Email Address: jasonjungreis@gmail.com
Website: www.jasonjungreisforsupervisor.com
Mailing Address: 527 47th Avenue, 94121
District: 1
1. In what ways do you feel parks contribute to the quality of life of San Francisco residents?
Through recreation, community environmental health, wildlife interaction, urban calming, and pet ownership opportunities.
2. What park in your district do you use most and tell us what you like most about it.
My family regularly uses GGNRA's Sutro Heights Park the most, but we also regularly use Golden Gate Park, GGNRA's Ocean Beach, and GGNRA's Lands End.
Regarding Sutro Heights Park, it is obviously convenient to us (a block away), offers opportunities for our children to run, ride their bikes, climb trees, play ball, observe wildlife, and safely hang out.
Regarding GGP, we use the roadways to bicycle, playgrounds, archery range, enjoy feeding the fish etc. in the ponds, watching the bison, hiking, playing ball, visiting the museums (we're very excited for the Academy of Science to reopen!), and seeing special events (we were married there and have attended weddings there).
Regarding Ocean Beach, we swim, I run on it regularly, beachcomb, fly kites, and enjoy the animals and sunsets.
Regarding Lands End, we hike, tidepool, pick berries, and enjoy the views.
3. Which park in your district appears to need the most help and what do you propose to do about it?
I am pleased that Lincoln Park will finally be getting the new playground that it is due. I would like to see GGP include playground stations that are appropriate for older children (and not just very young children, as has been the unfortunate case with the newly rebuild Children's Playground). As a member of the neighborhood group Friends of Sutro Heights I was instrumental in obtaining a simple border that prevents vehicles from illegally entering and damaging the Park, and I would like to see a late-night curfew to make overnight "camping" illegal.
4. From your observations, what are the 3 most important issues facing recreation and parks in San Francisco? How will you begin to address these Issues if you are elected?
- 1. Funding: Ensuring that adequate funding is provided for maintenance and not simply focusing on funding of capital improvements.
- 2. Personnel: As with other departments, ensuring that Rec and Park personnel who are incompetent or derelict are readily terminated.
- 3. Abuse of Park Laws and Property: Ensuring that resources and attitudes are in place to ensure that there will be prompt and full enforcement of all park laws including City-wide quality of life laws against all persons, including the homeless, vandals, graffitiers, and drug-users who abuse the parks.
Yes (please see my response above).
6. The Recreation and Parks Department estimates that we are 200 gardeners short to keep up our parks to a good standard. Also, many common complaints from park users have to do with deferred maintenance such as broken irrigation parts and hazardous trees, largely the result of too few maintenance personnel and far too little funding. The Controller's City Survey 2007 indicates many residents continue to be dissatisfied with park maintenance. What do you propose to improve park maintenance?
As noted above, ensuring that adequate funding is provided for maintenance and not simply focusing on funding of capital improvements, and as with other departments, ensuring that Rec and
Park personnel who are incompetent or derelict are readily terminated.
7. RPD has just developed work plans for each park but the plans do not clearly outline the tasks that volunteers can assist with. At the same time, efforts to reduce staff overtime require volunteer work parties (which usually take place on Saturday) to involve 15 or more‹effectively eliminating many possible hours of volunteer assistance. With our parks being understaffed, volunteers are a critical way to bridge the maintenance gap. Do you support adding to the current work plans the specific tasks that volunteers can assist with? Also, in an effort to reduce staff overtime, would you support the creation of a program that would certify community members to volunteer in the parks without direct staff oversight, similar to DPW's Adopt a Street program?
Yes to both. Please note that I specifically note on my website (http://www.jasonjungreisforsupervisor.com) a proposal to readily provide to all residents opportunities to volunteer for all such City projects, and I would encourage such volunteerism with promotional benefits (ex: free Muni cards, free museum passes, free health screenings).
