Time To Vote - Election Day in San Francisco

I think I've already made my position clear on the most important elective office in today's ballot in The City. As it turns out, there are some other elective posts and propositions on the ballot.  Here are the Chron Endorsements:

And the Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club Endorsements:

And the SF Moderates Endorsements:

The interesting bit about these diverse endorsements is that all of the preferred candidates for all of the elected offices by those three organizations are exactly the same. Who am I to disagree?

MW Brigade Election Selections:

Done deal. Still prefer voting in person on the "day of" the election rather than casting an absentee vote by mail.

While completing my ballot, I listened to poll workers patiently explain for the umpteenth time that if you vote for the same candidate on the three Ranked Choice Voting options, your ballot will be invalidated. The simple fact is that Ranked Choice Voting is confusing for voters, subject to "gaming", and will never be as accurate a reflection of voter intent as is a simple "top two" runoff.  I am reminded again of the final word on San Francisco's election process as perfectly articulated in the November, 2011 edition of Walter Hinkle's Argonaut:

"Let us express our complete and unqualified contempt for the city’s system of ranked choice voting and taxpayer financing of campaigns."

Exactly. Nothing to do now but wait for the results and hope for the best. Stay tuned. We'll update this post as the results come in...

UPDATE: 11:00 PM

The results are in. Among the elected offices, six of my seven choices prevailed. The big one was, of course Vicki Hennessy with 60% plurality over Ross Mirkarimi's 30% vote. Our long civic nightmare is over at last. My loser was also a big one. I live in District 3, and Aaron Peskin defeated Julie Christensen by a decisive 53% to 43% margin. It's all about Chinatown in this district, and Rose Pak proved to be a bigger power broker than Lee.  I can only hope that Peskin has mellowed since his last stint on the Board of Supervisors and is not the same flaming asshole he was then.  TBD.  Rank Choice Voting was not a factor in this election, and that is a good thing.

As far as the props are concerned, it was a mixed bag, which I expected. Five of the eleven props went against my voting preference. However the ones I cared the most about - No on D, No on F, No on I, all went down to defeat.  All in all, a good election, except for Rose Pak's new pocket supervisor.

UPDATE II: 04-November-2015

Chron columnist C.W. Nevius has his finger on the pulse of the City. His take of the election gets it mostly right on Lee, Mirkarimi, and the Props,  I just hope he got it right on Peskin:

"Much will be made of Aaron Peskin’s win in District Three, but I fail to see it as the end of the civilized world. Peskin is no Chris Daly — the polarizing F-bomb thrower. Peskin is smart and knows how to figure the angles. You can deal with him — just be sure to count your fingers after you shake hands. 

And one more thing. Peskin campaigned his butt off. Every day there was another story of a Peskin sighting, on a corner in North Beach chatting up voters or attending a neighborhood meeting. I even heard he’d contacted a Republican group about speaking to them. 

The point is, this is no hobby. Peskin is all in for city government. Good. Now let’s see forward-thinking legislation and not just attempts to stymie the mayor. A good sign is he spoke with Lee on Wednesday."

TBD. I do find it interesting how the EssEff Progs were so incensed when "power broker" Rose Pak backed Ed Lee for Mayor, but were much more sanguine about her influence in Chinatown when she supported Aaron Peskin in D3.

Rose Pak backing Ed Lee

Do not mess with Rose

Rose Pak backing Aaron Peskin

x-posted on my other blog

Dear San Francisco, It's not our fault we have an incompetent buffoon for Sheriff. 62% of us voted against Mirkarimi. Blame Ranked Choice Voting. In the name of all that is good and holy, let's fix this. - Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Apparently there are people who are still intending to support our incompetent, unqualified, national embarrassment of a Sheriff (I mean, people beside his wife Eliana). No... really... I have it on good authority that there are people who are going to vote for him. I know. Weird. 

As a public service, I have curated a representative sample of articles and commentary culled during Mirkarimi's tenure as San Francisco Sheriff:

• Scandal Plagued Sheriff Limps To Election Day - New York Times
• San Francisco Sheriff's Driver License Suspended for Not Reporting Crash - ABC 7 News
• Reluctant Range Boss Transferred, Mirkarimi Fails Gun Test - SF Gate
• Sheriff Mirkarimi Suspended Without Pay - Bay Citizen
• S.F. has a sheriff who can’t shoot straight - San Francisco Chronicle
• San Francisco Sheriff Has Blood On His Hands - Ricochet
• Ross Mirkarimi Guilty: SF Sheriff Pleads Guilty To False Imprisonment - Huffington Post
• Ross Mirkarimi: Ethics Commission Says Sheriff Is Guilty of Official Misconduct - SF Weekly 
• Dianne Feinstein blames SF Sheriff’s Department In Kathryn Steinle Death - Washington Times
• SF Sheriff Mirkarimi Charged With 3 Misdemeanors In Domestic Dispute - CBS SF Bay Area
• S.F. Sheriff Mirkarimi guilty of misconduct in domestic violence - LA Times
• Steinle Family Files Claims to Hold SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Responsible for Daughter's Death
• Deputies Union Files Grievance Against Sheriff Mirkarimi Over Pier 14 Shooting Suspect - NBC
• Sheriff’s managers endorse candidate — and it’s not Mirkarimi - SF Gate

And let's not forget this ...

