March 16, 2010 Jason Buberel Forced? Are there people with pitchforks banging on the doors of artists and demanding that they leave the city? That is force. I would like to own a home in Atherton, but guess what - I cannot afford it. I would also like to live in SF, but guess what - I cannot afford it. That doesn't mean I was 'forced' to live in Sunnyvale. Who wouldn't want to live in SF? That is why the price is so high - demand and desirability.
When it comes to our property, what do we expect in case of loss (hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, fire, etc.)? The disaster itself is news. What happens after the dust settles is the story: the aftermath shock. Here is something the public should know: with a little curiosity you can mitigate that shock. Insurance policyholders/disaster survivors, need to be informed of access to basic rights and information--equality. The internet reaches far more people than anyone would have ever imagined, though difficult to gather those willing to pause, to inspect, to further...to think on their own. And yet, much is available gratis! It just takes looking: www.disasterprepared.net/info.html
I am a member of San Francisco NERT. I also serve as the Neighborhood Coordinator for Ingleside NERT. I have a vested interest in helping neighbors become self sufficient after a serious earthquake or other disaster. Within minutes of a serious earthquake, our firefighters and police will be totally overwhelmed. In those first hours after a serious earthquake or other major disaster, dialing 911 will not work! No one will come rescue us. The more we know about how to take care of ourselves and our family members, the safer we will be and the quicker we will recover. NERT teaches us the skills we need to do just that. It's sad to hear neighbors say they need to be shown why they should prepare to survive a serious earthquake. We live in an area surrounded by fault lines. The USGS tells us that there is a 63% chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the Bay Area between now and 2032. It's not "if" -- it's "when." We can't stop quakes from happening, but we can take steps to minimize the impact on ourselves and on our families. Again, NERT teaches us how to do just that. Don't fall into the trap of looking at Loma Prieta as a "base line" for what to expect in any serious quake! Loma Prieta was a 6.9 magnitude quake that lasted 15 seconds. The 1906 Great Earthquake was a 7.9 magnitude quake that lasted between 45 and 60 seconds! The 1906 quake released 16 times the energy of Loma Prieta. I love the Bay Area. I wouldn't live anywhere else. But I owe it to myself, to my family, and to my community to take every step possible to ensure that I and my home will withstand a serious quake. NERT empowers me to make myself safer. With that empowerment comes peace of mind. NERT's free preparedness training is available to anyone living or working in San Francisco. For more information about San Francisco NERT, see [http://www.sf-fire.org/index.aspx?page=875]. For information about Ingleside NERT, contact me at edie_schaffer@yahoo.com.
RedwoodAge.com has happily supported Newswire21.org since its inception because it represents a sustainable, replicable model for blending the passion of citizen reporting with the best practices of traditional journalism. As a news organization, we see daily the need to create a new kind of wire service that is designed for new media and is controlled by journalists -- not large newspaper companies. Newswire21 will empower people in the community to share their news with the world around them, bringing the issues of underserved communities into the mainstream. We encourage all Spot.us readers to join us in supporting this great project. -- RedwoodAge.com
The author of the article headlined "Dog Lovers Howl Over Disc Golf in SF Park", holds a public position and has actively, publicly opposed the disc golf course proposal. It's absurd to think that she would write a story that would substantively contradict her current, highly visible advocacy.
The article's bias is most evident in the false and inflammatory framing of victimized locals vs selfish and powerful outsiders, which is repeated in five of the first six paragraphs. Reading this article, it seems that all park neighbors (aka "the community" & "the public") are opposed and all supporters are not park neighbors -- except for one guy mentioned in paragraph 10 out of 15. In this article, course critics are the only people who count. "The park neighbors next heard about the course in January of this year when the parks department announced plans to build it this summer." (Many park neighbors have been involved in the course process for many years.) "While there are a variety of neighborhood concerns with the course..." (There are a variety of neighborhood joys with the course too.) "Critics claim the city's Parks and Recreation Department ignored community viewpoints before going ahead with plans to break ground for the course this summer." (The community submitted thousands of emails and postcards supporting disc golf when the course was approved in 2005 in a regular, public meeting of the Parks Commission. More recently, immediately after the draft of the course layout was submitted by SFDGC to RPD, RPD promptly scheduled and publicized a course walkthrough and a community meeting... Also, there are no plans to break ground this summer and never were.) "The advisory panel, better known as PROSAC, felt that it was important to hear the public’s voice." (see previous comment re public input prior to approval and public visibility since draft course design was submitted to RPD.) "In 2005, the commission approved the permanent Golden Gate course and added in McLaren Park, though few outside of the hearing room knew about it." (Thousands of postcards and emails came from people who did not attend the meeting.)
Of the first six paragraphs, the one that didn't push the false framing is the one which describes the sport. The brief description is rife with errors. All but one of the errors may be minor, but it shows that the writer wasn't trying very hard to get it right. "Disc golf, also known as Frisbee golf, is typically played over a nine- or 18-hole course set up on 25-35 acres. Starting on a four-by-10-foot concrete pad, players try to throw discs of different weights into a four-foot metal basket at the end of each 300-500-yard fairway." * Nine-hole courses are typically laid out over half as much area as an 18-hole course. * The baskets are approx 5 feet tall. * The holes in the McLaren layout are approximately 250-475 FEET long, averaging around 350 FEET. That's typical of most other courses.
Beyond the major fails on objectivity and accuracy, the article fails to meet the publishers' admirable goals of relevant, useful grassroots journalism. If newswire21 or spot.us support another attempt at this story, here are some angles that a sincere, capable journalist might pursue on behalf of the collective public interest: * How well/poorly has the Golden Gate Park course performed, including the SFDGC’s stewardship of the course? Does the GGP course provide concrete, relevant information about what to expect if/when a course is installed in McLaren Park? If so, what does it tell us? * How would disc golf fulfill or contradict the short-term and long-term goals for McLaren Park? For example, is active recreation a key goal? Is increased park usage a key goal? Are removing trails and decreasing foot traffic key goals? If disc golf is incompatible with the goals, should the proposal be killed or should the goals be modified? If disc golf is compatible with the goals, how do course proponents expect to meet those goals? * Is McLaren a neighborhood park or a regional park? Is it a good thing to limit park visitors to locals? Is it a good thing to bring lots of visitors from outside the immediate area? Is there a particular balance that would be ideal for McLaren, or certain sections of McLaren? * What course proposal modifications are being considered and how would opponents and proponents respond to each of them? Is there a chance to make adjustments – to the layout, the installation, timing, the stewardship, etc – that would satisfy the majority of both proponents and opponents? How would that process work? -Leonard Muise Disc golf proponent (and not pretending otherwise)
