Many have tried... All have failed! This economic development plan (circa 1997) is modelled after similar development plans in Carmel, California and Cannon Beach, Oregon (both recently featured in Sunset Magazine) and a handful of other progressive thinking communities throughout the United States. No such community exists in the Bay Area and such a plan would certainly be a draw to the forty percent (40%) of the population as a whole who might very well like to take advantage of it. The good news: an economic development plan that would actually benefit the quality of life of citizens of Pacifica who are dog guardians (a statistical fact that there are more dogs than children in Pacifica and San Francisco) and bring much needed dollars into our community. The bad news: the extreme environmental dog haters who run Pacifica would never go for it.
DOGS AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL FOR PACIFICA (4mb PDF file - large but worth it!)
reposted by: Rocky Golub and Suzanne Valente
8 comments:
This city won't even fund a Dog Park, when our brilliant city economic plan determined by this city council is "recreation". What is "recreation" code word for?
San Francisco is listed as the most dog-friendly city in the country. How can we compete?
http://dogfriendly.com/dognews/?p=42
For those who live in SF or are knowledgeable in matters thereof, this is far from the case. With an ever increasing population of dogs, and an increasingly hostile Recreation and Park Department, SF dog guardians are feeling the squeeze. The Natural Areas Program is the worst offender for SF parks, grabbing property for their native plant projects and shutting out dogs, children and adults. You should see what they have planned for the east side of Sharp Park! Just the cutting down of 15,000 mature eucalyptus trees...but I digress.
On top of that, the GGNRA does NOT want off-leash dogs on their property. Despite a 1979 Pet Policy which allowed off-leash recreation in designated areas of the GGNRA (a prerequisite for obtaining the properties in the first place) in 1996, the GGNRA started to take away off-leash recreation in areas such as Ocean Beach and parts of Fort Funston. The opposition was great, even the SFSPCA got involved. The Feds did not care. In 2001, in violation of their own regulations, the GGNRA abolished ALL off-leash recreation in the park. The SF Board of Supervisors, and our politicians such as Jackie Speier and Diane Feinstein all screamed in opposition. The GGNRA refused to back down until citizens actually went to court in 2005 to fight their tickets and the Federal judge chastised the GGNRA and reinstated off-leash recreation in the GGNRA per the 1979 Pet Policy. Ever since then the GGNRA has been working behind the scenes to use bogus environmental reports to take away off-leash recreational opportunities. The GGNRA is allied with the Sierra Club, SF Rec and Park, Brent Plater and CBD, the Audubon, and so on. Get the picture? Sharp Park is no surprise to any of us...
The GGNRA is big government at its worst. They follow the law only when it suits them--their written or oral agrements are made and broken. Your only recourse is to sue them and pay for your side and through your own taxes their side too. Look at how they how they have handled EVERY property in the City of Pacifica. Even Mori Point, which was the favorite off-leash hiking spot for Pacificans, has been taken away from dog owners in Pacifica. The only recreation they allow in this "recreation" area is hiking on predetermined paths. Stand behind the ropes. They got rid of horse stables, don't want a golf course and so on.
I would point out the recent Sunset magazine feature did NOT feature SF as a destination for dog-friendly vacationing or a day trip. Those in the know know...SF's best days as a dog-friendly city are behind them. I know San franciscans who do come to Pacifica to recreate with their dogs, but at least one has stopped because she got a ticket. Well done, Pacifica!!!
Nice video Rocky and Suzanne www.fidofactor.com/ has more businesses listed than Pacifica Chamber of Commerce has. The big surprise is 282 restaurants and 298 stores. Oh, then there is 34 parks.
Parks!!! Poor old empty pocket and empty brain Pacifica can't even provide 1 dog park for citizens of this community and their family dogs. However, last year at this time the city took $100,000 out of the general fund (our money) to re-do the failed trail on Pedro Point, at the same time cutting through private properties to do that.
Those of you reading this are you ready yet to vote for change candidates in 2010, and will you help?
The problem is you have notorious dog haters like Brent Plater and Paul Jones pulling the strings in Pacifica. Replace their representatives with more business friendly, dog friendly people like Mary Ann Nihart this next election. I think the only 2 endorsements that anyone should give any credence to in the next election would be POOCH and the businesses who opposed Measure D.
One other thing that I will remember is whether or not they took a stand on the golf course. The fact that Sue and Pete remain silent because they don't want to alienate either a) their enviro-loon buddies or b) the vast majority of sensible Pacificans is sleazy. I'd almost prefer it if they came out for the frog sanctuary, even though I think that's a ridiculous position.
Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, we won't have the opportunity to vote Pete out next time...
I still don't trust Nihart and Vreeland with respect to Sharp Park Golf Course. Where were they when it came to voting for the historic status for SPGC? Answer: NOWHERE! Where were they when it came to sending an updated letter of support for SPGC from our Council to the SF Board of Supervisors? Answer: NOWHERE! As far as I'm concerned, only Lancelle has taken a real stand on this issue and she has taken it from day one - unlike those who join the bandwagon only after they have some political cover from the SFRPD report. I'm far from being a fan of Lancelle, but she did the right thing on this one and deserves credit.
Yes Lancelle deserves the credit for keeping Sharp Park, but her 7 year "nothing for Pacifica" track records includes: taxing citizens (from State-of-the-city address 1/08) and follow-up City Council comments "its nice to pay some taxes for all we have" (about 2/08); attempts to chop development (example, Tate Cowan's proposal (last year), her comments such as "if you want development and services move out-of-town" (Tribune Guest Column following defeat of Measure D 5/08). She and Vreeland were the City Council Sub-committee to negotiate with the private property owner, Peebles Corporation-- Vreeland and Lancelle proposed Public-Private partnerships on Peebles quarry land designed to sink that high value economic project, which it did (Vreeland Tribune front page about 2/08). Meantime, the city is "underwater" in debt, and infrastructure inadequacy and failure. The Sewer Plant fines, (plant inadequacy, aging collection system, aging sewer lateral issues; the failure to underground power line utilities; balance city budget inadequacy, a city hall that is not even ADA compliant, no dog park, the struggle to develop cultural advantages for this city and extreme volunteerism-- are all accountable to this 7 year city council, including Mayor Lancelle.
Post a Comment