You're welcome.

 One would expect that Sheriff Mirkarimi might have a tough time getting reelected given his record, but this is San Francisco. So who knows? Give him credit - he is actively courting some previously overlooked constituencies to his cause. First, he's locked up the Criminal Illegal Immigrant Vote, who flock to San Francisco's Criminal Sanctuary City status. Expanding on this previously untapped criminal voting block,  Ross Mirkarimi recently appealed to the domestic San Francisco criminals for their vote. He is fighting to eliminate bail for indicted criminals in San Francisco and release arrested crooks from jail before trial.  Political genius. With San Francisco's booming crime wave, this could very well be the swing vote needed to put him back in office. Look, I know this sounds batshit insane, and I don't want this to sound like I am saying I told you so...  Wait. That is exactly what I am saying.  I told you so...

In fact, this is when I told you so on 11/11/11,  shortly after his election:

"Mirkarimi is not one of my favorites. Who knows what damage he'll do to the Sheriff's Department. We probably should start on the recall petitions now."

And a few days later, this is when I told you so about Ranked Choice Voting:

"In the Sheriff's election I've no doubt that in a 2 way runoff our completely unqualified sheriff-elect Ross Mirkarimi would have lost to either the 2nd or 3rd place finishers who split the qualified vote and did not campaign in tandem to defeat Mirkarimi. Others disagree. That is the point. Nobody knows, because voters were denied the opportunity to make a clear, simple unambiguous choice between the top two candidates."

Then shortly after Mirkarimi took office as Sheriff, I told you so again and again:

"Like Jean Quan in Oakland, Ross Mirkarimi's election was a triumph for Ranked Choice Voting... "   

"Cunnie and Miyamoto split the rational vote with 55% of votes cast. Under the confusion of and vagaries of RCV, Mirkarimi is elected Sheriff even though 62% of first choice votes were cast against him. If there was a follow-up "top two" runoff election, he has no chance of becoming Sheriff. But there was no runoff election. Welcome to Ranked Choice Voting in the People's Republic of San Francisco."

They say you get the government you deserve. But I say the City of San Francisco is getting a bum rap. It was the confusion and game-playing of Ranked Choice Voting that put Mirkarimi in that preposterous uniform. So, San Francisco, let's not screw this up this time. It is time to put our long civic nightmare behind us. There are 3 candidates for Sheriff:

• Vicki Hennessey is eminently qualified to be Sheriff
• John Robinson is not qualified to be Sheriff but would still be a better choice than Mirkarimi
• Ross Mirkarimi is not qualified to be dog catcher and is an embarrassment to the City.

This is how the San Francisco ballot works. You can make three choices for Sheriff of San Francisco County in order of preference. This is how your vote should be ranked:

1. Vicki Hennessey
2. John Robinson (if you want) 
3. Blank or Anybody else on the planet except Ross Mirkarimi. 

VERY IMPORTANT! UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU ENTER ROSS MIRKARIMI'S NAME FOR FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD CHOICE!

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

X-Posted from my other blog.

Don't cry for me San Francisco Mirkarimi - The Musical

An Ess Eff Scandal Pregnant with Possibilities

Your loyal blogger has been transfixed in recent weeks by the unfolding saga of our recently elected Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and his firecracker Venezuelan wife - telenovella star Eliana Lopez. Several times I started to knock up a blog update only to be stopped short by new plot twists, an "only in San Francisco" character, or breaking news. Finally I realized a mere blog post can no longer encompass the epic scope of this unfolding morality tale.

Some have characterized this story as a Soap Opera, Godfather Sequel, or Greek Tragedy. They all miss the mark. Nothing less than a full scale Golden Age Hollywood Musical Extravaganza or an Epic Operatic production on a Wagnerian scale will do it justice. Having neither the skill nor the time to do this properly, I'll just sketch out a few ideas in the hope that someone will take this and run with it. My fervent hope is that someday I will be sitting in the front row and watching this production at the San Francisco Opera House. Look for me opening night.

I see a three act production - recognizing the last act and final denouement is yet to be written and unfolding as we speak.

***************

Don't Cry For Me San Francisco
A Musical Tragi-Comedy in Three Acts

Starring Eliana Lopez as Mrs. Ross Mirkarimi

ACT I - New Sheriff in Town

As the show opens, Ross Mirkarmi strides into San Francisco City Hall, escorted by his Progressive Praetorian Guard and hordes of adoring liberal acolytes singing Hosannah's and throwing rose petals in his path. He is flush with victory, having triumphed over his two major opponents Chris Cunnie and Paul Miyamoto in San Francisco's first ever Ranked Choice Voting election for Sheriff. A stunning victory because Cunnie and Miyamoto were both qualified to be Sheriff, and Mirkarimi was not. Not remotely qualified. Not even a little bit.

