Comments on: Fees, Fees, Fees Coming to Strybing Arboretum, 1937-2010 R.I.P. http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010 "If you want a vision of the future, imagine Larry Ellison eating a hot dog - forever" editor@SFCitizen.com Sat, 25 May 2013 19:55:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jane http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-22721 Jane Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:16:32 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-22721 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. 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.

]]> By: goodscarrier http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21823 goodscarrier Wed, 26 May 2010 12:40:51 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21823 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. Doh!! He's a DESTROYER. 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.

Doh!!

He’s a DESTROYER.

]]> By: goodscarrier http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21822 goodscarrier Wed, 26 May 2010 12:33:23 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21822 This is *NOT* a public park It **IS** in a public park. Why try to be sneaky? This is *NOT* a public park

It **IS** in a public park.

Why try to be sneaky?

]]> By: sfcitizen http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21778 sfcitizen Wed, 26 May 2010 06:26:05 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21778 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... 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…

]]> By: Eric in Sf http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21777 Eric in Sf Wed, 26 May 2010 06:20:05 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21777 I see you're not interested in a rational discussion. Great attitude to have. I see you’re not interested in a rational discussion. Great attitude to have.

]]> By: sfcitizen http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21771 sfcitizen Wed, 26 May 2010 05:41:20 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21771 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. 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.

]]> By: Eric in Sf http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21759 Eric in Sf Wed, 26 May 2010 04:19:54 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21759 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. 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.

]]> By: sfcitizen http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21753 sfcitizen Wed, 26 May 2010 03:34:12 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21753 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. 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.

]]> By: eric http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/05/25/fees-fees-fees-coming-to-strybing-arboretum-1937-2010/#comment-21752 eric Wed, 26 May 2010 03:28:49 +0000 http://sfcitizen.com/blog/?p=17798#comment-21752 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. 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.

]]>