Difference between revisions of "City of San Francisco Parks and Athletic Fields Renovation and Conversion Council-Referred Measure, Proposition I (November 2014)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Opposition)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
{{Property}}{{tnr}}A '''City of San Francisco Parks and Athletic Fields Renovation and Conversion Council-Referred Plan''' ballot question is on the [[November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California|November 4, 2014 election ballot]] for voters in the [[San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures|city of San Francisco]], [[California]].
 
{{Property}}{{tnr}}A '''City of San Francisco Parks and Athletic Fields Renovation and Conversion Council-Referred Plan''' ballot question is on the [[November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California|November 4, 2014 election ballot]] for voters in the [[San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures|city of San Francisco]], [[California]].
  
If approved, this measure would allow improvements, renovations and developments of recreational areas that have been approved by the state-mandated environmental review, the California Coastal Commission and any other relevant regulatory board or entity to go forward unfettered by delays caused by appeals, petitions and other protests. The measure has a [[Poison pill|poison clause]] that would invalidate [[City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)|a competing initiative concerning preservation of natural grass in Golden Gate Park]]. If both this measure and the [[City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)|competing initiative]] are approved, the one with the most votes will be enacted, while the other is rejected.<ref name=compete>[http://sfappeal.com/2014/06/competing-ballot-measures-would-ask-voters-to-make-decision-on-beach-chalet-astro-turf-plan/ ''San Francisco Appeal'', "Competing Ballot Measures Would Ask Voters To Make Decision On Beach Chalet Astro-Turf Plan," June 17, 2014]</ref>
+
If approved, this measure would allow improvements, renovations and developments of recreational areas that have been approved by the state-mandated environmental review, the California Coastal Commission and any other relevant regulatory board or entity to go forward unfettered by delays caused by appeals, petitions and other protests. The measure has a [[Poison pill|poison clause]] that would invalidate [[City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)|a competing initiative concerning preservation of natural grass in Golden Gate Park]]. If both this measure and the [[City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)|competing initiative]] are approved, the one with the most votes will be enacted, while the other is rejected.<ref name=compete>[http://sfappeal.com/2014/06/competing-ballot-measures-would-ask-voters-to-make-decision-on-beach-chalet-astro-turf-plan/ ''San Francisco Appeal'', "Competing Ballot Measures Would Ask Voters To Make Decision On Beach Chalet Astro-Turf Plan," June 17, 2014]</ref><ref name=three>[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-Insider-Ballot-measures-and-money-for-janitors-5605368.php ''San Francisco Chronicle online'', "Signatures filed for 3 S.F, ballot measures," July 7, 2014]</ref>
<ref name=three>[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-Insider-Ballot-measures-and-money-for-janitors-5605368.php ''San Francisco Chronicle online'', "Signatures filed for 3 S.F, ballot measures," July 7, 2014]</ref>
+
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
 
:: '''''Note:''' Supporters of this measure are opposed to the [[City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)|competing citizen-initiated measure]].''
 
:: '''''Note:''' Supporters of this measure are opposed to the [[City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)|competing citizen-initiated measure]].''
Line 64: Line 63:
  
 
===Videos===
 
===Videos===
The following videos are featured on the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Parks website:<ref name=CPGGP/>
+
The following videos are featured on the ''Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park'' website:<ref name=CPGGP/>
 
{|
 
{|
 
|----- valign="right"
 
|----- valign="right"

Revision as of 16:47, 22 August 2014

See also: City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative (November 2014)
Voting on Property
Property.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
A City of San Francisco Parks and Athletic Fields Renovation and Conversion Council-Referred Plan ballot question is on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California.

If approved, this measure would allow improvements, renovations and developments of recreational areas that have been approved by the state-mandated environmental review, the California Coastal Commission and any other relevant regulatory board or entity to go forward unfettered by delays caused by appeals, petitions and other protests. The measure has a poison clause that would invalidate a competing initiative concerning preservation of natural grass in Golden Gate Park. If both this measure and the competing initiative are approved, the one with the most votes will be enacted, while the other is rejected.[1][2]

Support

Note: Supporters of this measure are opposed to the competing citizen-initiated measure.
Image of Golden Gate Park

Supporters

The city council approved the plans to renovate the Beach Chalet field and referred this measure to the ballot, which would block the opposing initiative and allow the project to go forward if it is approved.[1]

Arguments in favor

Supporters believe that the city can save money and produce better city facilities and parks if it is not interfered with during the planning and project approval phases of renovation and park development projects. They say that the delays caused by appeals, petitions and protests from small groups of activists are costly and deprive residents of park enjoyment.[1]

Beachchaletrenovated2014.jpg

Supporters of the Beach Chalet Soccer Fields renovation project argue that the park will be much more enjoyable and accessible to residents, including youth, if the renovations are allowed to go forward. Those who support the renovation project, advocating a "yes" vote on this measure, also say that converting the soccer fields to artificial turf will save countless gallons of irrigation water in a time when California is experiencing an extreme water shortage.[1]

In an opinion piece on The Richmond District of San Francisco blog, Sarah B. wrote the following in favor of the Beach Chalet renovations:[3]

Artificial turf is already in use in several fields across the city, and the lower maintenance and increased playing time it offers make it a sound choice.