Cunnie and Miyamoto split the rational vote with 55% of votes cast. Under the confusion of and vagaries of RCV, Mirkarimi is elected Sheriff even though 62% of first choice votes were cast against him. If there was a follow-up "top two" runoff election, he has no chance of becoming Sheriff . But there was no runoff election. Welcome to Ranked Choice Voting in the People's Republic of San Francisco.

In the production we can stage the election as a gladiatorial fight to the death by Cunnie and Miyamoto under the rotunda at City Hall. The toga clad Mirkarimi looks over the balcony, arm wrapped around his buxom bare breasted wife, eating grapes, drinking wine, laughing and signalling thumbs down to both gladiators at the conclusion of the fight.

After the bodies are dragged off, he leads a coronation procession around the theater and back on the stage. His right arm goes up, he takes the oath, and he is Sheriff. A cheer goes up across The City.

But all is not well in Baghdad by the Bay. Stage right, looking down on the proceedings, a shadowy figure can be seen. It is District Attorney George Gascon. Something is afoot. Scene Change.

Curtain up - It is only a few days later and Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is arrested. He is booked by the very Sheriff department staff under his purview who run the county jail. His mug shot is plastered across local TV, in the newspapers , in social media and blogs. He is charged with three misdemeanor counts of domestic violence battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness. In a press conference, the Sheriff stands with his wife, gripping her firmly by the arm, and vehemently proclaims his innocence to the world. He demands a speedy trial, surrenders his guns, and posts bail. Court bailiffs enter stage right and left, separate Mirkarimi from his wife and child, and pull them off the stage.

Yet - Mirkarimi continues on the job as San Francisco County Sheriff.

Meanwhile - Eliana appears on Venezuelan radio to sing a plaintive Aria about the United States destroying her family. This despite the fact that it was her insisting a neighbor videotape her bruises and her story that is the entire basis for the domestic abuse case against the Sheriff.

Eliana in a socialist paradise.

ACT II - The Trial Plea Bargain of the Century

Sheriff Mirkarimi lawyers up, fires his lawyer, then relawyers up. He continues on the job as County Sheriff. Team Mirkarimi fights to keep the key video evidence surreptitiously recorded at his wife's insistence out of court. They lose. They appeal. They lose again. The neighbors with the tape are pressured to hide or destroy the tape.

Ross Mirkarimi continues on the job as San Francisco County Sheriff.

Suddenly, Christina Flores, model, talk-show host, and former-girlfriend appears on stage to testify that she was also bruised by the Sheriff and is ready to file a complaint.

Ross Mirkarimi continues on the job as San Francisco County Sheriff.

Also featuring Christina Flores as Ex-Girlfriend and Bad Poet

Here we need a big musical number. Christina Flores, ex-girlfriend breaks into song, and sings and sings and sings. She belts out a song of abuse, of lies, of panties, of nude photographs, and of revenge. For the big finish the stirring lyrics of a poem she wrote and sent to Mirkarimi after he dumps her for a pregnant Eliana:

"I have never had the distinct pleasure
Of meeting such an idiot of such great measure
That freely let me know of things
That could unwind plans of what his political future brings

Yes, I do know those, some of whom you hate.
Who could have a say in your fate
And long friendships with some that you despise
That after the fact have opened my eyes.

What to do with the ball in my court ...
Let us see what happens.”

Things start moving fast. There is a lot of activity as Lawyers, judges, reporters, witnesses, politicians and former girlfriends ebb and flow across the stage. Politicians weigh in. Mirkarimi's lawyer tries to get the ex-girlfriend's testimony excluded and have the trial moved out of San Francisco. Lose. Lose.

The Sheriff continues on the job.

Jury Selection begins. The trial looms on the horizon.

The action on stage freezes as Mirkarimi has an epiphany, realizes he just might be guilty and cops a plea.

The chorus - representing the entire citizenry of San Francisco - marches on stage and begin to wail with cries, lamentations and rending of garment begging Sheriff Mirkarimi to resign.

As Act II comes to a close the Sheriff takes Center Stage and stands alone in the spotlight...

Don't Cry For Me San Francisco

It won't be easy, you'll think it strange
When I try to explain how I feel
That I still need your love after all that I've done...

Don't cry for me San Francisco
The truth is I'll never leave you
All through my Prog days
My panty play days
I broke my promise
That shouldn't matter.

And as for fortune, and as for fame
I really need them
Though it seemed to the world they were all I desired

That's no illusion
Although the pension and salary are also pretty good
The answer was here all the time
I sort of love you and hope you love me

Don't cry for me San Francisco
The truth is I'll never leave you
All through my Prog days
My panty play days
I broke my promise
That shouldn't matter.

Have I said too much?
There's nothing more I can think of to say to you.
But all you have to do is look at me to know
That nothing I say is true.

As he finishes his solo, Mayor Ed Lee joins him on the stage. They sing a duet - "Bohemian Rhapsody" style:

Lee: Will you now resign!

Mirk: No I will not now resign!

Lee: Will you now resign!

