On Friday I attended the Rules Committee meeting at City Hall. We, like it seems all event producers, received a very alarming email from Dana Ketchum of RPD permitting office that there was a proposed amendment that would allow just one person to protest an event permit and cause the event planning to a screaming halt. That wasn’t exactly the case.
The Hot Topic was actually this charter amendment “to amend the city’s charter to make appointments to the Rec and Park Commission (RPC) between the Mayor and the Board of Supes, and to make Rec and Park Dept (RPD) and Commission decisions regarding special event permits and licenses that significantly impact park property or the surrounding neighborhood appealable to the Board of Appeals.” Say what?
The short version: the Mayor currently appoints all seats, the Rules Committee thinks this is unbalanced and therefore is seeking to change it. Needless to say, the special event permit was just one piece of a much bigger issue.
The good news is that EVERYONE that is ANYONE in the SF event producer world was there and spoke in protest of this special event permit appeal: Hardly Strictly, Outside Lands, KFOG Kaboom, Mime Troupe AIDS Walk, Dolores Park Movie Night and SF Film Night… After the 43 person spoke, I started to lose interest and checked my email. Not one person that got up to speak was in favor of the event permit amendment. So, I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere.
If you’re interested in the bigger story about appointments to the RPC, well, that story will be hotly debated until it hits the ballot. Here, here and here is what SF Gate has to say on the subject. For more background info on the amendment and for Neighborhood Parks Council’s POV go here. From my personal experience today, this is my takeaway:
Phil Ginsburg, the general manager for RPD and RPC’s President Mark Buell are against it citing that this amendment politicizes commission appointments and creates a divide that breeds perceived instability that will negatively impact giving by the philanthropic community and lastly, it’s just bad timing – it won’t provide much needed gardeners and other resources that RPD desperately needs.
The Rules Committee Supes commended RPD on their work but said that RPD’s budgetary shortfall and related cuts in service are not relevant to the discussion and that it’s about process, fairness and representation.
The General Public seemed to be strongly for it based on comments provided by the community during public comment.
It’s long and complicated so I’ll save the analysis to the pros. This is just my take on what was said. What do you think? Should the appointees be split between the BOS an the Mayor?
Trackbacks /
Pingbacks