Vote Yes on Proposition I tomorrow

95 Comments

1. Sorry, WRONG. Yes on H, NO on I. NO stadium lighting until 10pm, polluting our beautiful night skies. NO destroying the habitat of our local wildlife. NO in “renovating” a part of the park that is supposed to be preserved in its natural state *per the Park’s Master Plan*. Let’s upgrade the soccer fields, sure – using natural, safe alternatives. NOT artificial turf. Let the kids play… safely.

   From the Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/protect-the-park-yes-on-h/Content?oid=2911002

2. Robin:

   respectfully, we live in a densely populated city. if you want to avoid the lights in the night sky, move up to the mtns somewhere. the local habitat has already been destroyed: are you trying to preserve the habitat of rats, raccoons, and drug addicts?

   if this is being built using field turf, what’s the safety issue? i don’t anticipate them using the 1960’s style “green carpet on concrete” astroturf.

3. Yes, it’s sad but true that the fields are in the same condition they were 25 years ago. That’s why those of us who support YES on H and NO on I are urging the City to renovate these fields with natural grass with good drainage, gopher protection, and a part-time gardener to maintain them. If these things were done, the fields would be great and kids would have a safe and healthy place to play soccer.

   We’re talking about Golden Gate Park, the City’s urban oasis, a place to go to get away from the built environment we live and work in every day. I do not understand why anyone would support the destruction of over 7 acres of green growing grass and the chopping down of over 50 trees to build an artificial turf sports complex with 150,000 watts of bright lights shining until 10 pm every night, disrupting the ecosystem and polluting the dark sky.

   The proposed project at the Beach Chalet will not provide significantly more playtime for kids. It will ruin a beautiful ten acre grassy area of Golden Gate Park, pose a health risk to our kids and a significant environmental hazard to everyone, cost more money than natural fields, and also give the City the power to approve other misguided or unpopular projects in the City without voter input. San Francisco is supposed to be the most evironmentally friendly city in the country. No plastic bottles for sale in our parks, no plastic bags in our stores. And over 7 acres of plastic grass and toxic rubber tires in Golden Gate Park? It makes no sense, and must be voted down. Kids need safe, healthy, natural playfields, especially in Golden Gate Park.

   Please, let’s not pave paradise and up a parking lot.

4. Yes on H, No on “I”
   “The value of a park consists of its being a Park and not a catch-all for almost anything which misguided people may wish up”
   – William Hammond Hall, First Golden Gate Park Superintendent, 1873

   “H” is a rational response to a bad plan that improves the existing soccer fields and limits negative impact on our dwindling open spaces.

   “I” is wrong on many levels:
   – Contains a poison pill measure that limits civic involvement and placing more power with the Recreation and Park Department.
   – “I” goes against the master plan of Golden Gate Park regarding where development should be located. The Park is already getting commodified to an unhealthy degree.
   – Kid’s will be taken out of their neighborhoods to come across the city on order to use the fields. I doubt many will be taking buses to the field. Support local soccer fields.
   – Introduces artificial turf – in a park. The turf replacement is estimated to cost of $2 million every 8 years. Have you been down to the beach lately? It’s not like that sand is going to stay neatly on the beach. 8 years of use sounds optimistic.
   – Artificial turf is dangerous. It’s possibly cancerous and, as a former player, I can say that it increases injuries and negatively changes how the game is played. Players from the U.S. Women’s National Team feel the same way.
   – The impact of the lighting has been misrepresented – bright stadium lights will blight our Ocean views.

5. Colin: Yes, I’m trying to preserve the habitat of racoons, rats… and the other thousands of species of birds and animals that live in our park. We can renovate the fields using a safer alternative and without lights that will eliminate our relative darkness and peace in this part of the city.

6. ABSOLUTELY NOT!

   YES ON H
   NO ON I

   it is becoming increaingly apparent that the tie tire crumb used on artificial turf is TOXIC.

   I don’t want to breathing that in. Do you?

   The artificial turf covering for the Beach Chalet Athletic Field was pushed through by someone’s Big Money.

   SFRPD is selling our western end of the park to the highest bidder – Another Planet Entertainment, numerous foot races, and now all the money they will make selling permits to adult soccer teams.

   Let Kids Play is such BS, it’s all about money, bad for the environment, the aquifer beneath the soccer fields, bad for our community.

7. I support Prop I. The fact is, nothing is natural in Golden Gate Park. If you want natural, then you better ship in a lot of sand to recreate the dunes.
   It will cost more in the long run to maintain those fields. With the drought issues we have now and will likely continue to have, the amount of water to maintain those fields with grass will be great. Additionally, that part of the park is pretty well lit due to lighting on the Great Highway and Fulton, so stadium lighting until 10 PM is not going to affect the skyline all that much.
   When I lived in Austin, we went through these same issues with the soccer fields in Zilker Park. I watched my little brother almost break his ankle during many games. These fields are now mostly used for ACL and the kite festival.

8. Here is a link to my column in the Examiner today:
   http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/protect-the-park-yes-on-h/Content?oid=2911002

   Yes on H, No on I. Yes on E and G.

9. I also want to add that the SF Parks Alliance included a very misleading excerpt from the Special Area Plans section of the Golden Gate Park Master Plan in that organizations argument against H and for I. Here is the excerpt: “The western edge of Golden Gate Park has lacked activity centers to draw people to use it. With the exception of the Queen Wilhelmina Garden and the soccer fields, most of the west
   end is little visited and is not an inviting area. Undesirable uses such as camping and sexual activity have filled the void, aided by dense growing shrubs. The goal of this area plan is to increase legitimate activities and transform this part of the park.”

   Tellingly, the SF Parks Alliance left out what follows: “Rehabilitation activities will include the following:”

   And then a list of sites targeted for improvements follows. The soccer fields are not on that list — except for one mention about improving the connection between the Beach Chalet itself to the fields.

   Here is the link (look under Special Area Plans):
   http://sfrecpark.org/about/publications/golden-gate-park-master-plan/

10. This endorsement is unsettling for a blog that purports to report. I wonder was any influence brought to bear, or perhaps personal conflicts that merit disclosure to your readership?

11. @George – Sorry you find it unsettling, but the introduction to the post explains my reasons for endorsing Proposition I. Don’t read more into it or try to imply there is a conspiracy at play with undue influence. This is a blog, not a newspaper, and my personal opinions come into play on occasion as is my perogative.

    Sarah B.

12. Maybe an even-handed discussion would have been more appropriate for this post. If your argument is valid it would hold up to a counter-argument by someone who is against the proposal. Just a suggestion so we can all enjoy this blog and you can still give your opinion.

13. I respect Sarah B.’s right to post anything she wants on this blog (and I think it’s a great blog !) but I just wanted to respectfully disagree with the recommendation (and am with the Yes on H, No on I folks for many of the reasons already articulately stated). And I thought that some of the arguments saying that since we’ve already trashed everything in the city, if you want to live in a pristine environment go somewhere else, are a little on the one dimensional side. Sure, we’ve all got different views on what constitutes “nature” and probably all of them lean towards being naive but it seems that there are, nonetheless, better and worse ways to develop the places we live. E.g. it’s now generally acknowledged that our view of the US as a pristine wilderness before the arrival of Europeans is pretty silly; the US was fairly extensively cultivated by Native Americans by then. And most agree that that cultivation was usually pretty beneficial to most of the species that were around (certainly not always). I’d argue that many of the Yes on H, No on I folks are arguing for something like that, not against any development in the city. E.g. it seems to me (perhaps naively – city politics can be pretty bizarre) that a lot of the issues Sarah B. mentioned could be addressed in less impactful ways than are laid out in Prop. I.

14. Fair enough Sara.

    I did read the qualifiers at the beginning of your post, but I have every right to ask for you to explicitly address the influence question. And I appreciate your response! Consider me better informed as to the distinction between journalism and blogging, and I take you on your word that you are not acting beyond your own personal political persuasions…

    I do have to say that some of the tactics and lines of argument employed by the proponents of Prop I seem disingenuous at best. Please accept the fact that as a member of the less well-financed opposition to Prop I, we might be a bit paranoid about official campaign resources masquerading as “grassroots” voices. There’s certainly a long history of such shenanigans in the city, beyond this particular issue..

    Even taking your description of blogging into account, there are real tradeoffs in every editorial decision you make. So while I fully agree with your problem statement above, I really question whether Prop I represents the only choice to address it. That’s why your endorsement does color my view of your blog and your perspective. And so I will be seeking new sources of information on my neighborhood, ones that I feel better reflect the community of which I want to be a part.

    In other words: you may be losing more readers than you are gaining votes.

    I say that because its become such controversial topic that a lot of people’s views are already entrenched. Now I love soccer but I feel embarrassed for the sport in this fight, because I can’t believe it is the subject of such an unnecessarily nasty and partisan dispute. After all, it is indeed “only a game” in the end, yet no one promoting the proposed turf and lights project nor the backers of Prop I seem to adopt this most fundamental humility of sport!

    This political fight has devolved into bitterness, pitting neighbor against neighbor over a playing field- to me its a pretty clear sign that the Prop I is a political failure before the vote is even counted. Their strategy has been extremely divisive, and the proposed project asks the local community to make extraordinary sacrifices that would not be necessary if e.g. new playing space were built under a freeway or on a rooftop somewhere. It’s almost as if the way the project and ballot campaign have been designed, that Prop I’s backers wanted to really make this into a big fight more than building consensus behind new playing fields. Is it not true that such consensus would be easily reached with a more reasonable proposal!

