’t want to eliminate our only safe, level public parking.
Why is it that the 12 proponents of removing the safe public parking heard about the 2002 meeting where the decision was made and the 1100 people who have signed the petition to protest Jeanne’s plan did not hear about the meeting?
Why is Jeanne’s and the other 11 supporters’ only argument for going ahead with their ill-conceived plan because it’s a “done deal.” Whose deal, and why do they continue to want it?
Keith Kawamura of the Wreck/Parks Dept. said it was because the only people he notified for the 3rd 2002 meeting were the people who came to the previous meeting. So lack of public notice was piled on lack of public notice until there were only 12 people left at the third meeting who wanted to get rid of safe public access by eliminating the public parking.
Jeanne is aware that the Wreck/Park meetings violated San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance. She has received copies of the faulty notice from Wreck/Parks. If the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force had any enforcement powers, the decision made at her improperly noticed meetings would be voided and we could start a fair and open community planning process with legal public notice.
Why has our elected representative Supervisor Tom Ammiano yielded his authority to Jeanne? It doesn’t make sense to us except that she wants to turn Bernal Heights Park into an exclusive reserve for people who live close enough (and who are able-bodied enough) to walk to the park.
I think she wants to make Bernal Heights into Pacific Heights.
Why does Ammiano want Jeanne to succeed him as our District 9 supervisor? Her version of public service seems to be aimed at a very narrow range of the community.
Ammiano appointed Jeanne to the Open Space Advisory Committee, which was responsible for allocating funds from the $100 million open space bond issue passed by SF voters in abgout 2001. One million dollars of that money was allocated to Bernal Heights Park.
$150,000 of the $1M went for design fees for Wreck/Parks and DPW (to draw benches and boulders…).
About $500,000 went to fix up the lower part of the park - build the new stone gate, build the stone benches, replace steel rails with big boulders. OK, beautification is nice, but what about also dealing with some of the serious problems with the park - which is why voters approved the bond issue. How was the remaining $350,000 left for the south side of the park used?
How did Jeanne Darrah recommend spending the rest of the money at the South Entrance of Bernal Heights Park? Did she want to deal with erosion, bare dirt washing down the hill, deteriorated site drainage, parking area and curbs covered with dirt, pot holes?
No, she wanted to demolish a perfectly good steel gate and build a new steel gate in a stone wall 140 east. the reason? to add a strip of aspalt to the park. This strip of asphalt now provides 15 or more parking spaces for the public which will be lost after the new gate is built. The total budget for this phase of park improvements is $255,000. Of this, we estimate that tearing down the existing, perfectly good steel gate costs at least $10,000, and building the new steel gate and rock wall will cost upwards of $60,000. Given all the maintenance the park needs, is this a good use of the money?
We think it’s a terrible use of scarce funds. The bond money was never meant to restrict public access to public parks in favor of creating a private preserve for people close enough to walk to the park.
Jeanne Darrah’s priorities are different from the values of most people who use or live near the park - and the Bernal Heights Park Association has 1100 signatures opposing her values.
It’s time that Ammiano woke up and gave us a more sympathetic representative to the Open Space Advisory Committee, who tells history like it happened and respects the traditional values of Bernal Hill which welcome all park users.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:32 am
Anybody seen Tom lately?