Activists fight the proposed parking garage in Golden Gate Park music concourse

Would someone PLEASE get the hook for these people?

You don't demonstrate a clue about what's going on. Maybe you like rich fucks and their faux attempts at culture running roughshod over historic preservation. Maybe you like cars endangering pedestrian access. Go play in the street.

hi there,

there's lots of reasons people drive to the park. some of them are bad. some of them are old. some of them have babies, or other "special needs."

people who insist that parks are only for people with bikes or pedestrians, are so often people with things like healthy legs, lungs, lots of leisure time, few commitments (and certainly none more important than their own lifestyles). (not to mention ideologies of personal superiority and spatial domination.) they don't get bullied on the bus. can afford to live near the park. that type of thing.

instead of trying to find solutions that make limited unpaved urban area available to more people, they try to limit competition for the (crowded) resource by blaming people for the choices they make about how to try to enjoy what limited leisure time "the system" has alloted them.

upon such people is rightly heaped much scorn. personally, i find the worse elements of the "bike people," and others with these kinds of attitudes, to be as insufferably snotty as the most wilful suv-nightmare cases, ironically for much the same reasons, humanistically speaking.

...of pedestrians vs bikes vs cars, pedestrians should be given priority. Your own snotty comments about bicyclists notwithstanding, this is far more of a pedestrian/disabled access issue. This includes disabled who are now supposed to shuttle themselves through a busy garage pathway in the current plan.

Perhaps you are unaware of the language that was passed by the voters. It included a pedestrian oasis. That's what the voters voted for and that's what they deserve. Nothing less.

And let's cut the crap of you feeling threatened by using public transit. This may be an issue in some parts of the city, but GGP ain't one of them. As someone who has mobility issues, I have no problem getting to the park using transit. There is also an excellent shuttle available. But I sincerely doubt you've tried it.

my argument was that different people take different forms of transport for different reasons, and shouldn't be prejudged for it. none of it had anything to do with my very own personal transport issues. so whose crap is left to cut?

is the snottiness mine, or yours projected onto me?

No one is prejudging other's use of various forms of transport. Are you?

Many people do need to drive. Whether we need to accomodate all people to drive everywhere at all times is another issue. A lot of people who drive through the park on weekdays use it as a shortcut to get somewhere in a hurry and not to stop and enjoy the park and it's ammenities.I would argue that this is not what the park is for. The ammenities provided for drivers should never threaten the safety of pedestrians or other transportation users. We have pretty much accomodated most drivers in SF to the point where parking illegally, running red lights and not yielding to pedestrians is a matter of course. Nonetheless, the people who do need to drive to the park and the concourse will have no problem doing so, rest assured.

The issue of what happens in regard to the concourse garage is a simple one. The people passed a law which approved a garage with no entrance inside the park, as well as a pedestrian oasis. When they insist that all parties adhere to the letter of the law, the concourse authority pulls out all the stops to avoid doing what everyone agreed to in the first place. Anyone who complains is accused of whining.

What is your problem with the fulfillment of Prop J as written and passed by the voters?

you said
" Many people do need to drive."

and there you have it.

I also said: "Whether we need to accomodate all people to drive everywhere at all times is another issue."

You want to accomodate drivers. The voters want to accomodate everyone, not exclusive of those who need to drive, but not giving them preference either. "Pedestrian Oasis" is how it was sold to the voters. What exactly does that mean to you?

as it is, people park on the roads in the park. i have no idea why you think that is preferable.

They're putting in a garage. Are you saying it needs to be bigger? Then you should know that the policy on the quantity of parking spaces in the Park is determined by the Park's master plan. The idea is to reduce pavement, not to increase it. Otherwise it would be a car park.

This has all been addressed by Prop J, which once again, you seem to be ignoring. Have a look.

are you not opposed to it?

as passed. Parking is provided for in Prop J. Are you opposed to that?

Or was is it just not enough? You don't seem to support the will of the voters. So do you- or don't you?

works for you.

please bear in mind that cars are legal, and have a nice day.

that the law as passed has nothing to do with the legality of cars. If you want to discuss an issue, best discuss it instead of posing rhetorical questions and ignoring the answers.