    Maybe you guys have just gone too far out on this limb to admit its a bad plan and try to work with your opponents to forge a more equitable compromise. Consider that I actually love soccer, but I think the Prop I camp has given the sport a black eye in this town. And it really didn’t have to be this way. The soccer advocates could have played their cards so much better if they just wanted more playing time. Now they just seem locked into a political fight that has gone way beyond the actual problem they claim to want to solve. And that is hurting our community. There are a lot of people like me who would be with you (or at least neutral) if the project and proposal were simply less problematic.

    Otherwise expect a long, drawn-out fight from us, and expect it beyond the vote. And even if you really do just care about soccer as I do, I’d say that’s a shame.

15. Correction for the record – the EIR states that the turf should last 10 years minimum before needing to be replaced, not 8 as I stated earlier.

16. Already voted by mail.

    Am more concerned about the proposal to turn golf courses (sfgate opinion) into low income housing and whether that idea will gain traction.

    SF is already overpopulated and does not have basic infrastructure and open space to serve the existing population. I don’t recall the area described in Props H&I to have been soccer fields when I was young as the sport was almost entirely unknown in the US until Pele and Brazil won the World Cup. Nothing is “always” in SF.

17. I think everyone should respect the Richmond BLOG as it is a BLOG. Sarah B. has done an amazing job keeping us all updated on community happenings. All community happenings, ALL local restaurant changes and openings, all interesting news. Sarah B. clearly loves and cares about this neighborhood. THANK YOU SARAH B.

    This is NOT a newspaper, it is not free press although everyone has been invited to share their view as long as they remain civil.

    This topic clearly has strong views on both sides. And this has been an opportunity to share your opinion. That is a great thing, we all have an opinion. This has been a great way to hear what your neighbors think.

    As a user of Golden Gate Park, I believe that it should be USED, not just look pretty. This field will let more people enjoy it, and the lights will deter crime. Grass is not realistic in my opinion for reasons listed before, uneven ground, holes from prairie dogs, and water usage for upkeep. I think the skunks have many other places to hide in the park. I also don’t think you get to comment if you have never played soccer on these terrible fields.

    There used to be Playland very close to this area, not natural and rides made of plastic. Many, many people enjoyed this area back then, I think this will be a great improvement and allow people to enjoy the west side of SF. Fire away people.

18. Yes thanks Sarah B. for all your work for the neighborhood we love and seek to improve.

    Richondgirl – You are correct – Playland was not situated in Golden Gate Park and closed, primarily, due to increased crime (debatable to be sure).

    I am also a user of Golden Gate Park. The park was created to ensure that the citizens of San Francisco had access to a natural setting (yes, it is a man-made park), and that the park be an alternative to the hectic city that was San Francisco in 1873. This was reiterated in the GG Park master plan in 1998. The west side was intentionally underdeveloped to encourage hiking and contemplation (Golden). Activities and development was intended to be on the east side of the park to reduce this sort of friction.

    Lights do not deter crime (see KQED’s special this morning for example). http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201411031000

    The soccer fields are primarily pay-to-play fields with some open times for the public. (http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2014/10/28/anti-prop-h-campaign-literature-eerily-anticipates-the-mission-playground-flap).

    I do get to comment although I have never played on these fields. The fields target only about 5-10% of San Franciscans depending on which surveys you read.

    Prarie dogs? Do you mean gophers?

19. I did mean gophers, thanks for the correction Eric.

    I didn’t say Playland was in GG Park, but it was close. Perhaps if it had been kept up and not become run down (like the fields and the restrooms out at the soccer fields) Playland wouldn’t have been closed down for crime.. but who really knows?

    There are plenty of places to hike and contemplate in the park, Stow Lake (which is truly un-natural and toxic) and at Ocean Beach and Lands End. The soccer fields were never a place to contemplate or hike, I believe since the 80’s? they are decidedly for soccer. So they can be dangerous and hard to use, or they can be useable. And 5-10% of SF residents can use them or nobody can.

    I also can’t see in that article where it proves light does not deter crime?

    I won’t be able to respond to this comment thread, as I have to go to work in Golden Gate park, thanks to the lighting that lets me use the park after dark safely, many people will be able to exercise after work.

20. Nope.

21. Richmond Girl – No one is saying the soccer fields shouldn’t be usable. Nothing wrong with having soccer fields. But stadium lighting, which will brighten the relatively dark skies on this side of this city until 10pm most nights of the week, and artificial turf that is potentially harmful to players and definitely harmful to the ecosystems that are there (regardless of whether the park is “man made”, the plants and animals therein are living things) aren’t necessary to upgrade the fields.

22. I think we may be preaching to the same choir – H supports natural grass and no lights which is my immediate goal. In the longer term I would move these high-use activities to the east side of the park as the park was designed. I’m not happy with the increased development and commodification of our gem of a park.

23. I disagree with you on this issue, but I absolutely appreciate and support your right to use your blog to support your causes. Thanks for everything you do in and for the neighborhood, Sarah.

24. I’m always a little dismayed and surprised, that people can look at a rendering of a proposed space that is clean, bright, and full of amenities the current space lacks, and think “no way I don’t want that” That’s why this city is full of boarded up useless buildings, underused and under served public spaces, homeless living in all of the parks that provide them privacy. Everything west of 43rd Ave is a big, messy waste. Who’s hiking there? I’m even afraid to walk my dogs, in broad daylight, west of the bison pens because of all the rustling/murmuring in the bushes. My youngest is in college now but I can assure you that every soccer playing family in this city is driving all over town to play at fields near and far. At least they have provided parking for these, ask the families living around South Sunset field how they feel about parking and soccer in their neighborhood on Saturdays. This would be a real boon to families in SF (an under served resource, so I hear) and I agree that grass is not something we should be encouraging anyone to plant at this point in time. As a born and raised San Franciscan i say give back some of the park, that’s already set aside for this specific use, to families and sports lovers of all ages, to use safely and all year around.

25. Where is it said that we should all bow down to soccer. San Franciscans want lots of recreational opportunities – bird watching, sketching, photography. Stadium lights are for adult play not for children. Why should our park be sacrificed to more and more organized sports.

    Perhaps the rustling in the underbrush is coyotes or other critters.

26. The majority of sentiments here reflect your basic NIMBY sentiments…we don’t want anything to disturb our precious backyards/neighborhoods or alter ‘things as they are.’

    But listen, who in their right minds would be caught dead walking out near those soccer fields after dark? So, none of us who are nestled comfortably in our Richmond Districts homes after 9p will ever be remotely inconvenienced if some folks are driving their kids out there to play soccer under the lights.

    Secondly, there is no scientific proof that artificial turf is a health hazard, so that argument is really weak. A more rational approach would be to consider the upside of saving water. H-e-l-l-o! In fact, I’d like us to put forward a measure to turn EVERY Bay Area golf course into artificial turf. And while we’re at it, let’s scrap that pointless high-speed rail to nowhere plan for desalination plants along the CA coast. Water folks, you can’t live without it! (Rail! — that horse has already left the barn.) But I digress…..

    So, while I, like so many of the posters here, also treasure the wildness of GG park and Ocean Beach, in the final analysis, I just can’t see how this artificial turf ban will serve any of us. It will bring more families into our hood, potentially increasing more revenue for the many mom ‘n pop businesses that line Balboa and Cabrillo, and, by 10pm, it will be lights out. No harm, no foul.

    The more that urban centers like ours (SF) can provide structured time and recreational opportunities for youth and families, the better off we’ll all be as a community of city dwellers. So while my heart says ‘no’ let’s stay wild, the rational part of me says, ‘yes’ — this is a vote for the greater good. The raccoons and coyotes will adapt, as they always do. (And I’ll personally take refuge in a burrow somewhere when the rest of you rain down your diatribes on me!!!)

27. @Rebecca Evans. For the record high school and college aged kids play sports at night as to countless adult rec leagues. Also no one is “hiking” or sketching at the beach chalet soccer fields. The wilds of the park and this area that is already for sports is comparing apples to oranges. And for what it’s worth I certainly know the difference between critters in the bushes and people.

28. I got a call tonight from a man who had read the Examiner op-ed. He tracked me down through the Sierra Club. He told me that his son, who is now 28, got a bad, bad infection once from a scratch so small that he had not even put a band aid on it.

    Where did he get this tiny scratch? From an artificial turf field where he had played sports during college. The son soon found himself dragging his leg — and checked into a clinic or hospital in San Diego. He was there for about a week. The doctors had no idea how they were going to treat the infection, as it was proving to be drug resistant. They eventually came up with a cocktail of drugs that knocked his son out for a spell — but it also got rid of the infection.

    This father said he got the impression from his son that the doctors considered these kinds of infections from these synthetic playing fields to be common knowledge.

    I’ll add that we should never have the industry far from our minds when we consider this topic. There is a huge amount of money at stake in this project. The largest synthetic turf installer in California is Easy Turf (http://www.easyturf.com/). Their Bay Area dealer is Heavenly Greens (http://www.heavenlygreens.com/). The company that will get the Beach Chalet contract is Verde Design (http://www.verdedesigninc.com/). The folks who will get the maintenance bill will be the people of San Francisco, as City Fields (http://www.cityfieldsfoundation.org/) plans to close shop once the project is installed.

    And what is the maintenance plan? More tires … Tens of thousands of ground up tires go into a single soccer field, and tens of thousands more will be ground up for maintenance.

29. Also, it is my understanding that America Scores (http://www.americascores.org/) has plans to get even more synthetic turf installed throughout San Francisco. Imagine what a coup getting the voters to permit synthetic turf at the Beach Chalet would be.

