I wouldn't mind paying an entrance fee as I only get to Strybing very rarely. If that's what they need to do to keep up their collection I think it's a small price to pay as I'd hate to see their collection suffer. It's one of my favorite arboretums. Thanks for posting this info.

Even $7 is too much--perhaps I could dig up pictures of some of the amazing plants I've bought for that much there. There's something really special about a place that is free.

Another problem is that the $7 would likely go up and up. The Huntington (near Pasadena, CA) used to be free, until the mid 90s, I think. Now it's $20 for an adult on the weekend. It's best not to start charging admission at all.

Across the Bay, the UC Botanical Garden in Berkeley is already $7, which is a reason to go to Strybing instead at this point. Parking is also free at Strybing if you get there early enough.

By the way, they are having a plant sale this Saturday, 10:00 A.M.-1:00 P.M. It's definitely worth the trip and buying plants is a great way of supporting the Arboretum. Passiflora are typically $15 for 1 gallon plants, often in bud or even blooming. Some things might be smaller and/or a couple dollars more, such as P. parritae (when it's available).

Here's an example of a $15 Strybing Passiflora, P. x exoniensis that I think I got last March. It's a little bigger than most, probably. You can see the buds on the upper right if you look carefully. It soon started blooming and bloomed for essentially the entire year until I cut it back in December. That would be the price of admission for two people...

{{gwi:66005}}

I know that both Eric and I could post a very long thread about incredible plants that we've bought for dirt cheap at Strybing. We've posted many pictures of such plants on this forum and elsewhere. These are not just Passiflora: Deppea splendens for $8-$15, the Strybing Brugmansia vulcanicola clone/hybrid for $10, blooming Saliva dombeyi for $20 or less. The list goes on and on. I worry if they start charging admission than the mindset would change and someone would decide they should also start charging "market value" for their plants. Keeping admission free and the plants cheap is an important goal.

Here is a link that might be useful: Strybing Sales

Mark, I have to disagree with you.

For residents and members, admission would still be free. The main people who would be paying would be tourists. Crystal and I have traveled all over the country, and Strybing is the ONLY large, well maintained garden we have been to that is still free. The Tea Garden across the street even charges admission! Like you say, UC Berkeley also charges $7, and you also have to pay for parking, IF you can even find it.

I would rather pay the $7 than have the quality go down, have the plants not be taken care of, or worse.

The fact that we can get fantastic deals on plants is just one more reason that it is worth it to pay admission.

And imagine the upside. If they are making money via admission, what kind of new programs could they start, and research and conservation could be even stronger than they already are.

I don't see how this can be avoided. Cutbacks are everywhere. There just isn't any money to be spent on a "park", with all the other more pressing issues the city and state have on their hands. I fully endorse a non-resident entrance fee.

The only other large botanical garden I know of that doesn't charge admission is the National Arboretum in DC. It appears that the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton, Canada charges admission now. I don't believe they did the last time I was there. It's almost $30 to get into Butterfly World. Granted there's the butterflies and birds but it's mainly gardens. Any of the other botanical gardens I've been to have had an admission fee, even some of the small ones. Some have memberships available that give you free or reduced admission. I don't think $5-$7 is much to ask. At least they aren't proposing something exorbitant like the admission fee to BW.

Eric,

Perhaps I should read the petition that I signed--I thought it was encouraging the city not to make cuts in the park, not start charging a fee. Woops.

Albert Huntington put together a list of fees for botanical gardens on his blog last year (you'll have to scroll down):

http://www.alsgh.com/blog/2009_04_01_archive.html

Even if the proposed fee is relatively "low" that doesn't mean it will stay low. The Huntington started out well under $10 not too many years ago, then shot up and up.

The Arboretum does a poor job promoting the sales. Most people who are into plants in my part of the Bay Area (40 miles away) do not even know that the sales exist. This includes some people who are very big in the horticulture or nursery business, by the way.

Just got some numbers from an online SF Chronicle article (link at bottom):

"But that could change later this year if city park officials - faced with closing a $12.4 million deficit - get their way and start charging out-of-towners $7 to visit the 55-acre landscaped sanctuary."

"The proposed fee, which would be cheaper for seniors and kids, would net $220,000 to $260,000 a year, officials estimate."

"The annual budget for the garden is $3.2 million, with $1.4 million coming from the city and $1.8 million from the nonprofit."

Note from the above numbers that the fee would be equivalent to increasing the non-profit contribution by a little more than 10% (OR the cities' contribution by a little less than 20%). The city's budget was over $6 BILLION in 2007-2008. I don't want to suggest they try to get more city money, that may be impossible. However, a botanical garden that promotes itself so poorly that some major figures in the plant community are not aware that its sales exist can certainly do a better job raising its profile locally. This will get it more money.

I finally became a member Saturday ($60) and I hope that people would try their hardest to increase the number of members, increase attendance at sales and find creative ways to enhance existing sources of money before a fee is started. Do they rent spots for wedding photos, for example? A smart institution will also frequently hold events that attract those who have money but might not be "into" a botanical garden (but can become big donors if they and all their friends hang out there). It's a bit calculating, but it beats denying everyone the opportunity to visit for free. Once an entrance fee is initiated it will not go away and the amount will always increase.

I always find fees for "non-residents" to be a bit creepy, by the way. And I say this as someone who might be moving to San Francisco in the future.

I remember how the California Lottery was supposed to solve the problems of the schools. Money like this always seems to vanish, particularly when it is used as a substitute for creative change.

Bottom line is that it is a big, irreversible change for what amounts to relatively little money.

Here is a link that might be useful: SF Chronicle story

Eric,

Sorry to hijack the thread to argue the opposite view, but you can probably tell I feel strongly about keeping one of the last free things in the area free. We should support Strybing by fighting for that.

