Opposing ROSE’s Policy 4.2 – Update

[UPDATE: Disappointingly, despite what we were told was a deluge of emails and phone calls, the Board of Supervisors passed the ROSE – including Policy 4.2. Details are available here: The ROSE disappointment.]

Two weeks ago, we explained why we oppose the ROSE (Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan for the city of San Francisco), and asked San Franciscans to write to the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors. The main issue is that the draft ROSE includes Policy 4.2, which potentially could extend the same principles as the Natural Areas Program (i.e. cutting down trees, restricting access, using toxic herbicides, all to favor Native Plant museums) to all the city’s Open Spaces.

Here’s an update.

  • The Land Use Committee decided not to decide. Thanks to your emails and phone calls, the three Supervisors on the Land Use Committee grew concerned about the issue. Though they did not vote NO on the ROSE, they did not vote yes either. Instead, they passed it on to the full Board of Supervisors without a recommendation. The Board was expected to vote on June 24th, 2014.
  • The Full Board postponed the vote to July 8th, 2014. Because of the uproar against the ROSE, the Board decided to postpone the vote for two weeks, until July 8. Supervisor Scott Wiener (District 8) said that some of his colleagues had not been “briefed” on the ROSE. We are not sure if that means briefed by one of the city departments that is hoping to push the ROSE through with the egregious Policy 4.2 still included; or if they wish to take the time to understand the concerns of those so vehemently opposed.

The good news is this gives us more time to get even more people to ask them to Vote NO on the ROSE. The West of Twin Peaks Central Council voted this week to send a letter urging the Supervisors to Vote NO on the ROSE. Others are trying to visit the supervisors to brief them from our point of view. We encourage you to write (e-mail) and/or call your Supervisor to urge him/her to enter a no vote on July 8th.

The Natural Areas Program is a really bad model to extend all over the city. Even within its current bounds, it generates enormous controversy, quite disproportionate to its size. There is no reason to use the same principles elsewhere.

OUR VIDEO

Watch our video on Youtube, (where you can also sign up for the SF Forest Alliance Youtube channel):

OUR MESSAGE TO SAN FRANCISCO’s BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SFRPD

What we stand for can be summarized in four key areasTreesAccessToxinsTaxes.

This is an opportunity for the Supervisors to stop something that would be bad for our city, for residents and families, and wildlife. It would build conflict into the General Plan, possibly for decades.

The San Francisco Forest Alliance asks the Supervisors to vote NO on the ROSE, to send it back to Planning until Policy 4.2 is removed. We’re a grass-roots organization of people who love nature and the environment, pay taxes responsibly, and want access to our parks and wild places – with our families.

Citizens care about their city Parks, and want to keep healthy trees and to open access to natural areas. Citizens expect city management to act responsibly and in the public trust.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Opposing ROSE’s Policy 4.2 – Update

  1. milliontrees says:

    If you are a reader of Jake Sigg’s “Nature News” you might be confused. Jake is claiming that Policy 4.2 only “continues” the Natural Areas Program. He either doesn’t understand or chooses to misrepresent Policy 4.2, which will EXPAND the Natural Areas Program to all open space in San Francisco, regardless of its current owner—even private property owners.

    Policy 4.2 uses the same definition of “natural areas” which sounds innocuous but was interpreted liberally when 32 so-called “natural areas” were designated in 1998. Many of those areas had no native plants in them until they were planted there by NAP. Some of the areas had been continuously built upon for over 100 years, such as Sutro Dunes which was the previous site of Playland by the Beach or India Basin which is landfill.

    So, don’t expect this definition to be used wisely or appropriately if Policy 4.2 is approved. If you are skeptical of that prediction, just watch the video of the Land Use Committee that heard this item on June 16th (go to sfgovtv). One of the NAP supporters reeled off nine properties that he wanted designated as “natural areas” when Policy 4.2 is approved; three of the properties he named are now public and six are now private.

    Don’t be misled by those who either don’t understand or choose to misrepresent the consequences of Policy 4.2.

  2. Pingback: Restricting Access to San Francisco’s Parks | San Francisco Forest Alliance