    And what is the maintenance plan? More tires … Tens of thousands of ground up tires go into a single soccer field, and tens of thousands more will be ground up for maintenance.

30. Thanks Sarah. I too voted Yes for the Fields. There is a shortage of soccer fields in the city – my kids played high-level year-around soccer for over 10 years and loved playing at Crocker, Silver Terrace, South Sunset, and Kimball, dreaded playing or practicing at the Polo Field or Beach Chalet. And if you really want it to be all-natural on that side of the park, should you also get rid of the Beach Chalet Restaurant, the Park Chalet, the windmills, Outside Lands concert, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, the old car picnic thing, every marathon, every walkathon, any segway tour, etc.? Should we kill the lights at Safeway? And as others have mentioned, technically it’s not even natural – it’s man-made! Historically it wasn’t always this all-quiet sacred place either: Speedway Meadow got its name from car racing in those flat meadows, Playland was adjacent until the early 1970s, Beach Chalet was a VFW bar/biker bar. Again, there’s a shortage of good fields in the city for kids to play on, and I voted Yes for the Fields. Thanks again Sarah.

31. First of all neither the soccer field nor this blog represent a public nor social service. They are both apparently designed to suit specific set of beneficiaries and involve at least some(!) financial motive.

    And of course blogs are blogs, but they’re not very good if they don’t engage their audience in a constructive way. That said I think my comment and Sara’s response are both fair and civil- if opposed. And I would also point out that this post is probably one of the most popular this has had in a while, for better or worse. So pardon me if I’m not bowing down in gratitude or sympathy here. This is grist for the mill! In fact the greatest conspiracy I can spin up is that Sara doesn’t give a hoot about soccer or Prop I and just posted this to drive traffic!

    But that’s more the behavior of publicly traded media properties, so I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as an entrepreneur.

    As far as some of the other points though, its pretty dishonest to ascribe magic benefits to the soccer fields like the notion they’d help solve crime in the park, or that somehow soccer fields are the only redeeming option for use of the area in question.

    If you want to solve crime, talk to law enforcement. This city has the money to have a park that is not lit at night and which is safe, it just takes political will. If you put a measure on the ballot with a plan to improve safety in GG Park I’d stump for it myself! If you want a soccer field, you put up lights. You shouldn’t need to involve soccer in crime prevention any more than you need to involve police in penalty kids. I’m all for improving the utility of the Beach Chalet space and making it more accessible, and I like to think I’m pretty open to ideas on that front…just ones that don’t completely alter the nature of the park!

    And anyone saying there is no scientific proof that ground up tires are harmful to people or the environment are not being honest with themselves. If you apply basic common sense don’t you think that just maybe those materials don’t belong in intimate contact with our kids for extended periods of time? And just because a guy in a lab coat hasn’t received $5M to study this for a few years doesn’t mean the problems aren’t there- we know this all too well from so many other synthetic products like astroturf. Whay don’t pro athletes like it? On a car driving on a road a tire is not a real health threat. But if it’s ground up into the substrate my child is playing, sweating, breathing on for hours on end…then I’m a lot more concerned that the tire manufacturers may not have considered their products being used as a playscape for human children.

    Finally, for those accusing opponents of Prop I of NIMBYism: I’d just like to point out that Goldern Gate Park is, well, a park. So yeah, if you’re looking for a NIMBY fight go and pave over a big stretch of some the last remaining natural space in SF. And yes, there’s a lot of people who live out here because the park is our shared back yard- so we consider it part of our home that we want to preserve. We’d rather have no one use the Chalet fields than doing something that would allow that space to be used while greatly spoiling the experience in the surrounding area. You say its a tradeoff worth making? I say you’re forcing us into a tradeoff that is UNNECESSARY, and the project wouldn’t be nearly as big a controversy in a more reasonable site. Oh, and the nostalgia for Playland is a joke, right? No one is seriously using that example as precedent as a reason FOR building the soccer complex now, are they?

    And for all the obstructionism that San Franciscans have put up against so many brilliant projects like the Soccer Fields at Golden Gate Park™, isn’t it fascinating that our real estate values remain nonetheless among the highest in the world. Perhaps is it precisely BECAUSE our citizens can sniff out and prevent boondoggle projects that this city is the beautiful, unique tapestry that it is.

    But the utter sense of entitlement among Prop I to having their lighted astroturf soccer field in an otherwise non-urban part of the park is pretty staggering, especially when accompanied by such strident dismissal of the value of the remaining actual green park space in an highly urban city like SF. The approach is all wrong, and the community has suffered needlessly for the hubris and arrogance of a few narrow-minded people who very plainly want things their way or the high way.

    We could have had our soccer AND kept the park rural. It’s a failure of creativity to suggest otherwise.

    But the die has been cast it seems, and so war it is…

32. There are enough questions about pollution from and the safety of synthetic turf that San Francisco’s Precautionary Principle should kick in.

    http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/environment/chapter1precautionaryprinciplepolicystat?f=templates&fn=default.htm&3_0=&vid=amlegal%3Asanfrancisco_ca

    BookmarkSEC. 101. THE SAN FRANCISCO PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
    The following shall constitute the City and County of San Francisco’s Precautionary Principle policy. All officers, boards, commission, and departments of the City and County shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County’s affairs: The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives. Based on the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection of the alternative that presents the least potential treat to human health and the City’s natural systems. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical to finding and selecting alternatives. Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for future research, but will not prevent the City from taking protective action. As new scientific data become available, the City will review its decisions and make adjustments when warranted. Where there are reasonable grounds for concern, the precautionary approach to decision-making is meant to help reduce harm by triggering a process to select the least potential threat. The key elements of the Precautionary Principle approach to decision-making include:
    1. Anticipatory Action: There is a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. Government, business, and community groups, as well as the general public, share this responsibility.
    2. Right to Know: The community has a right to know complete and accurate information on potential human health and environmental impacts associated with the selection of products, services, operations or plans. The burden to supply this information lies with the proponent, not with the general public.
    3. Alternatives Assessment: An obligation exists to examine a full range of alternatives and select the alternative with the least potential impact on human health and the environment including the alternative of doing nothing.
    4. Full Cost Accounting: When evaluating potential alternatives, there is a duty to consider all the reasonably foreseeable costs, including raw materials, manufacturing, transportation,
    Precautionary Principle Policy Statement use, cleanup, eventual disposal, and health costs even if such costs are not reflected in the initial price. Short-and long-term benefits and time thresholds should be considered when making decisions. 5. Participatory Decision Process: Decisions applying the Precautionary Principle must be transparent, participatory, and informed by the best available science and other relevant information.
    (Added by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003)

33. Yes On H, No On I.

    NIMBY. I have a sweet view of the ocean from my house towards that part of GGP. Don’t wanna see lights. There’s plenty of places east of the outer Richmond to put lights. Once BART comes out here, I’ll change my mind.

34. Right on Robin, the time is ripe to make the changes for the soccer field. Let’s hope the voters agree with us. I am disturbed by the distortions and scare tactics (toxicity) used to defeat the soccer field, which has been thoroughly investigated and approved by several regulatory agencies. We are more at risk just being anywhere.

    Think globally and act locally As an Asian and an advocate for civil rights, I believe the new playing field will bring more kids of all ethnicity and race together to enjoy themselves and get to know each other. What better use for Golden Gate Park which could serve as a model for inclusiveness.

    Margie Hom Brown

35. Please listen to this terrific program on NPR’s Forum about the importance of dark skies and the hazards of light pollution. More reasons why the Beach Chalet project is misguided. http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201411031000

36. Margie – oops, I think you meant someone else. I’m actually *for* Prop H and against Prop I.

37. I love that you put yourself out there and got this conversation going. I’d love to know what people think of prop G. I like the sentiment but I think the reality is that investors will just pony up more money and pass that on in the sale / rent price driving things up even more. Also where does the tax money go?

38. Just because the City has neglected the fields and not lived up to their responsibility to maintain them should they get to implement their flawed plan that is opposed by a large segment of the community. This is indicative of a pattern of SF government (Parks and Rec especially) ignoring the needs of the community and then using heavy handed tactics. GG Park is no place for so much fake turf, concrete and light pollution. Yes on H and No on I.

39. I think every parks and rec project that I’ve seen people freak out about is now being used and loved. It’s a pretty clear pattern; righteous condescending ire during planning and adoption and use after the projects are completed.

    I <3 Parks and Rec.

40. @Rebecca Evans and @Adriana – I’m a middle school soccer coach in San Francisco, and know for a fact, it’s not just adults, college kids and high schoolers using fields in San Francisco at night. Many middle schoolers (and younger) are playing soccer and other sports under lights on weeknights. It is extremely difficult to get field time after school, with everyone competing for the same fields and the same hours: either right after school, or after 5 when many adults are off their day job and available to coach. At this time of year, with the sun setting so early, many kids are only able to play because of the fields with lights. I’m a Richmond District resident, environmentalist, a highly skilled soccer player who has played in this city for over 20 years, and most importantly a coach, who believes we need these fields for the kids. I’m voting no on “H”

41. And Yes on I.

42. Sorry Robin, I like your name and appreciate your comments. However, I did meant my message for Sarah and her stand on Prop I. I have mix feelings on Prop H as I like grass. But if the voters want the soccer field as in Prop I, I’m all for it.

    After ruling out safety issues (lots of research), I turned to social impact and the future of our youth who have a lot more to cope with compare to our generation. I contacted two youth organizations (including one minority group) who indicated support for the soccer field as well as hope for more playing fields in their neighborhoods. Mindful that kids have to shoulder the burden of paying to support our aging population as well as face stiff competition for education and jobs, let’s just let kids play in a safe place before they have to face an increasingly difficult world. Is that too much to ask?

