Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
Protest at SF City Hall After Soccer Conflict with Dropbox, Airbnb Employees (techcrunch.com)
26 points by VuongN 4262 days ago
8 comments

Selling reservations for fields that often are in use by locals is guaranteed to start fights; what on earth was the parks department thinking?
Why can't the locals deal with a reservation system? The fields are a shared resource paid for by all SF taxpayers, not just the local community. It seems the city did its best to inform everyone of the reservation system but some people will just ignore the rules. Not that I think it's right that the kids can't use the fields in the evening. I don't know all the details. Maybe there are some evenings blocked off for unreserved use. Maybe the locals want no reservation system at all. There has to be some give and take here. This has been turned into another anti-gentrification, anti-tech issue. At least some of the tech-workers are SF citizens and "locals" too. In some other parts of the world reservation systems work.
The point you're glossing over is the kids have no representation in the local city council. Yeah, people go on making laws and claiming they know what's best for children, but no one ever bother to ask them. In another extreme case, some adults entirely dismiss the kid's perspective claiming these issues go over their head.

This didn't turn into a gentrification issue as it is very much a class struggle issue from the beginning. (And as such, a gentrification issue.) Kids don't have money to pay to play, so they can't even share the field?

Yes, I realize the kids have no representation and I should have elaborated on that. The community leaders who supposedly are representing the kids at the city hall protest should have been their voice at all those meetings. It would be outrageous that the city council didn't think of the kids when they drafted the policy.

Parks and recreation general manager Phil Ginsburg said that his department made that decision after notifying 700 community leaders and all residents within a quarter-mile of the park in English and Spanish and holding three community meetings back in 2009. He said that the new system left the park open for drop-in play 96 percent of the time.

With the park open for drop-in play 96% of the time surely there was evening time for the kids? Did nothing come from notifying 700 community leaders and holding 3 community meetings? Of course the parks board may have ignored all the recommendations, but what do they gain with a paltry $27 per reservation fee? I don't think the community activists will be happy until they get rid of the reservation system. There was probably a lot of compromise in the park plan and here we are with one side complaining.

Yes, some issues go over a kid's head and many adults too.

> The point you're glossing over is the kids have no representation in the local city council.

Nonsense; they have the same representation anyone else in San Francisco has. The fact that they cannot vote doors not mean that they are not represented.

Moreover, this being America, their parents or guardians can vote.

If you seriously believe that poor people, middle class, and upper class people all get the same representation in sf -- or anywhere in America -- and the same returns to their tax dollars, you're a willfully blind idiot. After all, whose kids just got prime hours in the local parks auctioned off?
So... let me get this straight. A group of people (it doesn't make any difference that they were Dropbox/Airbnb employees) show up to play a game on a field they reserved through the proper channels and they find the field occupied so they ask them to leave. Why are they the bad guys here? If a neighborhood family had reserved the field for a soccer themed birthday party for a 6 year old, would they have been blasted like this? Doubtful. But oh snap... we have some techies so let's blast them for following the rules. Stupid.
I've always seen the ability to reserve parks for usage like kickball leagues and the like, but only a few days out of the week were reservable.

It looks like this was a similar situation, so why would anyone feel "slighted" because someone made a reservation?

I've just read this and the whole story sounds extremely weird to me... I don't know how things are done over there in SF, but from my point of view there's no need to go to a City Town Hall to solve this...you book online, show up and play. It looks more a way to feed the Tech Hype rather than a real problem but...
Pretty clueless of Dropbox employees to kick people out of the park.

Give up the game, but let people know about the reservation system; offer company funding to book community sessions; get someone else to do the enforcing so it's them who look bad.

This is a good lesson in economics for the kids. When something is in demand and it has limited supply, the price increases. Simple as that.
Do you believe that every aspect of life should have a price tag on it? (Serious question). In a wealthy country is it not desirable to redistribute some wealth to the young, old and sick? Communal park areas have been a standing feature of western countries. By supporting pay for access you belie not your wealth but a sense of entitlement.
Did you read the article? "As part of that, there was a new reservation system on certain nights of the week for a $27 permit...left the park open for drop-in play 96 percent of the time".

So 96% of the time, the park is open to everyone and 4% of the time the park can be reserved for a price which is equal to 2.5 hours of work at the local minimum wage.

One could easily argue that the people showing an unreasonable entitlement are the ones who think they should get to use the park in the tiny sliver of time where someone else has paid the city to reserve it for an organized game.

>> One could easily argue that the people showing an unreasonable entitlement are the ones who think they should get to use the park in the tiny sliver of time where someone else has paid the city to reserve it for an organized game.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that people with money intrinsically have more right to something than those who do not. I understand this is the prominent view in the US but there are other ways to do it(there's a big gap between communism and ultra-capitalism). Look to the scandinavian countries for instance where they place a far great emphasis on wealth redistribution and community support through better schooling and healthcare.

I don't disagree with you, but The US is the bastion of capitalism. Redistribution of wealth sounds a lot like communism and they don't tolerate those types around there. 'murica!
Look, I am a doctor in San Francisco, cardiac anesthesiologist, did my residency at Harvard and fellowship at Mount Sinai. So, I am not a piece of crap. But everywhere I go I repeatedly see smug and condescending behavior from techies toward everyone else, including me. This behavior is everywhere: in bars, restaurants, bus stops, etc, etc. Get a grip, people, you are no better than everyone else!
Must be a slow news day