Mirk: No No No No No No

Lee: Oh mama mia, mama mia, We will suspend you now!
The Ethic Committee has a hearing put aside for you, for you, for yoooooouuuuuu!

Mirk:Nothing really matters, Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters,
Nothing really matters except me...

The suspended sheriff hangs his head and walks slowly off the stage. The audience hears the sound of a jet taking off for Venezuela carrying his wife and son.

Ross Mirkarimi is no longer working on the job as Sheriff of San Francisco County.

Curtain Falls

Intermission

Will she or won't she return to EssEff?

Stay tuned for:

ACT III - Band of Boardies and The Peasants Are Revolting

See what happens next!

Cross posted from my other blog.

San Francisco Values - County Sheriff Edition

This is our new Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi. He was elected Sheriff in our last election in November. He was sworn in on Monday. Today he was arrested for "domestic violence battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness" in connection with a recent incident involving his wife, the Venezuelan telenovella actress Eliana Lopez:


Where to start? Like Jean Quan in Oakland, Ross Mirkarimi's election was a triumph for Ranked Choice Voting. As I noted last November:

"Mirkarimi could never win a one-on-one runoff between himself and either Miyamoto or Cunnie, the second and third place finishers who are actually qualified to be Sheriff. He is only Sheriff because his opponents split the rational vote and voters either don't understand how ranked voting is gamed or don't care enough to think about the consequences of their second and third place votes or just do not understand Ranked Choice Voting at all. Who knows what damage he'll do to the Sheriff's Department... We probably should start on the recall petitions now. But - there is a silver lining. Mayor Ed Lee will appoint a replacement to fill out his term on the Board of Supervisors. Anyone will be an improvement on the board, and Lee is likely to appoint a moderate. Mirkarimi will do less damage to the city as Sheriff than on the Board of Supervisors for the next year."

Looks like we need not wait for the inevitable recall. According to the SF Chronicle:

"City law gives Mayor Ed Lee the authority to charge Mirkarimi with official misconduct and temporarily suspend him from office - a move that eventually could lead to Mirkarimi's permanent expulsion. During a temporary suspension, the sheriff's department would be run by a caretaker appointed by the mayor...

The sheriff oversees a paramilitary organization of more than 800 sworn officers and a civilian staff of about 100. The department runs San Francisco's jails with an average daily inmate population of 2,200, provides City Hall and courtroom security, carries out court-ordered evictions and warrants, and aids San Francisco police in enforcement actions."

A "paramilitary organization"? The Sheriff's department?? Maybe Mirkarimi should follow in the footsteps of other great leftist leaders - like the President for Life of his allegedly battered wife's native Venezuela - Hugo Chavez. He could lead his paramilitary Sheriff's department up Market Street, storm City Hall, and stage a military coup right here in the People's Republic of San Francisco. No doubt District Attorney George Gascon will be first up against the wall. Your loyal blogger might be next.

Eliana Lopez - Mrs. Ross Mirkarimi

Frankly, I am surprised by this turn of events. When this story hit the wires on Sunday, I figured it would blow over. I thought there was no way they would prosecute unless his wife cooperated and pressed charges. Since she was not and is not cooperating with the police, I assumed there was no case.

Regardless, I could not help feeling some sympathy about the dynamic of Mirkarimi's domestic situation. Even without charges, Ross clearly would have nothing to say about anything that would go on in that household from now until... oh... eternity. Mirkarimi's political career hangs by a thread. One word from his Venezuelan firecracker and it is over. He created his own special ring of hell for himself, right here on this earthly plane. That seemed sufficient punishment to me.

We'll have to see how this soap opera develops. Look, I don't like the guy, and I think his politics are really bad for San Francisco, but District Attorney Gascon better have a lot more than what has been made public so far. Otherwise, without Eliana's cooperation, this case will never hold up to the kind of intense public scrutiny it will receive and could backfire big time. For Gascon's sake, they better have some pretty damning evidence from the neighbor, or something that has not been made public from elsewhere.

In any eventuality, this is going to be as good as any Telenovela. Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter of ...

Don't Cry For Me Venezuela.

Cross-posted from my other blog.

John Avalos Games the Avalos Chaired "City Operations & Neighborhood Services Committee" hearing on the Avalos "Destroy Sharp Park" Ordinance

The game continues. I am at the open public hearing on the John Avalos ordinance to give Sharp Park to the feds and destroy the course. Mostly this is more of the same specious arguments we have been hearing from the WEBLEEDU Axis over the last 3 years.

The Sharp Park ordinance was item 8 on the agenda, which meant I had to hang out for over 5 hours to see it through to the end. Jon Avalos chairs this committee and tried to arrange it to minimize the participation of those that support the course. That included scheduling the Sharp Park item for the end, and placing one of those useless "Only in EssEff" resolutions immediately before Sharp Park was considered - this an Avalos sponsored resolution to End the War in Iraq and Afghanistan and return all moneys spent on the war to San Francisco Social Programs. At least I think that was the resolution, because it sure seemed all the dozens of public supporters commenting thought that was what was going to happen to Department of Defense monies if our Supervisors pass this resolution. I saw a number of the Sharp Park golf supporters eyes glaze over during this agenda item and leave saying they had to get back to their jobs.

