Latest news with #EmilyHoeven
San Francisco Chronicle
02-07-2025
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Medicaid supports my daughter's 24/7 care. What will happen if Congress cuts funding?
My 35-year-old daughter, Flannery, is severely disabled and receives primary care from a Federally Qualified Health Center in San Rafael. As a way of giving back for the incredible work it has done for Flannery, I have served on the board of Marin Community Clinics for the past seven years. I understand that under the Senate version of the tax and spending bill, Marin Community Clinics and 1,400 other health centers stand to lose 30% of their Medicaid and block grant funding. Millions of Americans will lose access to health care. People are going to die. It's that simple. Flannery was born with cerebral palsy, is nonverbal and quadriplegic. She requires round-the-clock assistance. She is also supported by the state Regional Centers system, which indirectly receives funding from Medicaid. I do not know what these cuts will mean for Flannery, but I know they will be disastrous. All to provide large tax cuts to the super wealthy. Martin Weil, Sonoma Pay too low Regarding 'S.F. gave these homeless nonprofits nearly $2 billion. The salaries of their execs might surprise you' (San Francisco, June 27): I found the story surprising, but not because of the shock promised. Rather, I noted the effort to put nonprofit leaders on blast with backward speculation, troubling. Capitalism creates homelessness. And our region's contributions to free enterprise have been particularly egregious, with wealth gaps enabling some of the highest rents in the country. Our tech industry flourishes by selling fitness apps, payroll software, cryptocurrency, and refrigerators with computer screens on the door. We venerate commodities, claiming innovation, judgment-free. But if you opt out of (or are not privileged to) a tech career, the assumption is that you should not have equal access to this economy. The story notes one nonprofit's wage differential between executives and workers. Had they been asked, I'm sure the organizations would have thoughtful responses about values and wage philosophies. Because nonprofits pay attention to wealth equity — and attitudes that conflate this work with self-sacrifice require us to bring the receipts. This story shows we need to reevaluate our collective values. Given the Bay Area's staggering homelessness crisis, if anything, our nonprofit leaders — and all workers in this industry — deserve higher pay. Kristin Hatch, development director, Homeless Prenatal Program, San Francisco Don't misuse CEQA Regarding 'This rich California city is losing its mind over a housing project — and it shows why new rules are needed' (Emily Hoeven, June 28): Emily Hoeven's column on Menlo Park highlights how the California Environmental Quality Act and local resistance can stall needed housing. But in South San Jose, we face the opposite: The law is being manipulated to fast-track dangerous sprawl. A developer is proposing 173 market-rate homes on a hillside previously zoned for 54 units at the end of Harry Road in an area with no sidewalks, narrow roads, high wildfire danger, and known landslide risk. This is not infill. It's speculative development disguised as a housing solution. Even worse, the developer is attempting to bypass a full environmental impact report, under 2019's SB330, despite the parcel bordering wildlife corridors that support biodiversity and provide natural buffers in an already climate-sensitive area. This is exactly the kind of CEQA misuse that reform should prevent — not enable. If California is serious about climate, safety and equity, then it must protect the public's right to question unsustainable projects — not gut the laws that give us a voice. Lisa Lubliner, San Jose Bicoastal emissions Regarding 'Bicoastal living isn't just for the ultra wealthy. Here's how creatives make it work' (Bay Area, June 24): The story struck me as remarkably tone deaf. Airline flights are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Ignoring this aspect in the reporting was a missed opportunity to discuss the repercussions of a bicoastal lifestyle. Liz Eva, Castro Valley
San Francisco Chronicle
01-07-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: It's not a story of rich people against housing in Menlo Park. Here's what is at stake
