Fees, Fees, Fees Coming to Strybing Arboretum, 1937-2010 R.I.P.

Oh well, the Board of Supervisors just voted to allow the operators of San Francisco Botanical Garden to check for residency or charge fees.  

I know I’M not going to step foot into the place ever again. You can make your own choice of course, that’s fine.

Now, if Rec and Park stumbles into a small fortune by happenstance, OR if the fee scheme doesn’t net the expected amount of money, then maybe the fees will go away. But probably not. What will happen is that the fees will go up and be applied to more people. Oh well.

Who’ll feed you now, little vixen and cub (or kit or pup – our foreparents were a little hazy about whether foxes are more like dogs, cats or bears)? As seen in the New World Could Forest:

Click to expand

Certainly not me. I’d never feed a wild fox, but Rec and Park employees used to carry cans of cat food around, just in case of an encounter. This vixen’s gone now. She might have been poisoned or run over, probably one or the other. Oh well.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi frets that the $7 fee approved today is a “harbinger of fees to come.” Similarly, Supervisor Eric Mar frets that the new fee is “a step towards eventually charging everyone.” Yep.

The remaining question is how much this program nets over the first year of operation. They’ll make some money on it, but the issue is how much.

We’ll see.  

Oh well.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Fees, Fees, Fees Coming to Strybing Arboretum, 1937-2010 R.I.P.”

  1. eric says:

    who voted FOR this travesty? Presumably Ross + Eric voted no. Eric was the only supe who was even courteous enough to write me back in 2009 the last time this stunt was tried.

  2. sfcitizen says:

    Ross, Eric and Bevan, that’s it.

    Per Rachel Gordon. I didn’t keep track because I thought they were merely voting on an amendment or two.

    I just linked SFGate. It’s the second link now.

  3. Eric in Sf says:

    Sorry I have to vehemently disagree. This is *NOT* a public park, it is one of the world’s leading botanical gardens, with a collection of priceless plants that are studied by botanists around the globe. The city was going to *permanently remove* the three, THREE, gardeners, who take care of this priceless museum of living plants, if this did not pass. That would have essentially been the death knell for thousands of endangered species of plants.

    The SF Botanical Garden is the only big-city botanical garden in the country that was free and it looks it. The place is shabby and barely held together as the city stopped giving it resources over the years. Visit some of the other paid botanical gardens in California and the rest of the country and you’ll understand we’ve done so much with so little. It’s only fair that people pay to preserve these plants, many of which are extinct in their native habitat.

  4. sfcitizen says:

    Why don’t you all just go private and then San Francisco’s taxpayers could take away the rest of the gardeners as well?

    Death knell for thousands of species? Don’t think so.

    The City stopped giving it resources yet it pays for almost all the gardeners?

    Enjoy your plants.

  5. Eric in Sf says:

    I see you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Great attitude to have.

  6. sfcitizen says:

    So I pay for part of your arboretum but I’ll never burden it by going there, which would be free for me to do anyway. How is that a problem for you?

    Thousands of species are going to die or thousands of plants – one of those is rational and one is not.

    Helene is rolling over in her grave, right about now…

  7. goodscarrier says:

    This is *NOT* a public park

    It **IS** in a public park.

    Why try to be sneaky?

  8. goodscarrier says:

    RE: 3 Gardeners

    RPD, under Ginsburg, is pathetic.

    Just as the Bush admin saw ANWAR as a untapped source of revenue for gas and oil, so does Ginsburg see GGP as an untapped source of revenue for big business.

    The problem with Ginsburg is that he absolutely fails to understand and take into account that the purpose of the park is to recreate, NOT to generate revenue.


    He’s a DESTROYER.

  9. Jane says:

    Rec and Park may have been threatening to remove 3 of the 11 gardeners. These are the games the six-figure earners play with the workers. Since THE SCHEME WILL NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY, it is not going to protect jobs or plants. Anyone who believes the disingenuous campaign mounted by the SFBG Society and the Rec and Park Department is due for a disappointment.

    Of course this Botanical Garden is part of a public park. It is *NOT* on private land. Access to public land and access to “museums of plants” a.k.a. educational opportunities should not be denied based on income.