Any more than you're interested in a pedestrian oasis, or the GGP master plan, or the language of prop J, or the will of the voters or any of those fine things.

tally ho.

The old plan was found excessively friendly to pedestrians and alternative transportation users. This, as I'm sure you will agree, is a much needed improvement. We'll put it on the ballot as "Prop Why?"

Finally! Enough parking to satisfy everyone! What a vision for the future of our park.

and of course we're not allowed to build anything up, if it were to adjoin any private property in the city, so what does that leave?

answer: stealth attacks on the right to drive, by doing things like eliminating parking or making it so restrictive that it effectively becomes a privilege of wealth rather than a transportation option.

method: stealth attacks. we can't get rid of cars, so we'll get rid of parking. like using the labor code to fight smoking. (and villanize drivers as yuppies or whatever. the war of caricature. sort of like republicans do.)

smoking? in our park? what kind of barbarian would think that's a good idea?

"Stealth attacks on the right to drive"? You're forgetting one thing: driving is a priviledge, not a right. And where does your right to drive supercede everyone else's rights?

There is a finite amount of parking. There is a housing shortage and yet developers would love to provide more parking at a cost of roughly 50 grand per parking space, instead of providing badly needed living space.

I mean if you like congestion, if you want more traffic, by all means- go to all the hearings and lobby your heart out.

But that is not what good urban planning does. Not in a transit first City. We have enough traffic, and the existing traffic clogs transit and discourages people from using that option.

And by the way, what does our park have to do with your driving priviledges? Did you read Prop J at ALL? Ever?

is that it's elitist and draconian, and your means are dishonest.

they have to be, because the personal automobile is so popular.

btw, you're starting to sound like a dmv pamphlet.

the real truth is, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice.... unless you get your way, that is.

LEGAL TEXT OF PROPOSITION J

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
(Remember them? The ones who passed Prop J?)

Section 1. [Short Title, Policies, Purposes]
This ordinance shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of 1998."

"The principal purposes of this ordinance are to (1) create a pedestrian oasis in the Music Concourse area of Golden Gate Park, situated between the de Young Museum and the Academy of Sciences (the "Concourse") and (2) take steps to reduce the impact of automobiles in the Park while still providing long-term assurance of safe, reliable and convenient access for visitors to the Park, including its cultural institutions."

Reduce the impact of automobiles? Ha ha ha ha ha!

"An underground public parking facility within or near the Concourse with a dedicated entrance and exit (or entrances and exits) outside of the Park will enhance such public access. It will also minimize the potential conflict between recreational enthusiasts and automobile traffic within the Park, including John F. Kennedy Drive and abutting roads. The construction of such an underground parking facility will allow surface parking spaces now located in and about the Concourse to be permanently eliminated, thereby improving recreational uses and scenic values of such portions of the Park."

BUT WAIT, there's more!

"Transit is as important to the future of the Park as parking is to assure access to the Park for all San Franciscans. This ordinance authorizes the Concourse Authority to take actions necessary to reduce the impact of automobiles that detract from the natural, scenic and environmental attributes of the Park. It is recognized the garages can create more traffic congestion in the Park and surrounding areas. It is also recognized that the development and support of necessary and appropriate transit, traffic and infrastructure improvements can successfully address these critical concerns to benefit Park users, neighbors and the overall Park experience. To these ends, the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority shall be specifically charged with developing and completing a feasibility and implementation and "transit first" plan within one year after its formation, in conjunction with other appropriate City departments and commissions, as further provided in this ordinance."

Pleasant reading!

it doesn't matter whether i read the law or not, because i'm not a lawyer. the law means what a lawyer gets a judge to declare it means, nothing more nor less. are you a lawyer?

as for the "privilege" of driving, by the time you're done, it will be a privilege few but mr. hellman will be able to afford to enjoy. that's sucky, and that's why no one trusts people with agendas like yours with power. try honesty.

which is often otherwise too bad. why don't you take your moral crusading back to bunnies or aclohol or something?

every driver's hands from the wheel. Your fears are quite unfounded. Do you watch TV and read the papers? It's not gonna happen.