    All of the ‘real” concerns mentioned thus far about the soccer field can be overcome.

43. Sarah has every right to express her opinion on this blog and the right to take money for her opinion if she wants to. She provides an excellent service to the neighborhood.

    I am a parent of soccer and lacrosse players and in the past have coached soccer.

    @Rebecca Evans – I agree that the park should be for everyone and there is a part of the park for just about everyone. Currently the West end soccer fields are closed to everyone when they are too wet and at night. Other parts of the West end remain open and unfenced. Changing the fields from grass to turf will not have much of an impact on the remainder of the West end.

    No one has even mentioned the dump that exists between the existing fields and the South Windmill. It is an eyesore for anyone hiking in the area. Maybe they should fix that as part of this project. (See website link hopefully)

    Is everyone who is against the fields willing to pay for the water and full time gardeners to keep them up? Should we charge the teams thousands of dollars to use the fields so they can be kept as grass? The solution that allows the most people to use a scarce resource is the convert these fields to turf. Other fields will remain grass.

    @Jean. Even the low light advocates on the NPR program stated that light in the appropriate place in the appropriate amount is beneficial and necessary. They were most concerned about uncontrolled and overbright light. They also recognize that urban areas will have more light than other locations. I would also be against building lit soccer fields in Point Reyes or the Marin Headlands.

    @Jonathan – I respect you for your admitting your NIMBY position. I have no problem with people voting for their self interest.

    I do not like the factually deficient scare tactics regarding toxicity and other problems that continue to be used by the opponents. The project has been reviewed and approved by every State and City agency that was required to review the plans.

    @Sue and George – If you are afraid the fields are toxic – Please stay away. Then you won’t be bothered by the lights or any allegedly toxic smells and you won’t get an infection. You can go play on the Polo Fields that are just a few blocks away.

    I would prefer that the opponents would just say they don’t like the light or the plastic fields for personal reasons. I also respect the soccer players who find turf to be an inferior surface and I am in agreement with them. I also prefer to watch games and play on grass fields. However, I recognize the need to provide facilities for an ever growing population. I want San Francisco to do more to keep kids in SF and I think this is a good way to provide additional facilities.

44. Joe- if you care to know it’s not “personal reasons” so much as enlightened self interest, which I think also happens to apply to the broader community- even you. I don’t want my kids playing on it, and frankly I don’t think your kid should have to play on it either- not until they can make a decision on their own, or until the verdict is in- which its not.

    You’re the one drinking and peddling the “ground-up-tires-are-OK-for-kids” koolaid, in no uncertain terms.

    You say there’s no science showing this stuff is dangerous, but I hope you realize that is entirely not the same thing as saying that science has concluded it is safe. That is the same line of defense trotted out by the nicotine and sugar lobbies. I’m guessing that by the time they’re old enough to judge for themselves the kids who play on this stuff may have some questions about the health effects. We will be tracking this and speaking as these health outcome statistics inevitably play out.

    Hopefully we critics are really wrong about this issue, if Prop I passes. And I want to be clear that, I acknowledge I may be wrong! I suppose the question is the level of risk one is willing to accept for themselves, their kids and their community.

    But Joe your suggestion that I simply stay away from your soccer complex is entirely disappointing, and I think self-defeating in the context of your other arguments. Are you not implying that this particular part of the park is going to be ONLY for the people who think fields are not toxic, and necessarily therefore NOT intended for people who may believe it is toxic?

    I find this is not an uncommon situation for Prop I supporters, that it ultimately boils down to “our needs are just more important”.

    But if your side’s stated objective is to provide more use to more park-goers, you’ve already limited the benefits of the proposed facilities to people who both 1) play soccer, and 2) also believe the astroturf is safe. Consider that I like to surf at the outflow of the GG Park watershed in front of the Chalet, and believe me when I say that there are a number of surfers around here who are already fed up with the amount of toxic waste that flows into the waters of Ocean Beach. Our water/beach quality is a ongoing embarrassment to our city, and this project is certainly not going to have a positive nor even a neutral impact on that issue. It will exacerbate flooding, reduce groundwater recharge and further degrade the environment of the beach as coastal water. I could trot out science, but if you surf and you imagine a massive tire dump being installed that mouth of the creek where you recreate regularly- I think its common sense that you would be concerned about a variety of acute watershed/runoff issues.

    And yeah, I guess I won’t be able to surf at sunset and see the stars come out at sunset without a giant sterile glow of stadium lights behind me. But let me suggest that people come by the hundreds of thousands from around the city, the bay area and around the world to enjoy the nexus of the green space at the end of park, the beach and the Pacifico ocean- all within the limits of a major US city! They don’t have this in LA, New York, nor Miami. It’s really special, and you’re saying we have to throw it away for soccer.

    Well what a sad day for soccer then.

    How many people from the city and beyond come out to this special spot to take wedding photos, to quickly connect with nature, or just to get away for a few hours. You are asking us to diminish this most special feature of our city, saying it doesn’t have value, belittling our desire to preserve it, saying we are selfish. But my vision doesn’t benefit only soccer players who tolerate being on ground up tires under night lighting. My vision doesn’t even preclude soccer.

    I guess its too much to ask, this little remaining refuge. I guess its NIMBYism, even though want in opposing Prop I want is free and available to everyone- San Franciscan, human, cetacean and crustacean alike.

    You want to trash this rare thing for yet another gleaming hardscape stadium/astroturf combo? You’re saying that’s the only choice we have for more kids soccer? If so, I’ll let your statement stand for itself.

    I will say that your points are all valid Joe in arguing that SF kids need new fields, even new astroturf fields with lights. What you haven’t effectively made the case for is why it needs to be in the heart of the rural part of the park. No one backing Prop I has made the case for the poor site choice. If soccer playtime deficiency is such a calamity, the city has plenty of resources and other space that is a) not in a park, b) not near sensitive coastal habitat, c) already hardscape (infill, piers, converted industrial, rooftops, inner GG Park even!!!), etc, etc etc. Your movement has made some really poor decisions- I could envision you having your fields somewhere else at a much lower political cost.

    It’s conspicuous in fact how bad the plan for this project is, and if you look into the history of Prop I I think you’ll see it is a trojan horse for a broader agenda for fastracking certain lucrative developments within the city and park. Call me conspiratorial if you must, but please look into how this measure actually got on the ballot before you do. Please explore the reckless precedent it sets for future park projects! Basically if they’re testing the political theory that if they can railroad a astroturf and lights project here, they can do it anywhere in SF…and beyond.

    Of course the western park is a place we’d all love to see improved so as to be cleaner, safer and more accessible. But to claim that you need to “destroy the park in order to save the park” is the hallmark of an imminent mistake. Prop I arguments present a classic false choice which should be rejected on sheer principle, and I will continue to say so until someone makes a decent point otherwise. To say Prop I is the answer to our prayers out here is laughable. If we want to deal with crime, litter, utility etc. then lets do that. Let’s not pretend these soccer fields are going to meet the needs of any people outside of the immediate users. It’s not.

    And let’s not pretend your project doesn’t have major negative impacts- both actual and potential ones.

    It does.

45. Wow – This has inspired some through responses.

    There have been millions put into trying to prove the turf isn’t safe and there’s nothing that shows that it’s a danger.

    I’ve never seen anything proven as “safe”. An article came out this week about the dangers of milk. Sunshine will kill you and wine is bad for you.

    I hope my kid grows up drinking milk playing in the sun and enjoys a good glass of wine.

    I don’t read the previous argument as being “well then don’t come around”. The argument is that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, especially in a large city.

    Thousands of kids will be served by those fields and the actual health benefits of that activity is huge in comparison with the theoretical risks.

    As for not being able to see the stars come out while on your board a few days a year. That is something to mourn and at the same time it’s so small and such a privileged concern compared to all the kids that will get to run around breathing in cool Pacific air. If I have to choose one I’d let the kids play an suggest you head over to the Headlands end and watch the sun go down every once in a while. We’ve got no shortage of beautiful spots on our coast.

    Lastly why don’t isn’t anyone talking about the drought? How would we water huge grass fields? Is that sustainable? The environmental impact of that much water usage is so damaging and short sighted.

    Good luck all.

46. Let’s pretend that if Prop H passes that Parks and Rec will do what they say they will do for these fields. As I have already said previously, the amount of water to maintain grass on these fields will be great. Additionally, because they are a high use area for sports, they will need constant seeding and fertilization. So, in a couple of years we will be dealing with greater eutrophication in the surrounding water sources. This occurs even when you use even “organic” fertilizer. In order to keep the gophers out, they will likely have to use poisons. Pass Prop I or just abandon these fields.

47. A few days a year? Ok on my surfboard maybe so- but I am on the beach more than half the days of the year. In my lifetime I’m there more than any one kid will play on this field. And on average I am there with thousands, if not tens of thousands of other people who enjoy it as is, people who treasure it even- it all its imperfect glory…especially at sunset.

    Perhaps I’ll see you out there in the next few hours, as I take in the remaining time we have without your stadium lights. And just accept the fact that those lights and that field are YOURS, and you’ll have that giant monument to your decision which will have to stand the test of time.

    If you know about the water calculus for this project a) the water for grass is provided from the GG Park aquifer and is largely returned to the same aquifer as it is water, b) the significant amount of water used to frequently clean the astroturf will NOT be returned to aquifer but rather collected and sent to water treatment for processing at SF taxpayer expense! So the real question is for astroturf proponents: how during a drought do you justify taking water out of the ground, using it to clean a giant hardscape on a regular basis, and then having send it directly to the sewage plant?

