upper waypoint

The Battle Over San Francisco's Dueling Soccer Props, H and I

Save ArticleSave Article
Failed to save article

Please try again

Members of the San Francisco Vikings U-16 girls club soccer team, Athena White, greet their opponents after winning a recent game. (David Weir/KQED)

Unless you are immersed in the soccer politics of San Francisco, it's easy to be confused by San Francisco's Propositions H & I.

And if you are unaware that San Francisco has soccer politics, check out the recent video of a dispute at a Mission playground that has been viewed more than 500,000 times, as well as the two propositions themselves.

What Would Prop. H Do?

Prop. H would make it city policy that "all playing fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive" (i.e., near the Beach Chalet) will remain natural grass and will not install lights for nighttime play.

What Would Prop. I Do?

Sponsored

Prop. I would allow the renovation of the Beach Chalet fields, as well as any city athletic fields, playgrounds and paths to include lights and artificial turf when the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department deems that a renovation would at least double the use of the facility.

Proposition I also ensures park projects that have been approved by the proper agencies move forward without being halted by an appeal process.

What if Both Propositions Pass?

If both propositions pass, the one that receives the most votes will take effect.

Good to Know:

The renovation of the soccer fields near Beach Chalet has already been approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission.

What Are the Arguments for H and against I?

Opponents of Prop. I say that artificial turf poses a health hazard and that the turf and lighting structures would harm the environment. They also argue that turf  is just as expensive and labor intensive to maintain as grass.

What Are the Arguments for I and against H?

Opponents of Prop. H say that there are too few athletic fields available in San Francisco and that installing artificial turf and lights would expand the number of usable fields. Supporters of I also feel that there is insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that artificial turf poses a health hazard.

 If You Want More Background:



lower waypoint
next waypoint
State Prisons Offset New Inmate Wage Hikes by Cutting Hours for Some WorkersCecil Williams, Legendary Pastor of Glide Church, Dies at 94Erik Aadahl on the Power of Sound in FilmFresno's Chinatown Neighborhood To See Big Changes From High Speed RailKQED Youth Takeover: How Can San Jose Schools Create Safer Campuses?How to Attend a Rally Safely in the Bay Area: Your Rights, Protections and the PoliceWill Less Homework Stress Make California Students Happier?Nurses Warn Patient Safety at Risk as AI Use Spreads in Health CareSilicon Valley House Seat Race Gets a RecountBill to Curb California Utilities’ Use of Customer Money Fails to Pass