Speak Up: Rec & Park Glen Canyon Renovation Meeting – 7Jan 2013

This is your chance to ask the tough questions about the Glen Canyon Park Renovation Project—poor community process, piecemeal tree removals, wasteful spending that squanders much of the $5.8 million, or anything else related to this project. We have heard from many who are quite dissatisfied with the decision-making process, lack of transparency and wasteful spending with this project. SF Rec and Park representatives and Supervisor Scott Wiener will be present, and you should be too.

Forest and fog

Forest and fog

MEETING DETAILS

Glen Park Rec Center Auditorium
Monday, January 7, 2013
6:30 PM – 8:00 PM
70 Elk Street (entrance between Sussex & Chenery)

See the Rec & Park meeting notice HERE

In Glen Canyon Park our $5.8 million gets us…

The Good

  • New ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible bathrooms, courtyard, and street-side drop-off area on Elk street
  • Heating system in the Rec Center
  • Larger and improved playground
  • Removal of one hazardous tree and some pines that are dead or near end-of-life

The Bad

Same number of tennis courts but moved to a slightly different location, orientation of the new courts has been criticized by local tennis players

(For $5.8 million couldn’t we at least get an extra court or an outdoor racquetball court or two, or the floor repaired in the gym?)

The Ugly

  • MarkedTrees6We lose beautiful landmark old-growth eucalyptus trees that are being chopped down to make way for pathways highlighting native plant gardens.
  • We lose 50 other trees being chopped down, while nearby trees rated as “hazardous” by the arborist are left in place.
  • This “taxes to chop trees” plan is just the beginning – projects to follow target hundreds more.

Chopping down 100 year old trees and getting some saplings in return is an extremely bad trade. It is a bit insulting that RPD and politicians think we are stupid enough to think this is a wonderful trade-off. It is kind of like expecting an Eskimo to be happy with a bag of ice cubes after you destroy his igloo.

Overall. Rec & Park’s arborist deemed 504 of 627 as “poor suitability”, just like most of the 58 trees coming down with this first removal project. The three currently funded projects will remove 149 trees and no one knows whether the remaining “poor suitability” trees will be removed piecemeal with each new project to keep winding back the botamical clock to an time when San Francisco was most dune and rock with few trees.

Just more of the same “Restoration Ecology”

The same group of administrators, managers and stakeholders driving the NAP “restoration ecology” plan for our parks are targeting the trees of Glen Canyon Park. Rec & Park’s NAP plan for our parks set the following goals:

  • Elimination of over 18,500 “non-native” trees in SF parks
  • Closure of over 9 miles of recreational trails, 19 acres of dog-walking areas, and elimination of other park features
  • Establishment of native plant gardens requiring ongoing maintenance that require thousands of volunteer hours and toxic herbicides

All these “restoration ecology” projects hurt the people, wildlife and pets that need our parks.

For more information visit  http://www.SFGlenCanyon.net  or  http://www.SFForest.net.

We hope to see you at the meeting, Monday, January 7th at 6:30 in the Glen Canyon Rec Center!

Advertisements

2 Responses to Speak Up: Rec & Park Glen Canyon Renovation Meeting – 7Jan 2013

  1. Glen Gage says:

    Glen Canyon is a precious asset and needs to be maintained in its current ecological balance. Funds to improve existing facilities should be spent solely to improve facilities with absolute minimum change to the existing flora. Proposed changes include the destruction of habitat that could be easily avoided. The proposed changes are a non-transparent furthering of the NAP agenda.

  2. Annamaria Manodori says:

    My ten year old granddaughter, Sophia, and I attended the meeting last night, January 7. It is quite apparent that SFRPD intends to go forward with their preposterous plan regardless of the numerous protests of attendees. Sophia’s question now is “What can we do to stop the destruction?” If the application for exemption for environmental impact study was based on a lie, can we challenge that legally?