"No, I'm siding with the public sector Parks & Rec department, doing what they need to do to keep the parks open."

Hmmm thought that was it ....

Ok ...

SF Rec and Park spent $1.2million (!!) on the buffalo paddock last year during this time of financial crisis.

Do you really think that that was necessary to keep the parks open?

Perhaps the crisis is not purely financial?

FYI: With your above statements in re to activists in mind, Another Planet Entertainment is recruiting volunteers for Outside Lands. Perhaps you would like to volunteer for them and show your support for SF Rec and Park? By your logic, your unpaid helping of APE will help Rec and Park.

"The private sector is not evil for paying money to renting a facility that's available for rental, also."

Never said it was.

My focus is on keeping public property open and accessible.

The renting is not the problem, although the CIty got screwed on the fees. Much more should have been charged.

The problem is that Another Planet plans to install fences to prevent the public from using public property for about two weeks.

There is no compromise by Another Planet.

The public is getting kicked out of its own property.

Again, its a matter of principle:

Where are you in terms of principle?

Public property is by definition land that open and accessible to all.

Another Planet is violating that principle: It will install fences. It will close public property. It will prohibit people from using public property.

In a similar way, the Bush admin violated the principle that the US does not torture and prop 8 supporters are violating the principle of equal rights.

I suppose you are flexible when it comes to principles.

Yes??

Where's the COMPROMISE, as you say, when it comes to the fences which prohibit people???