    For all your dismissiveness J, we’re still waiting to hear a decent point as to why this project had to be at THIS specific location in order to provide more playing time for kids, or for that matter why astroturf and lights present the ONLY solution for improving the use and accessibility of the same space. If there were any give on your side you could have your lights and turf at different location at a much lower political costs, and with much less strife within the community. While I don’t know for sure whether these fields are dangerously toxic, the politics of the Prop I campaign clearly are.

    You say you’d just throw up your hands and abandon these fields if you don’t win Prop I?

    As your opponent and presumably your neighbor, I don’t consider that to be an article of good faith.

48. I completely support the change to the artificial turf. I observed soccer there for years and saw players injured and the decrepit state around the area. I can see that those opposed to the change to artificaikl turf are well organized and have their opinions down pat.

    Time for those who want to see the improvements such as artificial turf and lights to go to the polls and vote.

49. George

    All really good points and rereading my post I’m not 100% thrilled with it. I’m glad you’re able to get down to that beach so much. That’s amazing. I do think that the fields will serve more than the lights will ruin. We’re unlikely to agree on that one.

    For water usage I’m out of my depth here but if it’s not raining where does the water for that grass come from and how much does it take to clean the turf vs sustain the grass? I’d love to see numbers and would gladly concede the point if I’m off base.

    As for the location, I love that location because I think it will introduce the park to so many more people and once they’re done they may wander and discover some hidden treasure there. It will also get thousands down to the ocean that might not have gone there.

    The other thing I should disclose and it’s unlikely to be a popular opinion is that I trust Parks and Rec. They don’t choose locations lightly. I trust if there was a better location at this scale we’d know about it. I haven’t heard any alternatives from anyone.

    Lastly if the alternative is… in Dog Patch or somewhere else I’d like it less because again I want more people to experience the park and the ocean. We’re so lucky that this is our everyday playground. I’d like more people to share the wealth.

    Good luck and enjoy the sunset.

50. George, first the GG Park is a false aquifer, but I do agree that they do recycle water. However, it does not discount the argument of the increase of eutrophication with constant fertilization that grass will need. The cleaning of turf does not have to happen all that often. As to surfing under the stars. That area of Ocean Beach is extremely lit on any night because of lighting on Great Highway, Fulton, and condos on La Playa.

51. Yes on H, No on I

52. I don’t care one way or the other.
    My cousin plays soccer & was on a semi pro team. He’s broken his ankle on artificial surface. He said because there’s less give, it’s a bit more injurious. I don’t know how many soccer fields there are in SF, but I know he plays on 4 different ones in the southern part of the city, & I think one is indoors.

53. Bravo San Francisco! I looks like Prop I passed. What a great addition to the neighborhood.

54. Here are the results:

    http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2014/Nov/Summary4.pdf

55. Well you’ve got your fields, advocates of Prop I.

    We bought them. You now own them, and you will own all the good and bad they will bring. Rest assured there will be a meticulous accounting on that score over time.

    You also own the precedent Prop I sets for other new projects in GG Park. In about 10 years we will look back on Prop I and see more than this one controversial project gone up. Guess what: Prop I voters own those babies too- whether beautiful or ugly.

    San Francisco lost something extraordinary about itself last night, trading it in for something decidedly ordinary. We could have kept the western park natural AND built new fields. We could have come up for an actual renovation plan for Beach Chalet Fields, as opposed to constructing a new urban complex. We could have behaved like an enlightened community that takes the higher road and applies creative solutions, rejecting false choices.

    But Prop I proponents have claimed that the astroturf and lights project at the Beach Chalet was the only way to increase playing time, that this was the only suitable plan for the Beach Chalet space.

    Those presumptions were never true of course, but it worked. Impatient voters and evidently obsessed soccer parents took the bait, and blithely accepted their false choice.

    This town becomes more like Orange County every day.

56. @George

    I appreciate your detailed response. I don’t think there is another area in the NW quadrant of San Francisco where Parks and Rec could have put four new soccer fields.

    Your complaint that these four fields will result in an exponential increase in toxic run off to the 3.5 mile stretch of Ocean Beach is not very convincing. Thousands of cars drive down the great highway every day leaving oil and rubber deposits along the roads that are eventually washed into the ocean by the rains.

    I too would be against putting artificial turf on the whole West end of the park. That is not what these fields do. It is a very small portion of the west end of the park.

    Your slippery slope argument that this project will result in additional development in the park is just another scare tactic. If you have watched the long process that these fields went through, you know that it will not be easy for any other change to proceed for the exact same reasons.

    I remember the fight about the underground garage by the deYoung. The opponents said it would create traffic jams every weekend with people trying to park in the garages. That only happened the initial few weeks of the opening of the Academy of Sciences. No traffic jams since then other than for big events. Just an example of the scare tactics that people use to try and stop projects that they do not want.

    Artifical turf has been around since the 1960s. If there were any serious health consequences associated with the selective use of artificial turf they should have surfaced by now. However, I would not want my kids playing on it everyday and personally would rather play and spectate at a grass field. There just isn’t enough space and money to keep up the number of grass fields that SF would need to allow all of the residents space to enjoy their sports.

    Too many people are opposed to any change at all. You oppose the fields for reasons that you feel are just. My displeasure is with people who oppose the fields because they are against any change and try and use scare tactics that are not supported by science to convince others to oppose the fields.

57. @George I’m guessing you haven’t spent much time in Orange County. Good hyperbole though.

    Also it’s not about soccer. It’s about open safe spaces for people to play.

    I’m glad more people will enjoy the park. I’m glad more people will be brought closer to the ocean. I’m surprised and happy that the NIMBY’s lost one.

    Looking forward to seeing happy healthy thriving faces down there in a few years.

58. I’m so happy I won. I was very surprised the the NIMBY attitude that’s very often on display here lost out, which goes to show that when certain things are put to a vote where the entire city gets to have a say in what goes on in a neighborhood’s “backyard”, that neighborhood’s desires are often put in perspective. I only hope they are able to make time for people to play other games on these fields. Hooray for I!

59. J – I think your being a little rough on J in SF. Maybe he’s just a nice guy with a rosy perspective.

    We’ll see how this plays out. It probably won’t be as dramatic as this comment thread.

60. @George

    That’s gracious. Thank you. Really hoping it does work out.

    See you on the beach

61. Apparently there’s another J here, so I’ll change my name from now on.–J

62. Actually I grew up in OC.

    And when I lived there there was open space along the ocean.

    The areas north and south of Laguna Beach used to feature miles of coastal greenery, and the inner county had a lot of actual orange groves. It was a beautiful place- smoggy and already overdeveloped…but still with unique landscapes.

    Now only two decades or so later the same coastal habitat has been destroyed, replaced with wall to wall strip malls and condos, with pavement down to the water front. The inland county, where orange groves used to stretch for miles, has rapidly filled in with a sea of horrid sprawl. Speaking of toxic waste, many of the owners of these new flimsy McMansions are still deep underwater following the real estate crash. The traffic, which was bad 30 years ago, is now essentially a dealbreaker for me- even for a brief visit.

    I still have a lot of family in OC, and even in my relatively short time on the planet the place has completely transformed for the worse- and again, it wasn’t close perfect when I showed up. Now the only significant open space in the area is Camp Pendleton, which is to say that literally only an area protected by the US Marine Corps remains undeveloped…with a few tiny overcrowded parks in little coves interspersed along the waterfront. It takes me 30 minutes to get from my aunt’s house to a decent hike, and the trails are completely crammed with other people gasping for a little nature.

    And let’s face it: developers made an ungodly amount money by destroying the very essence of what attracted people to move to OC in the first place. I believe that being a little smarter and less reckless they could have made the same amount of money and kept some of the character and charm of the place. They also could have prevented a lot of real estate speculation that drove a deeper price crash when the chickens came home to finally roost in 2008.

    So it’s not hyperbole to say that projects like the turf and lights complex at the Beach Chalet, and also the way it has promoted politically, make me think of the development decisions made at the ballot box in the 80s and 90s in Orange County. There were so many chances back then to try and retain what made Orange County special, and almost always the electorate passed them up. If you know the local social history down there, these changes coincided with a large influence of southerners who moved to Southern CA from states like Texas. Take from that what you will…

    The attack politics, the gratuitous shots at environmentalism, the accusations of obstruction, the downplaying of the drawbacks, overplaying the upside- that’s what I saw of Prop I campaign, and its also a hallmark of the Irvine Company and their ilk. I can only assure you that many people living in Orange County today, even most of the transplants, greatly lament the lack of foresight of previous voters! I can report to you that they have plenty of astroturf fields with lighting, in fact. What they don’t have are open natural spaces, public transportation, walkable neighborhoods nor ANY real view of the stars. It seemed like incremental changes at the time, but in hindsight it was a stunningly quick defeat of nature and livable communities.

    And now Orange County, which I remember so fondly, is no place I want to live. The people who remember what it was like before can only shake their heads and lament.

    But I’m in fact not anti-development, and I think that’s an insincere critique of my position. I just think that the Bay Area is so much nicer than LA/OC because we’ve taken the high road in our development choices. We didn’t build out Marin Headlands with duplexes, we stopped filling in the Bay. Unlike our southern neighbors we have protected huge tracts of open space and coastal habitat that checker our urban spaces. I like to think that here we embody a BALANCED and enlightened approach to development, the will to resist temptation to surrender the wonderful natural elements that other people might simply take for granted. And we’ve benefited from our restraint- the place has much higher quality of life for the careful stewardship of our relationship with our natural environment. And I believe its no coincidence that this splendor, this appropriate development mix, is what has attracted the brightest minds and most advanced companies to base themselves here.

