signatory, there was not a public that was committed to allowing to the park allowing the park to be controlled in perpetuity. if the puc wants their land back, will they keep the contract as written? or will they find themselves in court, using taxpayer money to get out of the appeal that does not meet their long-term needs? i cannot stress this strongly enough. before we have two departments signing on. [tone] thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. walter fly the pga golf ball management to the moon and let me play under the stars and let it be that harding park has come along so far. in other words, please be true as i am to my name is richard and i am in opposition to this contract. after putting it money into harding park annually, have we not learn something? two minutes does not give me much time, but first of all the contract was originally r f q four qualifications, unfortunately they did not sign the contract with them. it was signed with ttc,
much time, but first of all the contract was originally r f q four qualifications, unfortunately they did not sign the contract with them. it was signed with ttc, which is a shell corporation. they were given approval based on financial ability. who is this new group? will they be responsible? i am a lawyer and any lawyer knows that you do not let your shell corporations sign your contracts. the next thing is that every year, the department says they have lost $500,000. actually it is $1.2 million because they are not able to pay back the opening statement. when you do that, this thing is a losing proposition. we are using the same model that got us into trouble and we have not learned anything. we are really making a mistake. if you look at my brief, the averages $1.2 million each year. the reason we are losing this kind of money is because we are paying $3.5 million for someone to push tickets. i worked at a golf course as a kid and i was one of those ticket counters. it di
approval review in writing of the two and we recommend approval of the ordnance dtw and we recommend approval of the ordinance as recommended. supervisor avalos: thank you. any public comment? please come forward. moscone center i hope you fix it and i hope you can hardly wait to be right there don t you remember you told me you love the george moscone convention center said you would be coming back and you would like to fix it up greatly. i hope that you do it, do a good center i love that center yes i really do i hope you fix it up and the convention center from all over the world people will visit there right now don t you remember you told me you love the the moscone convention center said he would be coming back to visit their i love that center i really do supervisor avalos: any other member of the public that would like to comment? we will close public comment. without objection, recommendation. wait, let s back that up. we need to make some amendments. actua
the payment. supervisor avalos: coming back to approve again the ordinance? correct. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. colleagues, this item is before us. supervisor maxwell? [laughter] supervisor maxwell: the city has put a lot of money, over $20 million, into this golf course. no one is giving the city favors. we put a lot of money into this golf course and it is paying off. i appreciate the fact that it is paying off and that people see it as a valuable asset. that is exactly what we started off doing. and that what that is what has come about. it s not like we have been given something, we have worked hard for this. it will pay off in different ways. i am supporting the contract. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. colleagues, the item is before us. any amendments from the budget analysts? no? let s move forward with recommendations. taken without objection. if we could call item no. 3? item #3, resolution authorizing the airport commission to execute an other trans