Besides, the people you're attacking didn't even write Prop J. It was written by the people supporting the concourse garage, which I have to assume you support. You accuse the people who are fighting the concourse of being dishonest and elitist because the want the Concourse Authority to adhere to Prop J. So we're to understand it's dishonest to attempt to have the parties involved adhere to the letter of the law? And apparently, you don't have enough access already, so of course they must be elitist as well.

The problem I have with all your comments is the assumptions you make about other's so-called agenda as well as the lumping into groups for easier attack (ie: "bike people," and "others with these kinds of attitudes"... "insufferably snotty", etc.). You don't seem to understand or care that the Proposition is the will of the people. You want it both ways. You want the garage, but you want "more". What "more" you want isn't quite clear. Perhaps you can tell us. My question to you is: when will it be enough?

i exactly maintain that there is an agenda in s.f. to indirectly whittle away at car traffic by making it more difficult and expensive to operate a motor vehicle, until the privilege is that of the rich alone. since it can't be done on those terms, the might of the state is being combined with grassroots efforts that, ostensibly seeking freedom, really seek to achieve the same agenda of control by other means.

ultimately, it's a matter of protecting the people from themselves, because people won't vote cars away on their own.

when is enough? well, that's just my point, that very question shows your real agenda. when indeed is enough? no one's trying to take away your bus, bike or skate. go enjoy your alternatives. you can even be cool, smug, evolved and whatnot for it.

enough is when you try to take away the right of other people to choose, by small incremental steps. enough is when the same strategy that has been used to fight smoking and abortion, for example, are extended into yet other realms. no, you're not trying to eliminate cars-- just parking and freeways, with maybe some new fees and tolls thrown in to boot. (yeah, fees-- they did great things for grey davis, didn't they? what an energy leader, that fella...)

that's the thing-- the agenda is recognizable enough because it's used by people trying to take things away from the people all the time.

do you deny it?

I got your drunken bunny right here. Get to work.

as per above: the more i want is choice.

what is the more you want?

"i exactly maintain that there is an agenda in s.f. to indirectly whittle away at car traffic by making it more difficult and expensive to operate a motor vehicle, until the privilege is that of the rich alone."

You have got to be kidding. Just keep telling yourself, "When cars are outlawed, only outlaws will have cars."

The main thing making it difficult to own and operate a motor vehicle is the presence of too many motor vehicles. I've lived here since the 70's. People used to be able to find a parking space, were courteous to others (most of the time anyway) and our transit was well used.

I'm sure all the major car companies will be happy to support you in your efforts. Good luck.

it's equal and safe access, which you are not going to convince me that pedestrians, cyclists or alternative transit users currently have when compared to that of drivers.

"the more i want isn't more, but rather, it's more access for pedestrians."

um....... okay. no agenda here i guess. best move along...

"I've lived here since the 70's"

well, we all know what that means: your opinion counts more than those who moved here in the 80s, and less than those who moved here in the 60s.

on the other hand, it means you weren't born here, and so therefore can't hold a legitimate opinion on the place at all.

nope, no elitism here. move along...

I was commenting on what it was like then. I made no inference as to my superior number of years of living here. I don't think that matters as much as some do apparently, including yourself.

...we want the laws people vote for to be abided by,

...and we think that all forms of alternative transport should be on equal footing with drivers.

Yeah, equality bad/ laws bad, you're right, we are SO elitist.

what's elitist, and thus bad, is legislating the choices people make about how to get around.

like any other law seeking to effectively restrict choice so that people have to do what you want them to do because that's best for them and others. that's elitist, and bad.

i'm all for alternatives. are you, really? or are you for better laws to better control more people in the service of your agenda for them?

that, my friend, is the burning question. your replies so far don't make the prognosis look real good.

"I don't think that matters as much as some do"

what, you don't know about the phenomenon of people citing their years here as a social-legitimation device? or about the native-born/relocated divide?

i didn't make this stuff up, buddy. maybe you're just subconsciously reiterating the local social dynamic? funny, it was to your apparent advantage in the debate....

"what's elitist, and thus bad, is legislating the choices people make about how to get around."

Warren Hellman (benefactor of Prop J) and Michael Yaki (author of PropJ) and the voters of San Francisco. That's what you got.

If you don't like the legislative process, I suggest you get off your own duff and do something about it, instead of whining about others who already have.