    Far from being anti-progress, I think restraint and balance in fact define the very best examples of development.

    So I reject that this is about whether or not to make the Beach Chalet area more accessible to people, nor whether or not kids should have new fields- its about how to reach those achievements with the minimal tradeoffs and without surrendering the things that make our neighborhoods special.

    So gain I’ll say I’d love to do something with those fields, just as I was a big backer of the Lands End improvements. And I’d genuinely love to work on a way to get what Prop I proponents CLAIM to want, with far fewer tradeoffs. Just because your urban development project violates our vision for a “park” doesn’t mean we don’t support your stated aims in terms of kids playtime. I’d jump at the chance to negotiate a political deal to move the project pretty much ANYWHERE else i.e. a less sensitive location. Infill, the Polo Fields, a commercial space rooftop, the Presidio, etc. I know this is a dense city, but surely we have a place for this project that isn’t in a park which our city decreed many voting cycles ago was to remain natural space. No one has convinced me otherwise.

    And I’d even be willing to pay taxes to do something else with the existing grass fields- whether that’s actually restoring them and using them in addition to new fields to be built elsewhere…or do something else creative with the Beach Chalet space. Think of how we could bring people together around a more shared vision for this space, and realize a project that doesn’t just benefit soccer players but everyone in the community.

    You say there’s NO other place to do this in NW parts of the city? That presumption has never been explained to me. Especially considering most of the kids in question are going to have to be brought in from other parts of the city i.e. outside of the NW. And I wonder, what are they going to know of the beach/park when they’re playing soccer on artificial turf at night under lights? Most players are going to drive up, walk onto the hardscape, play and then leave. How is that “enjoying” the actual park? I think you mean to say they will be enjoying a sports complex that happens to be built in a park. It could be under a freeway or on top of a parking garage and it would be essentially the same experience for the kids. Enjoying the park and beach is not the same as enjoying themselves in a facility that could be built anywhere.

    Its so conspicuous how no one is willing to engage the issue of this fallacy of the site selection!

    And on that note, for those campaign is not a trojan horse for a broader political agenda- has anyone making that argument actually read the language of Prop I? It clearly goes way beyond this site and this project. Can we at least reread it and agree on that much? I know its hard to swallow that you may have been taken advantage of by the lobbyists behind the campaign, but such is modern politics. The replies to my latest comment reinforce my fear that most Prop I supporters just wanted this one sports complex, and have no real sense of the scope or implications of what they just voted for. So it is a textbook case of a slippery slope, and I’d say the backers of Prop I (who outspent us 10:1 just to put things into perspective) actually did get their money’s worth. If these low-information voters don’t think there’s money to be made on this project and the others that will ride its coattails…I mean c’mon, we’re all grownups here right?

    Do you honestly think the people who put down the real cash behind this campaign care purely about the kids? If so I have a bridge to sell you.

    I’ll let you think about that for a while before you answer…because the Prop I backers could have had fields elsewhere in the city without the need to go on the ballot and spend a bunch of campaign cash. Why do you think they went to the mattresses to have the project at this precedent-altering site?

    Altruism you say? Or because its the “best” location”? Maybe you don’t know corporations/billionaires very well…

    In the meantime, just ask the voters of Orange County how those all taxpayer financed private toll road megaprojects are working out for them, and whether the stated costs and benefits have panned out as advertised. It’s really not as different the Prop I bait-and-switch plot as you might think.

63. I grew up in Manhattan Beach and spent a lot of time in Huntington and Newport. The beach towns and most of the culture is gone. The beach house I grew up in was just torn down and replaced by a glass box. I absolutely understand the phenomenon. I don’t agree with the parallel though. If you’ve tried to build anything here you know that the permitting process is a different planet than that of OC or LA.

    The parks was always meant to serve the most people and the architects always used the best available technology at the time to serve those people.

    I love the location. I think it brings people to the park and the ocean. Again we (and many others on both sides) won’t agree on this.

    As for the bridge you’re selling, where is it located and is it international orange? If so I may be interested.

64. The bridge is any color you want, but you can’t polish a turd as the saying goes. What matters to the lobbyists selling this boondoggle is the fact that Prop I voters actually bought the schlock PR- hook, line and sinker.

    And that’s my point J in SF- at its heart Prop I changes important precedent for development projects in the city/park. It also throws out decisions of previous voters on how to manage GG Park. That will come into play when this goes to litigation.

    To be clear I’m not saying we’re OC yet, I’m saying this is how the decline happens- death by a thousand ill-conceived projects, each of which chips away at precedents to protect open space. ESPECIALLY along the coast! Look at how this thing got on the ballot, look who’s behind it, look how much money was spent and tell me honestly if you don’t think its a bit unusual to see the heavy guns brought in for a single soccer field project.

    Who’s being naive here? I guess I thought SF voters were a little tougher to hoodwink like this…

    And again: how is coming out to play soccer on astroturf under lights “enjoying the park”? If you really wanted to bring people out to enjoy the park itself and the beach itself, you wouldn’t be slapping a lighted astroturf sports complex in between them. Just bringing people to a hardscape facility in proximity of natural spaces absolutely doesn’t count as enjoying them. Sea air? C’mon- the city is built on a friggin peninsula- there’s sea air literally throught the entire town! The socces players can’t see the beach from the field (though we on the beach can see them!)

    Indeed your sports complex really des interfere with the experience of millions of people who actually do come here every year to enjoy the beach and the western edge of the park! Bikers, hikers, suntanners, stargazers, surfers, nappers, sunset watchers, etc.- most are not from this side of town, nor even SF. 13 million visit GG Park and 3 million visit OB each year. Compare that to the less than 90k voters who supported Prop I before you get too glib about a single ballot measure victory. Prop 8 was passed with a healthy majority in similar low-turnout off-year election, and its gone the way of the Dodo…

    So put the park/beach visitor numbers in perspective when you weigh the enjoyment of a few thousand local soccer players- who again could conceivably site their complex elsewhere- against the trite tree-hugging preferences of the untold masses of locals and outsiders who expect to actually see a park when they come to visit a park. This vote is not by any stretch the final word of the many millions of people who authentically enjoy the beach/park as it is, so please be realistic about that fact.

    The difference between the current visitors’ activities in the park and your project is that the current activities don’t really detract from one others’ experiences. But like it or not YOUR PROJECT DOES. It detract from many(!) other people’s enjoyment, at least in the place and form you say you need.

    Yet nobody on your side seems willing to accept that the project is a hugely divisive issue within the community, that it benefits a relatively narrow group of users, nor that it could be clearly done somewhere else with a fraction of the tradeoffs and conflict.

    So while we get that you’re happy with the location, its clearly not relevant to the function/purpose of the fields. Indeed within the city you couldn’t get much further from the bulk of players who will use it. In fact, I’d say the project is the result of NIMBYism in other parts of the city. The attitude boils down to a shrugging sense of frustration: “We need more fields, so why not just build it out there?”

    But when it comes down to it, I’ve still not seen a single valid arguments why it had to be there of all places. Or for that matter why we can’t negotiate another more broadly accessible option for that space. If public access is an issue for the Beach Chalet fields, a field dedicated only to people who play soccer seems like a perfectly exclusive bad idea.

    Fortunately, this fight is not entirely over. We’ll see you in court, and I think the Prop I campaign’s tactics have really unified the people who want to keep the park a park. Hopefully y’all are willing to compromise and actually work on the issues: increasing kids playtimes and making the Beach Chalet field space into something more accessible to the public. There’s a lot of consensus waiting for the people who care about soccer if you come to the table. All you’d have to do is leave the billionaires and the astroturf lobby out of the negotiation, and I’m sure we can work something out.

    I’m not being glib. If there were any comity on the Prop I side, they’d find me a willing counterpart in trying to forge a more equitable compromise. Not holding my breath though…

65. Spoke with someone at Parks & Rec this afternoon. Bulldozers began work on the old fields 7:00am this morning.

66. They must be rushing to get as much work done as they can before the inevitable injunction.

67. What a shame. People will look back on this and remember it as the beginning of the end of Golden Gate Park actually being a park. The last few years have shown that the city would rather use the park as a circus fair ground for oversized concerts then a natural escape. I remember a couple years ago GGP was up for Landmark status which would have taken it out of the jurisdiction of SF and put it in the National Park service thus protecting it from the corrupt SF gov and it’s lobbyists. A few decades from now GGP will have homes built in it and become the new Presidio; because who cares GGP was never natural anyway. SF is a joke and this proves it; laying a green carpet down on natural grass and ruining the beauty of the park.

    So what’s next for GGP? Well rest assured taxpayers will be shut out of their park with these daily oversized concerts; athletic fields will be privatized with only the privileged allowed to play on them; and of course the eucalyptus and non-native plants will have to be removed which just happens to make up most of the park. So what we’ll be left with is a butchered wasteland which will then probably be developed into housing. GGP will fall victim to the greed and self-entitled losers that now inhabit SF. The destruction of this amazing land will take place without remorse and will be just another lost gem in San Francisco’s history.

68. So let me get this straight…In early 2010 the plans to renovate the Beach Chalet fields were submitted. Rec & Park approved the plans for the renovated fields in April of 2011. Bowing to pressure from community groups, Ciry Fields Foundation provided a full EIR for the project. Since then approval has been granted by The Planning Commission, Rec & Park, Board of Supervisors (nearly unanimous), Board of Appeals and the Coastal Commission. When all of that didn’t work for these said community groups the issue was put before the city on this current ballot. Now the citizens of SF has also approved it and the “community groups” are threatening to sue. It’s been almost five years since this odyssey began. Wow, no wonder nothing ever gets done is this messy, dirty, decrepit, urine soaked, run down town. Sigh!

