potrero view

February 2009

Fruit Trees Cause Controversy at McKinley Park

By Mary Purpura and Silvano Purpura-Pontoniere

For more than five years roughly two dozen Potrero Hill residents and their friends have carefully tended to McKinley Park’s west side.  They’ve picked-up trash; removed graffiti; spread wood chips on walking paths, and lined them with native rocks; and planted purple needlegrass – the official state grass – thousands of flower bulbs, and about two dozen flowering and fruiting trees. “We chose tree varieties that would provide habitat for bees, birds, and local wildlife,” said Potrero Hill resident Cris Rys, who coordinates the Community Garden at 20th and San Bruno, next to the McKinley Park slope.

According to the volunteers, when they began their efforts the hillside was neglected, littered with trash, and didn’t feel safe or hospitable to residents who wanted to walk there. “We were operating under the Broken Window Theory,” said Kirk Scott, a former Potrero Hill resident who continues to tend a plot at the Community Garden, and who has been active in the McKinley Park clean-up efforts.  Scott was referring to a theory – outlined in a 1982 Atlantic Monthly, and put into practice in the early1990s by the New York City Transit Authority – that postulates that small community disorders can be precursors to more serious crimes.  By taking care of the small stuff – fixing broken windows and picking up litter – the risk of more aggressive crimes is reduced.  “We cleaned and maintained the area, and because we were here working, other people felt more comfortable walking and spending time here,” Scott said.  “Neighbors who passed by while we were working were always grateful and pleased,” echoed Rys. “It created a really positive community feeling.”

But the volunteer effort didn’t create the same warm feelings among City officials.  San Francisco Park and Recreation Neighborhood Service Area Manager Steven Cismowski, who became responsible for Potrero Hill parks roughly two and a half years ago, opposed the presence of the fruit trees and the drip irrigation lines the volunteers had extended from the Community Garden. “We wanted to work with Park and Rec to consider some more ambitious projects for the area, like benches or steps for the steep side of the park,” said Rys. “So I met with Steve Cismowski. He told me that the trees we had planted and the drip irrigation lines had to go, that that kind of work on City land can only be done with a permit, that we had done the work without a permit, and that he would not issue us a permit to do the work. I kept hoping that we would be able to work something out:  the oldest of those trees had been in the ground for five years and were over six feet tall,” said Rys.

Despite entreaties from Rys, Cismowski held his ground.  “About a year ago I met with him [Cris Rys] and gave him a deadline of well over six months to remove the fruit trees and the irrigation lines. After six months, nothing had been done. I gave him another extension of eight weeks, and still nothing was done. I then instructed our maintenance crew to remove the plant materials and dispose of them, so we could do our Fall cycle of planting.”  

Last Fall, Rys, Scott, and other McKinley Park slope volunteers were discouraged to discover that the trees they’d planted had been destroyed.  According to Park and Recreation Communications Director Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Cismowski ordered the fruit trees to be removed.  But when Park and Recreation staff people went to the park to dig them up, they found that the trees had already been snapped off and removed.

According to Cismowski there were a number of reasons why the fruit trees had to go, including McKinley Park’s unique physical geography; the threat posed to the coast live oaks from the drip irrigation lines; and the fact that the work was unpermitted.  In addition, Cismowski pointed-out that the group had diverted City resources that were earmarked for a specific use: water meant for use at the Community Garden was being applied elsewhere. Rys countered that some of Cismowksi’s reasons didn’t hold water.  “The irrigation lines did not threaten the coast live oaks – which suffer when watered during the summer – because the drip lines were well over 50 feet downhill from the oak trees,” explained Rys.  “Whether the drip lines threatened the coast live oaks or not, the work was done without permission,” countered Cismowski.

Cismowski points out that the area exhibits unique characteristics of San Francisco’s original landscape: a serpentine rock outcropping, coast live oaks, and proximity to other sites – such as Bernal Hill and Twin Peaks – that offer habitat to the City’s native wildlife. “This hill [McKinley Park’s west slope] and Potrero Hill in general are essential to support native wildlife,” said Cismowski. “There are bird species evident on that hillside because of the native plantings there.” However, not all of the area’s plants are native.  The McKinley Park hillside is home to a tall, mature, non-native eucalyptus tree.  Cismowski says he would love to remove that tree, but its removal isn’t a Park and Rec priority because the tree doesn’t pose an imminent danger.

Cismowski’s decision to order the removal of the fruit trees has left Rys and other Hill residents with the sense that they have no voice in what happens in a neighborhood park that they cherish and pay taxes to maintain. “The relationship seemed dictatorial,” explained Rys. “One person seemed to be making decisions about the park without any planning involving the community.”

“It’s not that they don’t have any say in the matter,” countered Cismowski. “It’s that there’s a procedure for making changes in public parks. We do want volunteers,” he continued. “We’re understaffed. We’re not getting done the job we need to get done. But well-meaning volunteers sometimes move out of the area, and we are left with the responsibility for projects they initiated. We don’t want people who are going to create more work for Park and Rec. Responsibility for maintaining this hill falls to me ultimately, and I can’t sustain an orchard.”  Further, according to Cismowski support for the fruit trees wasn’t unanimous.  “In this particular situation, I had at least three people from Potrero Hill express concern over the fruit tree plantings. One very ardently opposed the plantings and wanted them removed,” he said

Since the trees have been removed, Rys, Scott, and their colleagues feel demoralized. “We had a vibrant community of people who were active doing positive stuff,” said Rys. “Now we’re just sitting on our heels, wondering what’s next.”  Scott adds that he and the others have stopped tending to the park in the wake of the tree destruction.   New graffiti and trash are now accumulating at the site.

Subscribe to The Potrero View

All rights reserved. Copyright © 2006 The Potrero View.

Content on this site may not be archived, retransmitted, saved in a database, or used for any commercial purpose without the express written permission of The Potrero View or its Publishers.