You know, frankly people who don't bother to read the laws they vote on (too legal!) probably shouldn't even bother to vote for them. Did you vote for prop J, by the way? Hmmm?

in the voter pamphlets.

god puts messages in them, ya know...

to relax, if ya see what i mean. i mean, it's the will of the people. so forceful, so dynamic.

just like a war leader can be.

the people never made a bad law that should have been resisted, far as i can figure. isn't that inherently legitimating?

what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. whatever yanks your chain.

thanks for leaving me choice somewhere in my life.

that is so generous of you. but then, i guess the christian coalition has cornered that particular behavior-restriction market, huh?

why don't you take it up with them? hee hee hee!

if the people make a bad law, should it be resisted?

or should the majority dictate?

just theoretically, natch.

did you vote for prop J, whether under the covers, in the privacy of your most secret of secret ballots?????

OH PLEASE TELL US!

and there's fine, democratic reasons for that.

but i'm still waiting to see whether you think a law is unquestionable just for being plebicitic.

what do you think, hmm?

...of saying that that the people supported it?

"if the people make a bad law, should it be resisted?
or should the majority dictate? "

I see you don't really want to be a part of the political process in this great city of ours. A great loss I'm sure.

However, if you do still hold out a thought that maybe you should, WHY OF COURSE- that's part of the process. RESIST! OUT INTO THE STREETS!

There are plenty of other people out there who feel as you do. Unfortunately they're all so very busy, it's just hard to get them off their asses... er... involved.

should people have rights that can't be abridged by law,
or should things carried by a vote of the people always have precedence?

is that clearer?

like take, for example, the right of same-sex couples to marry. should there be a federal law restricting that right, or should that be left to smaller entities to decide for themselves? or should, perhaps, people be left to decide what works best for their desires and circumstances?

driving, while being a different thing, is likewise a matter of choice about how one will live one's life. should the right to avail oneself of that choice be mandatorily dictated, or likewise restricted and burdened, by the state, or should that be left to smaller entities (in this case, people) to decide?

you're not going to flip flop on us here, are you?

or say the right to terminate a pregnancy. or to eat meat.

furthermore, do i have to be an activist to "earn" my rights to make choices independent of government interference? or must i be compelled to associate with others to defend my rights from would-be interlopers like you, who have somehow mysteriously earned the right to dictate my life choices to me because they associated with other people to do so?

all great questions. thanks for bringing them up! myself, and others perhaps interested in personal freedom issues, look forward to your answers.

"should people have rights that can't be abridged by law".

There is nothing in this law that abridges your rights. If you have a problem with any perceived abridgement of your rights then do something about it. Write Mr. Hellman a love letter perhaps.

"must i be compelled to associate with others to defend my rights from would-be interlopers like you..."

oh you mean: your fellow citizens! I see...

"who have somehow mysteriously earned the right to dictate my life choices to me because they associated with other people to do so?"

No one is dictating your life choices, baby. I'm beginning to wonder if there is even anyone at the wheel of the vehicle where you're concerned. If it's too much bother to get involved, then don't. Pay someone else to do it if you like. That's what Warren is there for after all.

what a great people-power strategy!!

and you dodged the question in saying so.

why your coalition never quite makes it into the mayor's office, &c.

people aren't your agenda, they're your fig leaf.

you seem to think that someone else should do it for you. that's only one option: Suck the rich man's teat. Should come naturally to ya.

it's hard getting support for big brother solutions, after all.... even in san francisco.

innit?

Really- do have a word with your big bubba Warren. I know he'll be all ears.

you were unable to stick to the argument at hand, and don't really care about anything excepting -your- own agenda.

Regrettably, you started out with smears on anyone who might potentially disagree with you and offered no logical response to any questions on your viewpoint, other than to accuse and offer more smears.

So by all means, hang with the big Ness and your new found bubba! Enjoy!

pun intended.

the masses positively shudder in anticipation of the "progress" your association of activists is set to bring them.

that's why they're knocking down your door. really.

yeah we got "the highway"! ha ha you're such a card!

"the masses positively shudder in anticipation of the "progress" your association of activists is set to bring them."

Activists, yeah gee they sure are awful really. Uh huh. Warren Hellman, man, he's the worst one of all.

