Letters to the Editor

Editor:
I am in absolute shock after reading "Debate Rages Over Coyotes in City Parks, Presidio" (Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon, March 2007).

The incredible ignorance displayed by Barbara Meskunas, an employee of SF Supervisor Ed Jew, is breathtaking. In response to the existence of real live wild animals living here in our City, Meskunas blurts, "Only an idiot would do nothing when there are wild animals in the park eating cats and small dogs. Children will be next!"

The fact is there is no evidence of coyotes killing dogs and cats in San Francisco, much less children.

As a Sunset District resident and constituent, I'm incredulous that my representative doesn't appreciate the many important positive aspects to a healthy keystone wild animal species in our neighborhood. We've got skunks and raccoons living under every building and in every tree in my neighborhood, eating valuable wild native bird populations that in turn serve an important economic eco-tourism function.

Coyotes provide environmental balance. Perhaps Meskunas doesn't realize that bird watching is one of the most valuable tourism related industries in California. Perhaps she thinks feral cats in Golden Gate Park are more important than real natural wildlife. Where does such delirium end?

The fact that she (and Jew) explicitly refuse to work with National Park Service on the matter is equally discouraging. The only practical response to this unhinged outburst, at least until the next election, is for Jew to fire Meskunas immediately.
Mark A. Massara

Editor:
Thank you for the article "Debate Rages Over Coyotes in City Parks, Presidio." It is a good start in educating people about these native animals that have re-established themselves in our City during the past five years or so. Perhaps it is an even better article in educating the public about our public officials and their choice of staff.

Had Supervisor Ed Jew's legislative assistant Barbara Meskunas done even the slightest amount of research on this issue, she would have found that coyotes inhabit almost every city in North America. There are between several hundred and 2,000 reported in Chicago. She might also have learned that there is only one human fatality attributed to a coyote in the past 25 years.

True, they do stalk small pets and they are known to stalk small children as well. Yet, virtually all problem coyotes have been habituated by people who feed them and encourage their presence. When people act responsibly toward coyotes and other wildlife, conflicts diminish considerably.

Ms. Meskunas' comments seem geared toward creating a sense of hysteria based on ignorance. It is not what I expect from my public officials or those who purport to speak for them. Statements like, "If anyone things that it is rational to tolerate a public threat like this, I would question their sanity."

She refers to anyone who would do nothing about urban coyotes as an "idiot" and states in reference to their prey, "Children will be next!"In an e-mail to me about my complaint to Jew, she stated that her comments were accurate but not meant to be alarmist.

Perhaps Meskunas thinks name-calling and hysteria are appropriate for discourse in a democracy, but I for one, do not. Jew should fire her for her inappropriate comments, her insensitivity to those with mental illness, and for her exceptionally poor representation of his office and our city government.
Daniel P. Murphy

Supervisor's aide responds to previous letter:
Mr. Murphy:
After many calls from Sunset residents who voiced great concern about being approached by coyotes, and having their dogs pursued in Golden Gate Park, Supervisor Ed Jew asked me to begin making inquiries.

Just before the reporter called me, I'd received a couple inches of disclosures we'd requested from the Presidio Trust, which contained accounts of companion cats eaten by coyotes, and humans with dogs being threatened. I was truly amazed at the accounts, and had no idea that the problem in the Presidio hadn't been managed better.

I agree with you that the problem needs to be managed - at present, however, no one will even admit there is a problem. Our office is far from making any recommendations, but we will make recommendations.

My reference to an "idiot" was to our office if we failed to act, not to the public if they disagreed with us. But, I also must tell you that I do not personally believe wild animals that can cause great harm to companion animals, or people, should be allowed to roam free in a densely-populated city. I enjoy looking at the Golden Gate Park buffalo herd, but I'm glad there's a fence between us.

We will continue to collect data and testimonials from concerned park users and city departments, and will certainly advertise any hearings that may be called on the subject to enable the public to voice their opinions.

I have two dogs. Since reading and hearing about the coyote incidents, I no longer walk them off leash anywhere in the park at all, and avoid dawn and dusk walks altogether. I think other people who care about their animals have the right to make that same choice.
Barbara Meskunas

Editor:
In response to your column on Healthy Saturdays (March 2007), the proposal to open JFK Drive to pedestrians, cyclists and skaters on Saturdays as it is on Sundays, I also live in the Richmond District. Sunday is the day I ride my bicycle happily to the park, where I stop to chat with friends and occasionally take in the institutions.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick is reintroducing the Healthy Saturdays legislation because a recent study commissioned by the mayor has demonstrated that car-free Sundays pose no significant impact on the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of parking or business. I support my supervisor because I think the creation of car-free spaces improves the local quality of life. I also think we need to create more car-free spaces as part of our own response to global warming and natural resource wars.
Sue Vaughan

Editor:
This is a follow up on my letter from last month regarding McGoldrick's disregard for the disadvantaged and other San Franciscans as he aggressively pushes his Golden Gate Park road closure plan to satisfy his groups. I understand there has been a number of meetings held between the two opposing groups, both those for and against Saturday closings; and that there had been two very attractive alternatives sites proposed for the pro-closure people.

