Did I mention the San Francisco Green Party isn't even on board with Prop F. Not just the Sierra Club, the SF Green Party is also conflicted about this.
"Because we are almost evenly split on the measure, we urge voters to study this proposition further and make your own decision."
So there's your line in the sand. Are you more liberal than the SF Green Party? Do you believe the Sierra Club doesn't want to protect and restore Yosemite?
Or is there something wrong with this proposition?
The "more liberal" question is completely unapt: the GP, being split, is taking no position: it is not opposing it. So are the half that are for it "more liberal" than the party they are members of? Half more conservative than their own party? That's like saying I am not an average human, because I have two testicles, whereas the average person has one tescticle and one ovary.
As for the Sierra Club, as a matter of fact I have come to believe that it does NOT want to restore and protect Yosemite nearly as much as it wants to enhance and protect its own corporate stature and bottom line. I first joined in 1964, after my first Whitney trip, when SC was still a 501 c 3. Since then I have watched Muir's beloved creation turn into just another big commercial lobby. I finally quit this year when I got fed up of being bombarded with its alarmist, shallow emails and its sickeningly commercial magazine. The final straws there were an article on how to return to my primordial roots through minimalist trail running, followed by pages of ads describing all the high tech gear I would need to buy to go minimalist, and another on how green the US military is because it has a couple of solar panels in Afghanistan.
So yeah, I do think the so-called Sierra Club has a couple of priorities ahead of just about anything that goes on in the Sierra. One of those priorities is San Francisco money.