If you want to see real progress, visit LA and see how they work things there. Maybe you can bring back some really cool ideas so we can have more of what you want!

"no, you're not trying to eliminate cars-- just parking and freeways, with maybe some new fees and tolls thrown in to boot. (yeah, fees-- they did great things for grey davis, didn't they? what an energy leader, that fella...)"

I almost forgot! Remember all the school and basic services cuts we'll be getting, and our budget deficit which is leaving cities everywhere to cover basic services? They were paid for by Arnie's gift to the California driver! "Sorry kid, no PE for you. Go join a gang and terminate someone!"

realistically, that's probably why it's legal at all. but funny thing, people like their cars. and, because of decisions made in the mid-20th century, you pretty much need one to go much of anywhere. some people even need them to get around at all. there, we've come full circle.

and while we're at it, i'd just love to see you take your anti-parking (but really anti-car) campaign to LA. start in south central, and east LA-- explain why people there shouldn't be able to afford to drive.

let us know when you plan this tour, we'll come clean your pieces off the sidewalk to prevent further environmental degradation...

you're leaving it all to the rest of us. Hey, here's someone who'll take care of all your parking needs!

i'm more likely to vote for him than for you.

only if left with no choice though.

"there's lots of reasons people drive to the park. some of them are bad."


perhaps it was a typo, but I do love it.

some people drive for bad reasons.

is the solution legislative?

we should call in a social worker?

So as someone who just might be more likely to vote for Arnie, maybe just voting isn't good enough (damned plebiscites.). What else would you suggest? Ford supposedly had a better idea. Do you?

Many would call for violent revolution. Many others would say we should just shut the fuck up and toe the party line, whatever the party. I say part of the solution is people getting more involved, and giving input to their (ohmygod!) elected representatives. But golly, then you would accuse me of having "an agenda". Oh dear, here we are again!

But that would still be off the issue of whether you do or don't have sufficient access, should you require it.

Under Prop J.

Have a good evening.

to vote for you.

your pathetic reductionism, and clinging to legal mechanisms to control people's behavior just because you personally don't like it, is downright disturbed.

what *are* you doing here?

loved how he made cars less affordable, didn't ya? never mind his collusion with enron during the "rolling blackmails," because people shouldnt use so much energy either, right?

and you got us all what you deserved. *that's* the problem with approaches like yours.

But, wow this is fascinating!

"your pathetic reductionism, and clinging to legal mechanisms to control people's behavior just because you personally don't like it, is downright disturbed. "

Ooh, you love Arnie, but let's see, you don't like "legal mechanisms" like voting and shit (come on! This is Nessie right?)

So what have you got instead of people having their say, as flawed as the process is? Give it to me baby, who's your daddy?

Stand up and tell us.

YOU VOTED? effing sellout.

that's just a fantasy you constructed about who your opposition must be.

i just gave you enough rope.

speaking of rope, explain to us again, the part about how the law is going to make our lives progressively better, by constraining the rabble.

pretty please? it'll aid me in my nocturnal, um... voter-pamphlet readings, heh heh...

one solid week of near-pure surrealism, for free...

Why voting is so gosh darn naughty, you little closet rabble rouser you. Just restrain those filthy urges for a moment more.

Bad rabble, naughty rabble. Opinions are reserved for those they are reserved for. Some progressives are more equal than others, no?

"speaking of rope, explain to us again, the part about how the law is going to make our lives progressively better, by constraining the rabble.
pretty please? it'll aid me in my nocturnal, um... voter-pamphlet readings, heh heh..."

I never made it to the top of the list. I was crushed, as you may well believe.

and will stop at little to get it.

i think you have to pass a law if you want much more from me.

show us how to do it!

*you* be daddy!!

I hate to mention it yet again, but well they did pass a law. nothing to do with you of course, don't flatter yourself.

don't be such a pig.

you need another law. once ya get started, ya just cant stop!!

one law is never enough.

At least I can have a restraining order against you if need be.

hehheh. and prior, at that. heh.

now, can i get a witness, what else besides law might be used to improve living conditions in the community?

see below!

from Robert Bolt's play, based on the life of Sir Thomas More. As a human construction, the law is of course, imperfect. But then so is the Constitution. Pardon the religious reference, this is a period piece.

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.