SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION
CW Nevius came out with a new article antagonizing the efforts of the Kezar Gardens Ecology Center on Thursday. Perhaps, if one were to read only the first and last lines of the piece, it could be considered accurate, but everything in between is highly questionable in terms of its precision. We were lucky to get a tape recording of the interview between Nevius and Ed Dunn, recycling center director.
Tuesday morning, Chronicle photographer, Lea Suzuki, spent hours in the yard photographing recyclers and gardeners for the piece Nevius was writing this week. She encouraged Nevius to come by as well to see the changes and talk to the energetic chief of staff, Ed Dunn. And, to his credit, Nevius came by Tuesday afternoon and talked recycling center politics with Ed. He let us tape him and did not hold back on his vehement opposition to the center, however, he seemed to be quite misinformed and uninterested in setting the record straight.
So, we waited to see what he would come up with. What we got was an emotional article filled with inaccuracies and completely ignoring or failing to research many of the issues presented to him that day. In response, we have put together a short video detailing the difference between his report and what actually transpired. The major points we dispute in the video are:
1. The Native Plant garden was a “last ditch effort” to prevent an eviction
Greg Gaar began gardens at the site about a dozen years ago. He has planted an acre of grounds in native plants surrounding the center and continues to develop and contribute to effective restoration projects all over the city including the Green Hairstreek Butterfly project on Golden Gate Heights.
2. The salaries are too high and no one wanted to show him the books.
Simple math demonstrated in the video refutes that along with an offer to look at the accounting that Nevius does not choose partake in. The average salary with benefits for a staff member at HANC is approximately 36K and includes health care.
3. Reference to the Golden Gate Master Plan as proof of non-conforming use.
Nevius was informed about the County General Plan that does allow for a public service that is hard to locate and cannot be located elsewhere to exist on parkland- he made no reference to this in his article. Also, at this point, no other site on the west side of SF has been identified for HANC to relocate to.
4. Nobody wants us. City Hall hates HANC.
In Feb 2011, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in favor of HANC recycling center, they demanded that the City work in GOOD FAITH with the center on this issue. There are also over 100 community gardeners as well as local recyclers that patronize the space everyday. Check out our other blogs detailing the visits of D5 Supe Christina Olague and Homeless Advocate Bevan Dufty, each having an extremely positive reaction to the site.
Take a few moments to see for yourself. And take a gander at the Nevius article through the link below as well as HANC’s 990, it’s all public. It’s certainly not news that we have opponents in this struggle but we must be vigilant about reporting the facts to the best of our knowledge and holding this reporter to the same virtue.
Nevius Article
July 5, 2012
Kezar Gardens
5 responses to “Chronicle Columnist gets facts wrong”
hummingbird
July 6th, 2012 at 12:57
CW Nevius is the ugliest person in San Francisco. Totally odious.
frustrated neighbor
July 10th, 2012 at 14:44
What a scam. The center recycles stolen items from neighborhood residents trash cans put out for Recology. The center does not contribute to recycling just supporting the local indigents. They have no legal right to be there or to operate a business. Its noisy, dirty, walled off by an ugly fence, the plantings are haphazard and unactractive. They should check there own facts. Not at all an asset to any neighborhood.
Kezar Gardens
July 10th, 2012 at 16:40
Thank you for your comment. To clarify, the center does not steal recycling from anyone, it buys back what patrons bring in, as mandated by state law. Recycling theft is a citywide problem, not just in this area. Stealing is not the fault of this or any other recycling center, Recology also operates multiple recycling centers, are they stealing, too? Maybe today’s post on small business recycling will help you better understand the role recycling centers play in SF. If you close this center, the state still mandates that recycling be available in this area. If your argument is that closing this recycling center will improve recycling bin theft, you have not considered the multiple different places in your neighborhood that will be forced to offer the service to the same people you complain about. We would love to invite you to come in and work with us to fight recycling theft. We are working with Christina Olague’s office now on the very same thing. And, finally, from a legal perspective, we currently have a “stay”. This means we are legally operational at this point. The stay was granted to prevent vulnerable people, like our staff, from losing their livelihoods. If there are any other facts you would like to dispute, do let us know, we would be happy to discuss them with you.
frustrated neighbor
July 10th, 2012 at 17:41
Well put, but number one if you aren’t there you would not need to encourage trash theft and would not be required to accept stolen trash. And if you are operating under a stay, it does not make your business legal or permit you to operate forever. Has any court stated that you have the right to operate at this location? How much has your litigation cost the city.
The bottom line, is that you do not have the right to operate at that location, just the right to litigate.
Kezar Gardens
July 11th, 2012 at 10:56
Thanks again for your comment. Unfortunately, the operation of a state mandated recycling center does not equate to “encouraging trash theft”. If it did, Recology, Nexcycle, and Tamra would be in the same “theft” business and every grocery store would be as well, why not blame the whole state of CA for having the bottle bill. The accusation, if you make it, goes to a city wide problem. We understand you don’t like us, and that’s ok, but we have provided a notable environmental service for decades, and many people do like us. And, yes, Judge Woolard in SF Superior Court, said we could STAY here until the appeals process was complete. Again, we welcome you here anytime to further discuss these issues in an open and community oriented way.
1 Trackbacks / Pingbacks
Haight Ashbury Recycling Center - La-La-La - Bluoz July 6th, 2012 at 05:37
[...] didn't mention the video that was recorded while he was at the recycling center this week, via the recycling center's own blog comments from the Nevius column [...]