The one new element coming out of this hearing was learning the extent to which Jon Avalos and his supporters have tried to disguise and obfuscate the real purpose of his ordinance and bypass the Environmental Impact Statement that should be required for a vote on any action of this scope. In their rush to get a vote in front of the Supervisors to destroy the course, the WEBLEEDU Axis are twisting themselves into knots to avoid the required environmental impact regulations. You read that right - these "environmentalists" are trying to avoid a legally required Environmental Impact Statement. It is really unconscionable.

There was a classic exchange between Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Avalos before public comment began that set the tone. Ellsbernd tried to get Avalos to come clean about the reason for his parliamentary machinations and legal sophistry pushing this ordinance to a vote now. Avalos was really squirming. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Okay it was funny anyway. When they get the video posted on SF GOV, I'll excerpt it here.

This begs the question - Why the panic to get this voted on now? Apparently the vote will take place tomorrow December 6 at 2ish. This is "warp speed" for a San Francisco Board of Supervisors vote. Then it struck me. This is likely to be a very close vote. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi will be Sheriff in January opening up his Supervisor seat. Mayor Ed Lee will appoint a replacement to finish his term. That will be a lost vote on the Board of Supervisors for the WEBLEEDU Axis. Moreover, Supervisor Eric Mar is up for re-election in District 1. He has a lot of Sharp Park golfers in his district. They would not be happy if Eric Mar votes for this ordinance to destroy Sharp Park. However, Eric Mar has shown a distinct tendency to show more loyalty to John Avalos than to his own constituents. He either votes against, or he loses his seat. All this points to one conclusion - it is now or never for this vote. This is the very last chance to get a political victory for the WEBLEEDU's, who are in the midst of a three year losing streak.

More later...
UPDATE:
Camden Swita at Pacifica Patch does a nice job covering the hearing. I know it is quality work because he actually quotes me in the piece:

"U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the frog population had actually increased in the area in the past 20 years, and that there has only been one confirmed case of a snake killed on the course six years ago.

Some of the speakers who attended today's committee hearing in opposition to the proposal cited the judge's ruling and said the environmental impacts of the golf course are overblown.

Others, including Mike Wallach, a San Francisco resident of 25 years, said the course is a historical resource that must be maintained. The course was designed by Alister MacKenzie, who has also designed several world-famous courses, including Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia.

"Sharp Park is a gift to the people of San Francisco," Wallach said. "It's a historic landmark by any standard, and doesn't belong to the Board of Supervisors, it belongs to the people."

Several other speakers cited it as one of the few cheap, full-sized golf courses in the area, referring to it by its nickname, "the poor man's Pebble Beach."

Along with opposing viewpoints among the speakers, things got chippy during the hearing between Avalos and fellow committee member Sean Elsbernd, who opposes the plan.

Elsbernd accused Avalos of "gamesmanship" by only calling up supporters of the proposal in the first dozen or so speakers."

I always have a tough time in this kind of hearing trying to say what I want to say in the allotted two minutes. So I'll just use this space to replay my comments and amplify on what I intended to say:

"Sharp Park does not belong to the Board of Supervisors and Sharp Park is not a political chip to be disposed of by an ambitious board supervisor.

As a practical matter, common sense informs us that giving away 400 acres of beautiful and valuable coastal park land that belongs to the people of San Francisco is not in the interest of the people of San Francisco.

A vote to give away this historic landmark legacy of the people of San Francisco is nothing less than a betrayal of our City and the past, present, and future citizens who live here. "

Yeah - that's what I wanted to say.

END UPDATE

The San Francisco Public Golf Alliance announcement provided additional context details on the meeting:

=================

Urgent! Attend Public Hearing Monday, Dec. 5, 10 A.M., S.F. City Hall, RM. 250: Oppose Avalos Ordinance To Close Sharp Park

The long-threatened public hearing on Supervisor Avalos' Close-Sharp Park Golf Course Ordinance, is scheduled for public hearing Monday, Dec. 5, 10 a.m. in Room 250, S.F. City Hall, before the City Operations & Neighborhood Services Committee. (Room 250 is the big legislative chamber at top of the grand staircase).

The Avalos Ordinance would direct the Rec & Park Dept. to offer to close Sharp Park Golf Course and enter exclusive negotiations with the GGNRA to take over Sharp Park. The GGNRA has already announced it will not operate a golf course at Sharp.

NOW is the time for golfers and their friends and families to come to the aid of affordable public golf and the legacy of Alister MacKenzie at Sharp Park.

Bring your friends, family, and foursomes. Be early.

If you plan to attend, PLEASE RSVP via Email by clicking here. Please include your name and phone number.

Spread the word!

Save Sharp Park!!

RSVP: info@sfpublicgolf.com

Sent from my HTC smartphone

Sharp Park Golf - profitable, popular, and subsidizing San Francisco salaries and services.

