This didn't turn into a gentrification issue as it is very much a class struggle issue from the beginning. (And as such, a gentrification issue.) Kids don't have money to pay to play, so they can't even share the field?
It looks like this was a similar situation, so why would anyone feel "slighted" because someone made a reservation?
Give up the game, but let people know about the reservation system; offer company funding to book community sessions; get someone else to do the enforcing so it's them who look bad.
So 96% of the time, the park is open to everyone and 4% of the time the park can be reserved for a price which is equal to 2.5 hours of work at the local minimum wage.
One could easily argue that the people showing an unreasonable entitlement are the ones who think they should get to use the park in the tiny sliver of time where someone else has paid the city to reserve it for an organized game.
Parks and recreation general manager Phil Ginsburg said that his department made that decision after notifying 700 community leaders and all residents within a quarter-mile of the park in English and Spanish and holding three community meetings back in 2009. He said that the new system left the park open for drop-in play 96 percent of the time.
With the park open for drop-in play 96% of the time surely there was evening time for the kids? Did nothing come from notifying 700 community leaders and holding 3 community meetings? Of course the parks board may have ignored all the recommendations, but what do they gain with a paltry $27 per reservation fee? I don't think the community activists will be happy until they get rid of the reservation system. There was probably a lot of compromise in the park plan and here we are with one side complaining.
Yes, some issues go over a kid's head and many adults too.
Nonsense; they have the same representation anyone else in San Francisco has. The fact that they cannot vote doors not mean that they are not represented.
Moreover, this being America, their parents or guardians can vote.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that people with money intrinsically have more right to something than those who do not. I understand this is the prominent view in the US but there are other ways to do it(there's a big gap between communism and ultra-capitalism). Look to the scandinavian countries for instance where they place a far great emphasis on wealth redistribution and community support through better schooling and healthcare.