8. ParkScan.org is a public portal that enables park users to report maintenance concerns to the Recreation and Park Department (and even include a photo!). Please ParkScan a park near you and describe the maintenance issue that needed attention in your park. If elected, would you like to receive regular reports on the conditions of parks reported in your district?
Yes. As a director and member of several neighborhood organizations, I regularly report issues I observe in our parks: I will now do so through ParkScan (thank you for alerting me to this service: I will pass along this information to my groups).
9. More than two dozen San Francisco playgrounds received failing grades in NPC's bi-annual Playground Report Card this year. Would you be available to participate in a workday to raise the grade of a failed playground? (Note: To check which playgrounds in your district might be on the list, please check NPC's Playground Initiative Report Card at http://parkscan.org/pdf/2008/2008_PlaygroundReportCard.pdf.)
Yes.
10. NPC's Green Envy study identified many neighborhoods that lack playgrounds and neighborhood parks. Another survey (http://www.sfnpc.org/files/RecreationAssessmenReport_0.pdf) by a national consultant indicates that San Francisco is deficient in soccer fields and opportunities for hiking on trails or community gardening. Do you have ideas to address these deficiencies?
No, other than to increase bike paths to encourage users to bike to nearby parks. Frankly, at this stage of the District's development it would be unlikely to create new parks, and there are already wonderful large parks at the western, southern, and northern boundaries of the District. However, on a related subject, I am concerned that the Presidio is more interested in commercial and tourist development than in serving San Franciscans, and I want to work with the Presidio Trust to help ensure that it increases recreational opportunities for our residents.
11. The City provides start-up funds to establish Community Benefit Districts. Would you support additional funds in the city budget to establish Park Improvement Districts (PIDs) to supplement park maintenance and provide funds for some ongoing capital needs in our parks such as irrigation systems and repairing playgrounds?
I respectfully disagree with your terminology: irrigation systems and repairing playgrounds are indeed maintenance issues, and not capital needs. First and foremost, I want our existing parks to be as good as possible before seeking capital expansion. In this way I am firm in my support for maintenance, but I would not want to create a new funding stream under the potentially misleading label of capital needs: indeed, I believe good governance requires transparency and clear identification of objectives and fund sources.
12. Are you aware that over 700 acres of park land is dedicated to golf in San Francisco (6 public golf courses) even though it has been identified as a low priority recreation in the 2004 Recreation Assessment (see question #10 above) and that each golf course requires 250,000 gallons of water a day?
The Rec and Park Department is proposing to lease out 4 of these courses for 30 years, despite the need for more than sixty new baseball, softball and soccer fields just to meet current demand in these sports. What is your position on retaining so much golf land at the expense of other recreation needs?
I have reviewed this issue and am unaware of any golf courses that are not in ready use. Consequently, rather than incur major use changes, I prefer to first ensure that everything is working as efficiently as possible. Therefore, I resist calls to privatise and I want to help the City run these courses well. My concern for foresighted use of limited water resources would drive these considerations such that I would want to see gray water use for course irrigation where ever possible, and am heartened by the proposal regarding Lake Merced, the SFPUC, and the three courses that use the Western Basin water table which feeds the Lake which would have those courses use gray water (in conjunction with Daly City's water treatment). This sort of efficient use of limited resources should be a driver of City policy.
13. San Francisco currently has no city-wide open space requirement for new development. In areas such as the Eastern Neighborhoods, which are already deficient in open space and could see a tripling in residential density in the near future, this oversight could create unlivable communities severely deficient in parks. Would you support a city-wide open space requirement for all new residential development so that every neighborhood can have green space for play, exercise, and respite from urban life?
Yes, with the understanding that I stand to maintain the current characteristics of our City neighborhoods. I only wish to seem development via downtown apartment complexes and in the Eastern Neighborhoods where open spaces may now properly be designed into the new neighborhoods. Other than in these two locations, development should not be encouraged as the City is already sufficiently dense and the neighborhoods already sufficiently developed.