As indicated in a recent post, the Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity, and the Wild Equity Institute (founded by ex-CBD staff attorney Brent Plater), are actively engaged in a disinformation campaign about the finances, popularity, and historical importance of the landmark Sharp Park golf course. This is apparently an effort to con the people of San Francisco into giving away 400 acres of valuable coastal park land that was a gift to the people of San Francisco.

This post is an attempt to explain the financial reality of Sharp Park Golf in terms that even a journalist might understand.

The Arithmetic Explanation
This is a simple math problem. If you can do 3rd grade arithmetic, you can understand that green fees from Sharp Park subsidize San Francisco government salaries and services and The City is not subsidizing the course as claimed by those who would destroy the course.

In round numbers, Sharp Park operational revenues exceed expenses by about $100,000. The City of San Francisco charges Sharp Park $200,000 in overhead charges that are used to fund non-golf related SF government salaries and services. On an accounting basis, Sharp Park then looks like it is suffering a $100,000 loss. But, if Sharp Park was to disappear, the $200,000 in overhead expenses would still exist in San Francisco and the shortfall from Sharp Park would have to be made up by higher taxes or cutting salaries and services. It is pretty simple really.

But some people (see Destroy Sharp Park Golf Advocates) do not trust arithmetic. So as a supplement - I offer a couple of other explanations.

Phil Ginsburg's Explanation
Phil Ginsburg is the new Director of San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department. Phil Ginsburg explains it to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi during the Audit and Oversight Committee meeting chaired by the Supervisor on 12/16/09:


As Ross Mirkarimi says in this clip - the number are actually "de minimus". In the context of the Rec & Park budget, the profit (or loss) of around a $100,000 is not that meaningful. Nevertheless, it shows that Sharp Park is helping not hurting the San Francisco budget shortfall. If Sharp Park were to disappear, the SF budget shortfall gets worse.

Nancy Wuerfel's Explanation
Nancy Wuerfel is a professional fiscal analyst and member of the San Francisco Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee. Nancy Wuerfel's explanation in the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Claims that city golf courses lose money are just not true. I analyzed the financial information for the first six years of the city's Golf Fund. The Recreation and Park Department's accounting practices have created the appearance that Sharp Park golf course is losing money when it is not. These findings were submitted to the Recreation and Park Commission and the Recreation and Park Department."

And her more detailed explanation in the referenced report [PDF]:

"The golf revenue was understated due to internal practices that allowed operating expenses to be paid off the top. When this bad accounting is corrected, it is evident that revenue has been sufficient every year to pay the first priority costs of golf operations and maintenance. The bad accounting has been used to promote Prop J privatization of the golf courses and, potentially, the give away of Sharp Park to the federal government. When this bad accounting is corrected, different questions emerge as to why these actions are even considered."

More on Current Operating Expenses vs. Future Capital Expenditures
To be sure there are significant future capital expenditures in Sharp Park's future. The important point is that those capital expenditures exist regardless of whether or not the golf course is around to continue subsidizing SF services on an operating basis. Those who would destroy the course deliberately obfuscate and confuse the issue by conflating current city operating expenses with future capital expenditures. Some of these capital expenditures must be taken regardless. Most significantly the berm must be armored to protect the current habitat of endangered snakes and frogs, local neighborhoods, and Highway One, regardless of whether the golf course is there. This is the conclusion of Karen Swaim, the leading scientific authority on the endangered snake and frog habitat in the bay area:

"You need to protect the sea wall. You need to have a fresh water managed habitat currently for this species to recover it, and that is all there is to it." - Karen Swaim

The remaining capital expenditures in the Park & Rec plan to modify the course pale in comparison to the costs that would be incurred by destroying the course. This is well documented in the Sharp Park Conceptual Restoration Alternatives Report [PDF]. Of course, it is a little difficult to compare these alternatives to the Restore Sharp Park Destroy Sharp Park Golf "vision", as the advocates of the "vision" have never explained or detailed the costs for their massive "destroy the course" project. Where does the money come from to bulldoze the course, remove all of the beautiful "non-native" cypress trees, kill and dispose of the kikuyu fairway grass (which is invasive and aggressive if not cut and managed by the golf course), destroying the seawall and rebuilding a new seawall on the other side of the course to protect the neighborhoods and Highway One? At no point has anyone explained how all of this "restoration" is paid for, or how the revenues that flow to The City from 55,000 green fees/year will be replaced.

How Golfers Can Help The City Budget Crisis
There is a common sense solution that would permit Sharp Park Golf to help City finances even more than it does now. First a caveat - I am speaking only for myself, and don't know if other golfers would agree with this solution.That said, in my opinion, Sharp Park green fees are too low.

San Francisco could impose a modest increase (or temporary multi-year surcharge or both) in the green fees at Sharp Park. A 10 or even 20% across the board increase (approximately $3 -$7/round) could help both The City and the course. I could be wrong, but doubt that those who play the course would oppose such an increase, as long as half the additional revenues raised stayed at the course to improve the course. An improved course will draw even more golfers and revenues for the city. With modest improvements, the landmark Alister MacKenzie course could live up to its reputation as the "Workingman's Pebble Beach". Rather than City taxpayers subsidizing Peninsula golfers as falsely claimed by those who advocate the destruction of the course, this would be an easy way of increasing the contribution of the course to The City, from both resident and non-resident golfers alike. This is a win-win solution for The City, the course, Pacifica, San Mateo County, and bay area golfers.

