The Betrayal of Helene Strybing
By Harry S. Pariser
The year was 1926 and Helene Strybing had a decision to make. A widow, she sought a fitting memorial to her beloved late husband Christian M. Strybing. Should she set up a scholarship for blind female students at the University of California Berkeley? Or should she fund the establishment of an Arboretum in Golden Gate Park?
She chose the latter: Strybing Arboretum.
From the early 1930s, laborers employed by the government-funded Works Project Association helped build Strybing Arboretum, which opened in 1940.
For decades, Strybing served as a gathering place for one and all, hosting people from all walks of life and from every economic strata. Summers saw its open gates welcome visitors well into the evening.
The Strybing Arboretum Society (SAS), a group of neighbors, took an interest in its maintenance. Gradually, the group’s structure and purpose began to change. A “nonprofit” was set up. Wealthy individuals — who deem themselves entitled to authoritarian, exclusive decision-making — became trustees. At the behest of these nabobs, the Recreation and Park Department’s bureaucrats proposed a $5 entry fee. Then-Mayor Art Agnos wisely vetoed the move.
But the elite’s efforts did not stop there. Over the decades, two different lobbying firms made attempts to implement an entrance fee. The SAS changed its name to the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society, and the 55 acres of trees became the San Francisco Botanical Garden at Strybing Arboretum. Why? Botanical gardens have “world class” clout, and the name is more marketable. Arboretums are almost always free, and the name lacks glamour.
Lobbyist Sam Lauter, a well-connected individual whose mother founded the local chapter of AIPAC, succeeded where others failed. And his good friend London Breed helped put the final nail in the coffin by making the fees permanent. A willing and compliant Gavin Newsom went along with the project.
A mutiny ended the first of the two RPD commission-mandated meetings which were the only meetings about the privatization ever held. Faced with outrage from hundreds of neighbors, Chair Jim Lazarus found himself humiliated. So, for the second meeting, he was replaced by then park privatization czar Rich Hillis. (He is currently the Planning Department head honcho).
After Hillis attempted to divide participants into separate groups — a corporate-style strategy frequently employed to circumvent substantive public discussion — the neighbors humiliated Hillis as well. So there were no further meetings.
The excellent points made by San Franciscans at the meetings were ignored. The San Francisco Chronicle, seeing an up-and-coming champion for neoliberalism and corporate hegemony in the making, heralded David Chiu’s endorsement of a plan to let locals in for free (sans guests) while charging $5 each to everyone else, including locals, without an acceptable ID in hand. The supervisors handed the Society a sweetheart 30-year contract to rule over this public space. Absolutely no controls have been put in place.
The results have been disastrous. A “nursery,” the funding of which the entry taxes would allegedly provide, was moved from the top of the hill to the front of the redwood grove, and a fence erected. Trees were clear cut, and foliage was literally pulped. The once secluded Demonstration Garden was turned into a sterile, pricey events space. The Tea Garden was also privatized and brought under the Society’s control. The Society was allowed to purchase the once-public Conservatory of Flowers from Parks Alliance. And so these three public spaces became something to market, another commodity in plutocrat Mark Buell’s consortium of park commodities. Places where only the wealthy may visit. And where we may visit with our guests — if we pay.
This year, it finally happened. The “at Strybing Arboretum” suffix was removed from all “San Francisco Botanical Garden” signage. With this move, acknowledgement of Helene Strybing’s legacy vanished from public view. The current acreage bears less and less resemblance to what it was during its glory. Although this December’s anti-environmental light show (planned for all three formerly public spaces) did not materialize, the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society is exploiting its 55 acres to the max. It costs around $150 for a three-day pass to enter the former Demonstration Gardens and enjoy the private concert, held on a “Flower Piano” weekend. There appears to be no end in sight to the future indignities.
What can we learn from this imbroglio? Agencies need to hold regular, substantive meetings with locals and discuss what they want in their parks. Elites and their “nonprofits” should not be calling all the shots. And nonprofit businesses such as Parks Alliance and the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society, who receive taxpayer subsidies, need to both make their trustee meetings open and meet regularly with concerned locals.