My contact at the Sierra Club (one of the pro-closure groups) told me that the representatives from the side that wants closure were completely closed to any alternatives other than their own. Now, they are using strong-arm tactics to discredit all opposition to the plan, in particular the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Conservatory of Flowers and the Academy of Sciences, which have served all San Franciscans and visitors for eons.

They have also included the mayor in their venom because he vetoed the Saturday road closure plan last year. His veto reflected the wishes of the larger community in San Francisco. So let's look at the issue from a legal, moral and cost/benefit perspective.

McGoldrick's plan to close the park may be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To satisfy the requirements of the law, he proposes to spend a large sum of taxpayer dollars to accommodate the disabled with a plan which is totally impractical and unworkable. Similarly, from a civil rights standpoint, people and families from the Bayview and Mission districts, two groups targeted under the Civil Rights Act, also need better access, as public transportation has never been convenient.

The City has a moral obligation to accommodate the poor and disadvantaged so they too can enjoy the park and its institutions for educational and recreational purposes. Park closure will clearly further restrict their access and the City is morally obligated to pursue other arrangements to meet their needs with the use of City funds (unless McGoldrick and his sponsors are going to foot the bill). Surely the best solution is to leave well enough alone.

Everyone has equal and unrestricted access to the park and the City will not have to incur additional expenses to comply with the ADA law.
Margie Hom-Brown

Editor:
This April will mark the 40th anniversary of the Sunday road closures in Golden Gate Park. This Memorial Day will mark 20 years of the Monday holiday road closures in Golden Gate Park. This is a total of 60 years of examples of how wonderful the Sunday road closures are. Only now, as a club to beat down the peasants, has anyone from ARC been involved in anything regarding handicapped issues in Golden Gate Park.

Who fought for the interests of the handicapped during Sunday road closures in Golden Gate Park? It was the recreational park advocates. Who came up with and fought for the concept of a handicapped/elderly shuttle system on JFK Drive on closed days? It was the recreational park advocates. Who scouted out placements for handicapped parking places inside the closure area in the park? Yes, most all of you are smarter than a fifth grader, it was the park closure advocates.

You can study this until you have your doctorate, and the "no-fun crowd" will never accept the truth that the transportation and access study has brought to light.
David Miles Jr.

Editor:
I am writing as a 10-plus year Richmond home owner, as the mother of two small children, and as a member of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Parks Trust, and California Academy of Sciences, to strongly support Supervisor Jake McGoldrick's legislation for a six-month trial of the closure of a portion of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays. A park is supposed to be for people, not a parking lot for cars.

The City's own data shows that the cultural institutions get the same or more visitors when JFK Drive is closed to cars. And the data shows that parking nearby is about the same on both days. These results make sense to me since we only visit the park on Sundays because it is so much more pleasant and usable for my family.

A six-month trial of closing JFK Drive on Saturdays will give us all a chance to see if this is a good idea or not. And a six-month trial will not irreparably harm the institutions in the neighborhood.

One of the things I most dislike about San Francisco is how vituperative political debates such as these are. For once, can we let data and experience drive our decision, instead of hysteria?
Jean Fraser

Editor:
You began your column with an Einstein quote: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

The way I see it, continuing to insist on suburban life in an urban area, continuing to (mis)design our neighborhoods to prioritize the automobile and not the people, continuing to eradicate free public physical recreation in order to accommodate cars - these are the same insane practices you tout yet again as panaceas for the woes of our unwalkable hazardous streets, as if the dangers and degraded quality of life will change, while the same fossilized policies grind on.

You call us elitist, those of your neighbors trying to restore and maintain livable parks and streets. I can't think of anything more elitist than walling off Golden Gate Park from its own neighbors, many of whom grew up walking and pushing strollers or riding bicycles or roller skates to enjoy the open air, free from automobile traffic on one tiny stretch one day a week. If more of us would forego cars, the roads would be less congested.

I do agree with you on this, though! Closing off the park is indeed elitist - closing it off from being used as a park, instead of a combination drive-through and parking lot.
Janice Rothstein

Editor:
In the past when our liberal, or if you prefer progressive, members of our SF Board of Supervisors worked themselves into a snit because some municipal department activity or service was losing money, I found it amusing. "Imagine that," I would say to myself. "All these lefties getting upset about the City not making a profit. Wouldn't they be better off working for Chevron or Halliburton?"

Now, I realize this posturing is simply the opening gambit in the game of ducking responsibility and shifting it onto the backs of others.

Take the City's public golf courses, for example. After SF Supervisor Aaron Peskin had to dip into the treasury to make up for a shortfall in funding for the golf program, he charged the SF Recreation and Park Department to come back with a plan to rectify the situation by March 31, 2007.

The general manager of the Rec. and Park Department, Yomi Agunbiade, reacted promptly by having the National Golf Foundation, "a not-for-profit" organization located in Florida, prepare a study. The recommendation of the study was to turn operation of San Francisco's public golf courses over to a "not-for-profit corporation."

Once again, the buck was successfully passed. Isn't it about time for "the people" to demand that our elected representatives and civil servants begin to earn their pay by actually doing their jobs? Charlie Phillips