69. @Rob. S. More slipperly slope arguments that are not grounded in fact. These fields were already fenced off and closed. Only people with a permit were allowed to use them. The park has hosted paid and private events since it first opened. It was intended as an urban park with numerous uses. We have open space and natural preserves to the South in Fort Funston and to the North in the Presidio and Marin Headlands.

    I will fight against development in the park that I feel is not consistent with the use of an urban park. I would have preferred that the fields have been kept as grass. However, having experienced how difficult and expensive that is and how it causes them to be closed for long periods of time during the rainy season, I came to agree that artificial turf was a better solution.

    These are not just soccer fields. my kids play lacrosse there as well as soccer. I have also seen them used for hurling and other Irish games.

70. Adriana, this is similar to why the La Playa Safeway has yet to be renovated. The parking for the Safeway on 7th is always questionable, but the La Playa location is ick. As a result, except for produce and seafood, I get my groceries delivered now.

71. Adriana this city has the highest real estate value per square foot in the country. So surely we’ve been doing something right in our urban planning. The product of all the challenges to development turns out to be really nice and insanely valuable space! If you hate it here so much, vote with your feet girl. I hear Orlando is super development friendly, maybe you’d prefer it over there? Perhaps its not a coincidence that Orlando is much, much cheaper too.

    If we had seen an initial proposal for the Beach Chalet fields that was more inclusive, more in keeping with city’s general plan for the park then you wouldn’t have gotten into the stereotypical fight between hippies and developers that this has devolved into.

    And for the last time people: NO ONE IS FOR THE STATUS QUO. The Beach Chalet fields need to be repurposed- no one is debating it. To say we oppose better use of the space is a classic straw man argument Joe. You say yourself you’d prefer natural grass, well why couldn’t we work on a creative solution? Why must it be THIS project or NOTHING? Never a straight answer on that! Best I get is “we’ve spent too much time on this to turn back” which is not a real answer.

    Finally, I don’t think the tally of beneficiaries increases very much when we account for Lacrosse, hurling and even “other Irish games”. Whatever their shenanigans entail, et’s not rope the Irish gamers into your desire for a soccer stadium. Which is 99% what its for (…though we shall see what percentage is for soccer actually played by people under 18)

72. Mel you’re oversimplifying.

    I 100% support Safeway rennovation and 100% oppose astroturf and lights project. And in that regard there are many, many other people like me around these parts. The Safeway project is far less controversial. For one thing its being done on private property and not in a park. There’s also already a building there.

73. @George, why would you say The Presidio as a better place to have it? Oh…because you don’t spend time there? That area with all the trails, feels more “natural” to me.
    When I had a dog, I would walk him around that old field by the Chalet & it was always squishy with mud. I don’t know if it was bad drainage or too shady, but it would seem like it wouldn’t need a lot of watering if they had put new grass.
    Also, I see soccer being played on the Polo Fields all the time. How come they couldn’t make several soccer fields there? They don’t seem to use it for anything anymore.
    In the end, you can’t please everyone.

74. No, I mention it because I was reeling off other potential locations off the top of my head. I go there all the time in fact- and like GG Park it has developed and undeveloped areas. I know the areas you’re saying are bad for fields- so, yeah sure: most of the Presidio unsuitable for fields. Then again, its huge and there’s clearly a ton of already-developed space there looking for a new use- unused parking lots, abandoned barracks, large empty fields. Now its also very valuable real estate, so I’m sure its all spoken for.

    Then again, it’s safe to say that some of the people backing Prop I have powerful interests there and could make something happen…if they wanted to.

    Look my goal is not to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with you regarding potential alternative sites. But they’re almost certainly out there if we looked, and its conspicuous to me how little the debate focused on that.

    I have no idea about the Polo Fields- but I’d have far less of a problem personally if they put it there. I’d still hate it, but that location wouldn’t bring me out of the word work like the Beach Chalet site. What about the piers downtown, or the whole area south of ATT? What about the industrial area near the King St exit? What about on the roof of a large commercial space?? The great thing about astroturf is you can put it anywhere. Its great for crap space!

    So, why such a staggering lack of creativity on the siting? Heck, Treasure Island would be closer to half the kids in question!

    I just don’t feel like the proponents were interested in exploring other sites. The figured if we can do it in the rural side of GG Park we can do it anywhere in the city. And that’s probably true. In fact they’ll probably use this to sell astroturf all over the world: “Negative impacts? Nah, even them tree huggers out in San Fran Cisco let us build one of these here soccer complexes in that there Golden Gate Park!”

    Whatever your feelings about soccer, Prop I voters just gave local developers a big fat gift. Which is awfully sweet of y’all, because we all know how they need more money and power round here!

    And while you can’t please everyone, this campaign could have at least tried to avoid massively pissing other people off.

    It didn’t.

75. There is an artificial soccer field at Pier 27. My cousin plays at soccer fields in Crocker Amazon, Silver Terrace, & somewhere in Mission & Potrero areas. Looks like all the fields are southern part of city. So I’m thinking they wanted one out here

76. We have soccer fields here already. The fact that they are muddy and *fenced off* are totally fixable – without laying down artificial (or “field”) turf and definitely without stadium lighting.

    The park is not here to serve a select few, it’s here to serve the community at large. Obviously, looking at this discussion and speaking with neighbors, this initiative does not. The fact that the face of Golden Gate Park is changed dramatically to appease the wishes of a select few who want a state-of-the-art, pay-to-play soccer field, and the fact that our city is, more and more, catering to a vocal and affluent minority, makes me sad.

    I grew up in Silicon Valley, before it was “Silicon Valley”. I used to take walks and visit the horses that our neighbors kept, and pick apricots from the countless orchards that surrounded my family home. Now, that same street is filled with McMansions (one has it’s own mini-golf course) with hedges so high you can’t see the houses, and few know their neighbors or even live there full-time.

    If this is progress, count me out. I’d rather sprain my ankle sticking my foot in a gopher hole than buy into this.

    Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.

77. Except a soccer field isn’t a parking lot, and muddy fields is not paradise.

    As the original poster explained, weve been dealing with muddy fields for 25 years and nothing is ever done. Now something will be done, and kids can play. You might be willing to sprain your ankle, but it looks like most parents and kids aren’t willing to do that.

78. Huh – Did anyone know that spot was originally designed / implemented as a sewage plant?

    http://fromthethicket.com/2010/10/02/turning-sewage-sludge-into-gold/

79. Just what we need, more vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic at the end of the park.

    What about the parking lot? Are they gonna build that out too?
    What about copper thieves?
    What about the already poor drainage and rainstorm flooding at the south corner of the park?

    It’s a stupid idea and a stupid giveaway of the park to private interests.

    For the children is total cynical bull-oney!

80. I’ll be sure to tell my kid that when we’re playing down there.

81. There it is again, the same straw man argument positing the same false choice: it HAS to be either muddy fields or soccer palace. As if there were never any other options.

    “Our hands were tied. What can one do?”

    “All choices must be binary, mustn’t they?”

    Well, we clearly could have dealt with both the field time and the muddy fields issue separately. I call it the “walk-and-chew-gum” option: it’s one that the Fisher brothers have apparently convinced Prop I voters is too hard for them.

    The fields are muddy because that area used to be the mouth of a creek running to the beach. It’s part of the reason anyone with a decent understanding of ecology thinks this project is perfectly sited to make water quality and drainage issues worse. Installing a giant impermeable rubber mat over many acres of natural grass has real and negative watershed consequences. It just does.

    Even though the current grass is not the original habitat, the permeable soil covered with vegetation acts like a sponge and biofilter, slowing down runoff to the beach and processing bacteria and waste through the activity of the soil’s biota. It’s a real thing that can me measured using financial, health and environmental metrics, and its a valuable ecosystem service that even a muddy field can provide. A nicely restored eco-park with an actual wetlands habitat would do it better of course…

    I guess its just another thing which generates universal benefit yet that we’re forced to sacrifice for the soccer.

    And I guess wwe never had a choice other than muddy fields vs. lights & astorturf, did we?

    Perhaps the ship has now sailed, but let’s remember this was also the narrative years ago- when the soccer folks could have invited a compromise but went for the jugular instead. Know that I’d work really hard to support a deal that moved the project somewhere else- even in my backyard. And I’d also work hard to find a good use of the existing fields- either improve them to add playing time on top of putting new fields in elsewhere…or actually convert it into a truly public, non-soccer use.

    Imagine if we could:
    – find another location for this project, which if in SF would almost certainly be closer to majority of soccer players/ie users.
    – have a POSITIVE, inclusive community conversation about what to do with the site, with a firm commitment to fix the Beach Chalet with long term solution.
    – get your lighted field put somewhere else still nearby AND keep the western park/beach rural- perhaps with a new ecology trail/urban garden/restore the wetlands at the site.

    From a taxpayer perspective a restored habitat project would sooooo cheap, and if well maintained could be a huge draw. Look at what’s been done at Land’s End- it’s a huge draw now and all we had to do was clean it up and do some restoration landscaping! People come out here in droves now because the access has been greatly improved and the vegetation looks beautiful. It’s that simple! No tradeoffs! No restricted access!

    You don’t need to build a fenced off soccer amusement park to get people out to the western park- just clean the place up a little and you’d be surprised how many people would show up. And if you want to talk about taking the fence out and making the space accessible to the public let’s talk, because my understanding is that the astroturf will have a fence around it and is pay-to-play.

