The ROSE Disappointment

pesticides and excuses, Twin Peaks, March 2012Some weeks ago, we had alerted our readers to the ROSE (Recreation and Open Space Element  amendment to the General Plan. It’s a bad idea, mainly because of the egregious Policy 4.2 that potentially expands “Natural Area” management principles to all open space in San Francisco, with tree-cutting, access restrictions, and use of toxic herbicides.  Though it cannot be enforced on the UCSF section of Mount Sutro (since UCSF is a state institution, not a city organization), it can provide a dangerous model for adoption.

It was hard-fought through three rounds of approvals, but despite huge public opposition, it passed. Here’s how it went down.

1) The ROSE amendment went to the Planning Parks Commission for approval. Despite considerable public comment opposing it, it passed, with two commissioners voting against it, five voting for it. They pointed out that it would go to the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors. [Edited to correct the Commission name.]

green ringed tree stump2) The Land Use Committee could vote Yes, No, or send it to the full Board of Supervisors without a recommendation.  They took the noncommital option, leaving the full Board to deal with the issue.

3)  Many people who spent the days before the vote talking to City Hall  said Supervisors’ aides reported they were deluged with emails and phone calls – overwhelmingly requesting the Supervisor to vote NO on the ROSE. The vote was delayed to the last hour of the last day when it could be made – at the every end of a 3-1/2 hour meeting. Despite this  outpouring of concern, the NO vote didn’t happen. The ROSE passed, 8-3.

If you haven’t already done so, please take a moment to write a thank you to the three who opposed it: Supervisors Wiener, Yee, and Campos. Their email addresses are: (Phone: 415-554-6968); (Phone: 415-554-6516); (Phone: 415-554-5144)

Thanks to everyone who wrote or called in. We’re disappointed that many of the Supervisors didn’t listen this time, but we’re grateful to the ones who did. And we’re not going away.

imazapyr used here

This entry was posted in Environment, Natural areas Program and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The ROSE Disappointment

  1. Pingback: Opposing ROSE’s Policy 4.2 – Update | San Francisco Forest Alliance

Comments are closed.