Tomorrow (Monday - June 21), the San Francisco Budget Circus will once again be on display at City Hall. Most of the public comment will be from those who are begging/demanding more money from The City budget during their one minute of public comment. As a bad golfer and an appreciative patron of San Francisco public golf courses, I plan to be there and offer something different with my one minute of advice. Specifically I'll be suggesting that we Sharp Park golfers can and should contribute even more to help the course and help The City out of its budget crisis.

Who cares about Sharp Park Golf?

It looks like the San Francisco Golf War is about to enter a new chapter. Late last year, the Center for WEBLEEDU (Wild Equity Biodiversity Litigation for Ecological Extortion and Deep Untruths) failed to secure the destruction of the course and force the city to give away valuable coastal park land by using legal intimidation and bad science. Now, the advocates for the destruction of this historic landmark course are soliciting new allies and have turned to bad accounting as the new field of battle. There is no more merit to this new line of attack than any that have gone before. The sad thing is that the "protesters" don't seem to realize that green fees from Sharp Park golfers subsidize San Francisco Rec & Park overhead costs as well as other San Francisco services and not the other way around. If Sharp Park were to be closed, taxes would have be raised or more San Francisco services would need to be cut.

This blog has participated in the Sharp Park golf kerfuffle over the last year or so. I don't like to personalize the debate, as I think it detracts from the argument when simple truth, logic, and common sense support keeping the course. But this Plater character, this self anointed crusader for the destruction of the course, sure makes it hard to keep to the high road.

Brent Plater and his Big Brass Brent Buckle.

Consider this Platerism from a recent column in the SF Weekly:

"Nobody in San Francisco cares about Sharp Park," says environmentalist Brent Plater, executive director of the nonprofit Wild Equity Institute, who has spearheaded the campaign to close the course. "If that golf course were to fall into the ocean tomorrow, nobody would blink an eye... If Spock were in charge of these things, or the social insects, who deal with these collective problems a little bit better than we do, there's no doubt" that Sharp Park would be shut down, he says."

Really. Read it again. It s all there in this quote - The arrogant elitism: I Brent"Spock" Plater, Oakland resident, know what is best for you San Francisco plebeians; The slavish admiration for a hive mentality; The assertion that individual rights and needs are unimportant and must be subjugated to the will of the collective - particularly those collective needs as defined by the smarter and wiser Spock Brent Plater of course. This is a world view where unsupported pronouncements are reality and actual facts in direct contradiction to fabulist inventions are simply ignored. It is a lawyer's conceit - the conceit that one can paint a verbal picture so compelling the jury will not notice that the fantasy does not comport with actual reality.

Perhaps Brent Plater is right. Perhaps - despite Abe Lincoln's homily - you can fool most of the people most of the time. Based on the way that local fawning "journalists" in both the mainstream and independent media unquestioningly report anything he says, you'd think he was Moses delivering the Ten Commandments. They function as his personal PR firm and swallow the selfless environmental crusader bait - hook, line and sinker. And so the contributions come rolling in to the Brent Institute - or not - I have no idea. What the hell. I'll leave the links to Brent and the Brent Plater Institute in the referenced quote. For anyone who has so little respect for their hard earned dollars that they would give money to a guy who can say stuff like this with a straight face, well - you deserve each other. I am sure you will get exactly what you paid for. Maybe he'll send you a Brent Buckle.

That said, this particular absurdity:

"Nobody in San Francisco cares about Sharp Park... if that golf course were to fall into the ocean tomorrow, nobody would blink an eye."

- cannot be left unchallenged.

So permit me to offer a dose of reality. Compiled here are a few video clips of the people who care about Sharp Park. And a few of the people who will be hurt if Brent Plater gets his way.

I've attended a number of SF government committee meetings on Sharp Park over the last year. They have all been well attended by people who care a great deal about Sharp Park golf, with meetings lasting for many hours to accommodate all who want to voice their opinion to our tone deaf Board of Supervisors. My observation is the Sharp Park supporters always outnumber those who would destroy the course. These first three video clips are from one of these meetings.

San Francisco Laborers Union Local 261 Support Sharp Park Golf:

"Our organization is foursquare behind the preservation of the historic Alister MacKenzie golf course at Sharp Park."
- Zack Salem

The Sierra Club supports the Sharp Park Golf plan to enhance the snake and frog habitat:

Recommended enhancements are consistent with Sierra Club resolution to protect the snake and frog.

Karen Swaim, biologist and noted expert on the endangered frog and snake supports the recommendation to continue but modify the Sharp Park golf course:

"Golf is not what is responsible for the decline of the San Francisco garter snake." - Karen Swaim

Of course, the women, men, elderly retirees, students, and diverse golfers from all over the bay area who pay for the 55,000 rounds per year per that go into the City coffers and subsidize city services also care about the affordable golf course they love:

"This is a workingman's golf course."