    I believe the Beach Chalet could be a dozen splendid things that everyone- we could collaborate as a community to create something lasting that served the needs of soccer and nonsoccer acolytes alike. I’d love to have that conversation- its not just a throwaway line to get you to stop. I’m willing to pay for a better use of the space, I’m ready to work as an active citizen to realize a new use.

    I DON’T want to just stymy this project and want to walk away, I believe I want the same things the Prop I people claim to want. I want to work across the table, but no one has ever been willing to sit down and discuss alternatives. From the onset, the position of the fat cats and soccer-obsessed behind this project has been “our way or the high way”. And its such an striking attitude for proponents to have for a plan in a public park, one visited my millions from around the region and world- a common area specifically designated by PREVIOUS VOTERS to remain rural.

    Wouldn’t we all love to have the kids play and keep the park? Or is there a specific reason why that wouldn’t be a better outcome than the tradeoffs we’ve been forced to accept? Why couldn’t we get our act together to make a compromise happen?

    I like to think this city is full of capable people. What I’ve learned in this process is that maybe we’re more stubborn than we are capable.

    But I still want to roll up my sleeves and work on this. I really believe there was a positive sum game to be played here if we could set aside the egos and just focus on the outcomes we want. Probably too late now, but who knows?

82. “…if we could set aside the egos and just focus on the outcomes we want.”

    Exactly. The “outcomes we want” question was settled Tuesday night. Twice.

    Let’s move on.

83. George, I am not oversimplifying. You may agree with the Safeway reno, but there are enough people who disagree with it. So, change in our part of the City is delayed for nearly a decade or changes are never made. This was also true for the soccer fields.

84. Nothing in SF is well maintained, particularly if there is public access. This has been the case ever since Prop 13 was passed (SFUSD was a mess long before Prop 13 – got my diploma and Tuberculosis from someone in homeroom, not detected by SFDPH but by university dorm requirements several months later). Maintenance occurs only when Bonds are issued.

    Open space and recreation are needed even more as population booms. Perhaps we should require open air sporting facilities on top of every residential highrise constructed going forward. Many decommissioned and sold elementary schools had playgrounds on their roofs in the denser neighborhoods when I was a kid.

    Also, how many fields does SFUSD have and why are they locked down nights and weekends? If the district needs money so badly, they need to step up to the plate and share with taxpayers.

85. No, I meant the outcomes we pretty much ALL want- the opponents AND the opponents. I.e. separate from this particular project, which about half the community really loathes….as you’re finding out.

    Yet BOTH sides want to have fields for kids. That’s a great place to start.

    …and we BOTH want to see the Beach Chalet’s fields space improved and increase public access.

    These are shared goals in terms of the actual outcomes, they transcend Prop I by which I mean to say there is a HUGE potential consensus there…and a big opportunity to heal the giant wound this fight has created in our community. If we could satisfy those two outcomes at the same time it would be a slam dunk- the supes could authorize it no problem, wouldn’t even have to go on the ballot.

    So where did we go wrong? Where did this go from agreement on these two problem statements and the will to take action…to having the binary choice of this one not-tremendously-popular proposal or nothing?

    Because for all the crowing about the vote this week, the reality is that it shows that only slightly more than half of voters want the project as is- and that in a historically low turnout election. So you’re happy with a moderate win of a campaign that sowed immense strife in our local neighborhood? Fine. It’s a vote, and votes do have consequences.

    But I was referencing the mutually-desirable OUTCOMES which wouldn’t split the electorate in half as did Prop I. i.e. in contrast to this specific project. I’m trying to highlight the point, if only as a thought exercise, that if we really wanted to (and yes Mikey if we were able to put aside ego) we could have created two parallel plans to improve/change the Beach Chalet fields for better/more use AND get the astroturf/lights project done somewhere else. We could have had our cake and eat it too- and that a parallel-project proposal could get 90% voter support. Big make out sessions between soccer fanatics and hippies!

    I’m sure Prop I supporters want move on (indeed they’ve started the construction before the final vote is even tallied, I note), and this may well be the end of the story. But the astroturf/light opponents may yet still have legitimate options available to us within our system of government, and we intend to explore every way in which to fight this project within our rights.

    Gripe all you want about being anti-progress, but this is the cost of putting forth a lazily-conceived, bad plan. You say this is typical of San Francisco? Well last time I checked the local economy and real estate values things seem to be working out pretty well, for all our flaws. With all the money around here there’s always going to be a ton of rich punks that scream and cry when they don’t get to build their pet projects. Like the Fisher boys on this project…do you think Prop I would have won the vote if it didn’t outspend its opposition 10:1?? Look it up.

    And there will below information voters who jump on the more well-financed campaign because they can’t resist the PR dogwhistles- “children!” “muddy fields!” “broken ankles!”

    But if nothing else our continued resistance is a clarion call to all future bad developments and casual voters who are their fans: we will not be pushed around, and we will not go quietly. We will fight, and it will cost you. Spend a bunch of cash on PR, hide behind “the kids”, whatever- we’re not going to roll over, and we’re not going away

86. They should rename the plastic field Fisher Family Soccer Fields since they practically bought the place and will most likely monopolize the area for corporate picnics and socialite events.

    Just like how the academy of sciences was destroyed to make a socialite club house (AKA Night Life). They even renamed Speedway Meadow after Warren Hellman a corporate mogul who monopolized the meadow with his oversized concerts. Let’s not forget about the renaming of Middle Park East after the extremely controversial and polarizing Nancy Pelosi.

    Plus the Equestrian center (horse stables) have been closed and abandon for over a decade thanks to Willie Brown. I heard he declared the structures seismically unfit after his niece or some extended family member was mistreated by one of the horse owners.

    GGP has been in steady decline for easily the past 15 years and it’s only getting worse. Renaming roads and meadows along with the public getting fenced out of the park for daily concerts that wreak havoc are among the changes to the park. God forbid native plant freaks get there way, most of the trees will be removed and replaced with weeds and sand dunes.

87. P.S. On a more conciliatory note I want to say to Sarah B. that I have denounced the people planning to target you personally and your business. It’s a disservice to the debate and really exacerbates this terrible rift within our community, and I’m very sorry to see that type of behavior. I have in fact communicated this directly to some of them and asked them to cease and desist.

    And or what it’s worth many other Prop I opponents are speaking out against these few bad apples as well. I hope this foolishness is headed off immediately, and that you feel free to exercise your rights and conduct your business! Picketing the construction itself would be a more reasonable way to express themselves (though maybe not much more effective).

    Bottom line: these folks don’t speak for me, and their actions don’t help anyone. I’m passionate about my opposition to this project, but ultimately the quality of our community is more important.

88. @ Rob – Reading your description sounds like a hellscape. It doesn’t match my experience of seeing more and more happy people enjoying the park. It seems more beautiful and accessible all the time. Living close to the park the size of the music events can get annoying but the reality is they do an amazing job of cleaning up after themselves and thousands of people have wonderful experiences during those shows.

    As for Hellman being a corporate monster…. I don’t know any other billionaires that support that many artists and musicians.

    I’m glad the science museum is used at night. What’s the alternative? Admittedly I miss the days of midnight laserarium but the current situation serves more people and helps pay for the incredible level of technology in that building.

    Naming anything after Pelosi is precarious. I’ll just think about Harvey Mil era Pelosi if I see a sign with her name on it. She did pay some dues in this city.

89. George. Right on.

90. I enjoy reading your blog page for the Richmond, but I don’t think it is appropriate to make political statements without covering both points of view.

91. @George

    I’d be very grateful if you and all others living in the richmond opposed to this project relinquished your properties so they could rightly be returned to the wetlands they deserve to be. I’m sure there’s enough of you to offset the fields.

    Next up: The roads we live on should be returned to the land as well.

92. For starters, I dont live on a former coastal wetland. Its a bad place to build- and we shall see how this facility fares during flooding.

    Also, I think you miss the point of having a “park”. This area has been heavily developed over the last 50 years. Fortunately (or so I thought) our city had the foresight to keep a narrow strip of land verdant down to the sea. Not pristine, not native habitat- but not urban hardscape either. That is the vision of the park- supported by voters and lawmakers over the decades.

    Unfortunately the latest generation ain’t the greatest generation and we have dropped the ball. And most of
    The project supporters are pretty glib about it- we shall see how people feel once its up in all its sublte glory.

    What can be voted in can also be voted out, evidently.

93. Is it true that that location was originally a sewage plant?

94. The Beach Chalet soccer fields were built as Soccer fields, and were in lousy shape 50 years ago, when I played there for the Mercury Club. They were lousy in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s. This is NOT something that was the result of Prop 13; they have always been that way – lousy, gopher ridden, COLD, and inadequate bathrooms.

    Soccer is a rapidly growing sport, in SF and the USA. We have a severe shortage of fields. The people who supported this understand this, and I don’t believe they are motivated by profits. I believe they are ernest in their desire to improve the city.

    The Polo Field Soccer fields (natural) are in relatively good shape, thanks (in part) to the corporate funds from Outsidelands, etc that are earmarked for them. However, I still hear players complain about the bird droppings (from Canadian Geese) that cover the fields.

    I am not a big fan of artificial turf, but I believe that this project has been properly vetted and should move forward.

95. @Richmondman. Thank you for shedding light on how long those fields have been around and in disrepair. I think that is important information when assessing both sides of this argument especially when it spotlights typical inaction on the city’s part. For what it’s worth, Treasured Island is already used for bay area youth sports and the entire western part of the city was mostly sand dunes not so very long ago!

Comments are closed.