And unlike many city projects, half of the $8.9 million renovation costs would be shared by the City Fields Foundation who to date, have renovated five facilities in the city. They know what works and so far, have been very successful in their efforts.

In its current condition, the Beach Chalet fields can host just over 4,000 hours of play in a year. With the renovations in place, the amount of hours for both soccer and lacrosse games to take place would almost be tripled.

In a time when the game of soccer is on the rise, kids are in need of more physical activity and city budgets are being slashed, why wouldn’t we say yes to this project? Let’s turn Beach Chalet into the sports facility it was always meant to be. It would be a great benefit to soccer enthusiasts throughout San Francisco, and would be a facility that all of the Richmond District would be proud to have, especially this one.[4]

—Sarah B.[3]

The San Francisco Chronicle online featured an opinion piece advocating the renovation project that would be allowed to go forward by this measure and criticizing the project's opponents. Below is an excerpt from the article:[5]

The package would be a blessing for the city's soccer players. The $8.9 million cost will be split by the city and the City Parks Foundation, largely supported by the Fisher family, who started the Gap clothing chain. Along with the new fields, there will be lighting to allow play up to 10 p.m. in an area that's largely shrouded from nearby homes. The existing turf - so heavily used that one of the four fields is rotated out of use for restoration - has been devoted to soccer for decades.

Why the need to explain the background and benefits? Because even a use as benign as improved soccer fields has generated opposition. Almost any change in Golden Gate Park draws fire, and some nature lovers want to hang on to the grass at all costs and fear impacts on wildlife. Though a swath of studies have failed to find any definitive harm from the artificial turf, some opponents cite health worries.

These doubts shouldn't prevail. A popular and growing sport deserves public support. A creative use of public and private money in tough budget times should be encouraged. Families weighing a move out of the city can take rundown sports facilities off their checklist. The city should get behind an encouraging idea that improves sports and parks.[4]

—Opinion piece featured on the San Francisco Chronicle[5]

Image of Beach Chalet soccer fields location

Opposition

Opponents

The chief group that is opposed to this measure and is behind the competing initiative is called the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.[6]

According to the coalition's website the following groups have supported the competing citizen initiative:[6]

  • Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
  • Take Back Our Parks
  • SF Ocean Edge
  • Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK)
  • Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
  • San Francisco Green Party
  • San Francisco Watershed Protection Alliance

Arguments against

Opponents of this measure who support the competing initiative believe there are significant harmful effects of artificial turf and believe enjoyment of the park will be impaired by the proposed renovations. The Coalition points out that the park was “designed and managed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban pressures” and that these opportunities are put at risk by putting in plastic grass and artificial lighting.[6]

The Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website featured the following statement supporting its initiative and opposing the proposed artificial turf project that would be allowed by this measure:[7]

Coalition members have numerous concerns about the negative impacts of the proposed Beach Chalet project. These concerns include:

  • environmental and human health threats posed by toxic chemicals in plastic turf and the rubber tire crumb infill;
  • the impact of high intensity sports lighting which would add significant light pollution that would impact birds and other wildlife that use the Park’s open spaces;
  • adverse impacts on the natural aquifer that underlies these fields which will soon be used to supplement the City’s potable water supply;
  • impacts on combined sewer overflow discharges into the Pacific Ocean at Ocean Beach;
  • impact of the Beach Chalet project on the Golden Gate Park historic district, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and,
  • the precedent for the rest of the California Coast set by the California Coastal Commission’s ruling approving the plan.

Supporters of the initiative believe this issue must be taken to the voters because the decision-makers in the City and the California Coastal Commission disregarded a wealth of information about the harmful effects of artificial turf, night lighting, and the inappropriateness of a sports stadium in the naturalistic western end of Golden Gate Park. Thousands of concerned residents signed petitions, wrote letters, testified at hearings, and publically protested the Beach Chalet project. Nevertheless, the decision-makers turned a deaf ear to this outcry and are allowing the project to go forward.[4]

—Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park[7]

Videos

The following videos are featured on the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website:[6]


Beach Chalet Fields Renovation

What's the Deal With Synthetic Turf Particles?

Similar measures

Related measures

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References