Posts Tagged ‘cloudless skies park company’

All You Need to Know About Lobbying, Recreation and Park Department “Corruption,” and the Stow Lake Boathouse

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

All right, here’s what you need to know about the Stow Lake thing (oh, more here as well):

The vote against hanging on with the existing tenant, the one what’s filed a lawsuit, was five to zero from those people who poured over all the competing bids.

So, the question to the hysterics at SaveStowLake is why did the existing tenant lose 5-0? Do you wanna say that the five were hand-picked recruits for ghastly pursuits, well, then, come out and say it, allege it. I mean, there are reasons the existing tenant lost, right? They have been detailed, in authentic-looking, hand-written notes. If you want to find corruption, I invite to look there.

(And of course, Supervisor Eric Mar, who seldom finds himself “in the pockets of the corporations” or wherever, stabbed you in the back or something. Fine.)

Oh, in other business, this statement from the Northside rag is a lie:

“The Ortegas even offered to more than double their yearly base rent to $315,000 and run the boathouse as-is, but Ginsburg’s cash-strapped department turned them down.”

I know where this idea comes from, it comes from the end of a hearing at City Hall, but you can’t quote a clause as a complete sentence, that’s the basic problem with that.

All right, first some duckies from Stow Lake, and then, after the jump, all the deets on why Ortega won the contract.

Enjoy.

(more…)

The Big Stow Lake Boat House Showdown is Skedded for 2:00 PM on Thursday at City Hall

Monday, August 16th, 2010

Item 7 on the agenda for the August 19, 2010 Special Meeting of the Commission of the  Recreation & Parks Department in Room 416 of City Hall at 2:00 PM will concern the Boat House at Stow Lake.

Now, RPD staff has already made a recommendation about which party desiring to run the boathouse would make the best choice, but don’t let that stop you from making your own decision. Everybody agrees that the building needs a lot of work and everybody agrees on the idea of a new cafe. But some of the parties want to kick in more money than others. Here’s the simple version:

Click to expand

I’ll tell you, the group that the Commission will vote to enter into discussions with, the one that the staff is recommending, is in the second column and the existing tenant is in the third column. Is the staff recommendation such a surprise (based upon how much money each bidder wants to kick in)? Well, it is to the existing tenant, Bruce McLellan. See?

I’m still digesting it. It’s hard to say what happened,” says McCullen. “In our bid we did everything the RFQ wanted. We offered to replace the boat fleet, substantially raise the rent, do upgrades, and planned to open an indoor cafe that would serve organic, locally produced food. Combine that with 65 years of service, and then I lose to an out-of-state bidder.”

All right, well let’s look at what the selection panel had to say. Now, I can’t upload the whole deal myself, as the pdf file is 100KB too big for me to do that, but here it is, 10 MB of info. It spells out why all five people on the selection panel prefer the winner.

Now, here are the members:

Stow Lake Boat House RFQ Selection Panel:

Andrea Jadwin
Ms. Jadwin is Co‐President of the Inner Sunset Park Neighbors, a frequent Golden Gate Park user and a leader within the City’s community gardens program.

Meagan Levitan
Ms. Levitan is a member of the Recreation and Park Department Commission

Gary Rulli
Mr. Rulli is the proprietor of Emporio Rulli, Inc.

Tara Sullivan
Ms. Sullivan is a Legislative Liason for the San Francisco Planning Department. Her duties include staffing the Historic Preservation Commission.

Jim Wheeler
Mr. Wheeler is a Neighborhood Service Area manager for the Recreation and Park Department. He previously oversaw boating operations at the Lake Merritt
Boat House.

And here are your scorecards. The column scales max out at 35, 30, 35, respectfully:

You can argue about this, of course, but I’m thinking if the existing tenant were willing to pony up $300K and the others were only willing to put up less than $25K, then the existing tenant would have stood a much better chance.

And then there’s all this stuff from one of the members of the selection panel – it’s directed towards the existing tenant:

The fact that the winner was from out-of-state was noted by the members and it was a negative factor. But its proposal was strongly favored regardless. The fact that it’s a “foreign” company is already baked into the cake, so to speak. Of course, you could make up your own scorecard and pick your own judges to come up with a different winner. To do that, you’d need to win a mayoral election and you’d need to start appointing some minions.

Anyway, that’s how it stands. These people are scheduled to show up on Thursday. Enjoy.

Some more words from the big pdf plus a taste of some of the vitriol, after the jump

(more…)