I spoke to my mom, who is in her 70s, about this. She says that when we were kids everything in the park used to be free. Strybing is one of the few that remains free. She will definitely be less likely to go to Strybing if they charge.

I have a 5 year old nephew who lives about 25 miles from Strybing. Will he be less likely to go there growing up if it costs for the family to go there? If a free Strybing means that he will go there 10 times growing up instead of 3 or 4 it's definitely worth fighting for.

A botanical garden like Strybing should be there particularly for the young and old, not just those of us who are obsessed with plants and willing to get memberships or pay to get in.

Wait...

So you are saying that it is better to have a poorly maintained facility that is still free, than a well taken care of botanical wonder that charges? I can't imagine that you feel that way. We JUST CAN'T have it both ways. The money is not there anymore to keep things the way they are. Something has to give, and I would rather it be a few bucks from a lot of people, than see plants we love go unkempt and possibly even die.

So, what is your solution? People are not donating like they used to. Memberships are way down from a few years ago. Plant sales once per month really don't bring enough, and to advertise it so that more people come, would only cost MORE money. I suppose one option would be to increase the prices of the plants...

I used to live a few blocks from Strybing, and went there all the time. Now that I am on the East Bay, I am making the switch to UCB botanical (which charges a fee). UCB bot advertises their plant sales on Craigslist... this service is FREE, and it's how I found out about them. Strybing should also do this to save on advertising costs.

While I do understand that it has been very nice that Strybing has been free in the past, I would gladly pay an entrance fee if it means the park stays alive. SF residents will still get to take their free strolls...

Just to remind people that the (almost certainly) irreversible change to charging a fee would get the Arboretum only between 7 and 8% of their budget. It will of course cost something to administer the fee, so perhaps 5% is a more realistic number? Regardless, the presence or absence of the fee is not going to make an enormous difference in the overall health of the park. And I would argue that they could get more than 7 or 8% if they were just a bit more creative.

Eric, you say "People are not donating like they used to. Memberships are way down from a few years ago". I believe you have identified the problem, at least in part. The Arboretum is bad at fundraising. This needs to be fixed.

I don't know the people involved, but it's clear they are not reaching out to us "plant people" as well as they should. I also strongly suspect they are failing to tap the immense wealth in San Francisco and its suburbs, which I would expect would be their true source of money.

Reaching out to "plant people": I suppose there are many ways one could describe Strybing's incredibly low profile. As I mentioned above, many of the big names in the horticultural world are totally unaware of their sales. But this is perhaps even more telling: I've only been to the Conservatory of Flowers (the glasshouse, also in Golden Gate Park) and the UC Botanical Garden a couple times each in the last couple years. However, I just checked: emails from UC Botanical Garden in the last year: 38. From the Conservatory of flowers: 18. From Strybing: 0. (note that I have received a number of personal emails from employees and volunteers at Strybing in response to questions.)

Strybing fails to promote itself and I assume to raise money. That needs to be fixed before they make an irreversible step like charging money.

Yes, those of us who post on a forum like this will continue to go to Strybing. Those aren't the people we should be concerned with. People like my mom, as I mentioned, will be less likely to go.

Strybing is unlikely to ever raise that much money by selling more plants, by the way. $200,000 would be 20,000 $10 plants, even assuming 100% profit, which divided by 10 or 12 sales is close to 2,000 plants per sale...impossible.

However they could clearly raise more money by raising their profile a little bit and appealing to all of the wealth in the area. If they start holding events for the rich and they make this place of beauty a center for those people, a good fundraising effort should be able to raise 10% more money.

However, if they do run out of money and can't take care of all their plants, I suspect they can save quite a bit of money by neglecting their most abundant one--the grass--which is all over. Let the grass die and go uncut, yet preserve the important plants. The park will become an "eyesore" in the opinion of many, yet they will preserve what counts. I bet the dead overgrown grass would draw attention and that extra 7 or 8% of the budget would quickly appear.

There are many creative ways the Arboretum could raise money. The newspaper article said that $10,000 was spent to pay a lobbyist to push for the $7 fee. If they had instead spent the money on a consultant to look at ways to raise the profile of the Arboretum, appeal to the wealth of the area, and raise money, I suspect the need for the fee would vanish.

Unless people are active, the fees at Stybing Arboretum (now called San Francisco Botanical Garden by the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society) are to be renewed this year.

These discriminatory fees have been having a substantial negative impact on visitors. Many turn away. Gates have been closed and hours cut.

Director Michael McKechnie has been acting like a dictator. Recently he allowed a woman to bulldoze a lovely meadow in the Demonstration Garden and cover it with gravel.

I found this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9yH5I5YyFc

Enough is enough! Call Mayor Ed Lee and the Supervisors to complain!

While I know nothing of the destruction you mention, though I think I do have an idea of the changes and additions they have planned, I must make a few points.

The gardens have already begun to add interpretive sign posts and other minor attributes that add to the ability for people to be able to appreciate the garden.

The hours are actually being lengthened...

These fees may be a bummer for some, but discriminatory? That's a ridiculous and baseless accusation. As a matter of fact, residents are admitted for free, as are members. If you travel to any other part of the country, every botanical garden of note charges admission. Some, much more than the slight price that Strybing is charging.

And... if you have love for the garden, and have been around it for any meaningful amount of time, as we have, it is called Strybing evermore.

Considering your name of "Protect_Open_Space", I expected a completely different stance. In fact, I would think you would be supportive of the garden gaining additional income to maintain and improve the experience for all visitors. Perhaps you should consider renaming your profile to "Protect_Free_Admission".

Best wishes,
Eric