Even from across the pond, they care about landmark Sharp Park Golf Course. The Alister MacKenzie Society:
Finally, as an indicator of the depth and breadth of support for the course, a few clips I shot at a fundraiser and rally for the course last October. These were shot using a little point-and-shoot camera - so the quality is not great. But there were sure a lot of people and pols who care a great deal about Sharp Park Golf in attendance:


So given the obvious nonsense that he spouts, what is one to make of Brent Plater and his inane pronouncements?

Is he willfully ignorant? -or- just another tool?

You decide.

Mirkarimi and Me

To be fair, he hasn't given anything away yet. I am just working up some ideas, should Mirkarimi decide to run for mayor as some expect.

Some context - I have been blogging about the Sharp Park Golf course controversy for a number of months. For reference, the full thread on this blog is linked here, a background post here, good overviews in the San Francisco Chronicle here and here.

In a nutshell - Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) wrote a letter threatening to sue the city of San Francisco alleging golf operations at Sharp Park were harming two endangered species. In March of '09, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi sponsored a resolution to study alternative solutions to the problem, including keeping, destroying or modifying the course. The recently released report was approved by the SF Park & Rec Commission. It recommends continuing the course operations, with modifications to enhance the habitat for the endangered species. The CBD and their allies continue to advocate a different course of action. They want the City to destroy the golf course and give the land away to the National Park Service, specifically the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Supervisor Mirkarimi, while non-committal, seems sympathetic to that plan.

Which brings me to this exchange between Mirkarimi and me during the public comment portion of the San Francisco Government Audit and Oversight Committee (2 minute excerpt from the SFGTV recording of the 4 hour meeting):

Ok. So, as my time ran out Supervisor Mirkarimi slapped me down pretty hard. That is fine. This was his committee and his venue, and he gets the last word.

But this is my blog, and I get the last word here.

Now I know that this will come across as a "Damn, I wish I said that..." post, long after the moment has passed. It will come across like that because... that is exactly what I am doing. While I was loaded for bear on Sharp Park minutiae, I was ignorant of the history of Crissy Field and the GGNRA as I stood in front of Supervisor Mirkarimi.

I am less ignorant now. So how about a little "compare and contrast" between Crissy Field and Sharp Park?

Crissy Field
Crissy Field was an airfield, built on landfill, that since 1915 was Part of the Presidio Army Base. Congress decided to close the base in 1989, and it was turned over to the National Park Service in 1994. It never belonged to the City of San Francisco. The 100 acre Crissy Field site was considered a hazardous waste dump, and over 87,000 tons of hazardous material had to be hauled away before the process of restoring the site could proceed. The Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy (a public private partnership), did an extraordinary job raising the tens of millions of dollars needed to restore the site during the tech bubble of the late nineties. In partnership with the National Park Service, the 100 acre site was restored for the recreational use of all, including a relatively small 20 acre tidal marshland. It is now administered by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). As I suggested in my comments to Supervisor Mirkarimi, all involved did an excellent job with Crissy Field, converting 100 acres of federal land that was a hazardous waste dump into federal land that is now a wonderful park. Kudos.

Sharp Park
In 1917, the 400+ acres of land near Pacifica known as Sharp Park was bequeathed to the City and County of San Francisco by the Murphey family. The deed specified the land be used exclusively for park and recreational purposes for the benefit of all. The golf course, comprising about 80 acres of that land, was designed and built by Alister MacKenzie, the world's most important golf course architect and opened in 1931. The park was landscaped by John McLaren, the godfather of San Francisco parks, including Golden Gate Park (which is also administered by SF Rec & Parks, not the GGNRA). The park and the golf course are important historical landmarks by any standard. It is historically important to the city of San Francisco, the city of Pacifica and to the golf world in general. Over the years, millions of people have enjoyed the course, the archery range, the rifle range, the hiking trails and and the beach that comprise the park land. Today, over 54,000 rounds per year from Sharp Park help subsidize the overhead costs for the San Francisco Park and Recreation Department as well as other city services and jobs. The park is a unique gem that was a gift to the people of San Francisco, belongs to the people of San Francisco, and is a legacy for future generations of San Franciscans. Unless Supervisor Markarimi succceeds in giving it away.

So let's review:

Crissy Field was a 100 acre federal landfill and hazardous material dump that was converted by GGNRA and private partners into a 100 acre federal park that The City could neither afford to restore or operate.

Sharp Park was a 400 acre oceanfront gift to the people of San Francisco. The park is home to an historic landmark golf course by the game's greatest architect, is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people every year, and helps subsidize overhead costs for the SF Rec & Park Department operations.

I think it is safe to say they are different.

So once again Supervisor Mirkarimi, I ask you - Do you want this to be your legacy? Do you want your footnote in San Francisco history to be this: "He was the man who gave away 400 acres of coastal park land that belonged to the people of San Francisco."

I'll take my answer off-line.