Regarding 'This rich California city is losing its mind over a housing project — and it shows why new rules are needed' (Emily Hoeven, June 28): Menlo Park has many neighborhoods with varying levels of housing. It is not just a wealthy town fighting low-income housing, as Chronicle Columnist Emily Hoeven would lead one to believe. And, I am not a NIMBY lunatic. Our downtown area is akin to a public square — a place to gather, to run errands and enjoy the ambiance of a small, suburban community. Most people access it by car because there is little public transportation, and the parking is located behind the storefronts. The success of our businesses comes from this access, which allows people from the entire area, and of a range of ages and abilities, to park and walk in downtown. The city's plan reduces the parking where more is needed. To replace this safe, accessible parking and the walkability of downtown with high-rise housing is a short-sighted, destructive and easy answer to state-mandated housing pressure. Virtually all downtown businesses line up against this plan; other locations, other options have been suggested. I encourage Hoeven to dig deeper next time, to work to undo bias and labels, and to present the full story in all its complications for our city and for the times in which we live. Lynne McClure, Menlo Park More planning needed Regarding 'This rich California city is losing its mind over a housing project — and it shows why new rules are needed' (Emily Hoeven, June 28): Chronicle columnist Emily Hoeven called the lawsuit opposing the city's downtown housing plan 'unhinged.' It's a striking word. When a journalist frames a perspective that way, it stops being a conversation and starts becoming an agenda. The group I'm involved with, Civifolia, doesn't support using the California Environmental Quality Act to block inclusive, climate-friendly housing. At the same time, sound governance requires more than clinging to one idea as conditions change. It calls for legally grounded, adaptable strategies designed for long-term success. Civifolia recommends four steps that Menlo Park can take to preserve local control and comply with state law: Add affordable housing-prioritized sites in eastern Menlo Park that were left out of the city's Housing Element for reasons inconsistent with fair housing goals. Work transparently with the state to address downtown site risks. Pursue redevelopment of the newly sold U.S. Geological Survey campus. Reevaluate large city-owned land near Burgess Park. This isn't a culture war, it's a planning challenge. And it demands solutions, not sides. Skyler Ellis, contributor, Civifolia, Menlo Park Who writes history of Trump? Regarding 'SCOTUS deals huge blow to judges' power to rein in Trump in birthright citizenship case' (Politics, June 27): The courts are the last check on the president, but as Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett admits, the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, doesn't have unbridled authority to enforce its decisions. Barrett has cautioned against an 'imperial judiciary,' emphasizing that while the executive branch has to follow the law, the judiciary's ability to force that compliance has limitations. Following Friday's U.S. Supreme Court rulings, I fear that history will document how President Donald Trump's three appointments to the Supreme Court had an enormous impact on the erosion of the rule of law and destruction of our democratic republic. It is becoming clear that all power may have been ceded to the executive branch — something that our founding fathers wished to prevent. I'd be hard pressed to refute the claim that we now live in a dictatorial autocracy. Will historians be intimidated and coerced by the president? If they acquiesce, Trump, discursively, may be able to write the future, what communication scholars call the rhetorical construction of history. And that, I worry, will take decades to correct and will result in the loss of what the Constitution guarantees all of us in the Bill of Rights.
San Francisco Chronicle
15-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Build seawalls or retreat in Pacifica? Here's the best way to protect the city
Regarding 'Allowing seawalls in Pacifica will just put off the inevitable disaster' (Letters to the Editor, May 12): We only hear about the 'damage' to Pacifica's beaches from sea walls and how we should relocate infrastructure to save it. Relocate where? If you don't protect the bluffs, you could move all the infrastructure east of Highway 1 and still lose it in a few years. The cost to move water, sewer and gas lines would easily run in the hundreds of millions. Add the cost of taking people's homes from them, and you're in the billions. Surfers are zealous advocates for beaches, but they're not offering to pay for relocation and the disruption of people's lives. We should just do it so they can surf everywhere. But their arguments don't hold water. It is far less costly to protect Pacifica's shoreline than to retreat. Larry Bothen, Pacifica Homelessness is complex Regarding 'Gov. Newsom wants cities to get tough on homeless camps. But there aren't enough beds for unsheltered' (San Francisco, May 12): The story states that officials aim to clear homeless encampments to 'appease frustrated neighbors.' This ignores key context: Encampments bring with them urgent and real threats to public health and safety. Ohlone Park in Berkeley, for example, where an encampment has been growing for more than six months, emergency calls have doubled compared to a year ago. This jump in crime is corroborated by what many who live in the area have experienced. Painting these legitimate health and safety concerns as whiny, pearl-clutching NIMBYism is disingenuous at best. Homelessness is a nuanced, morally and politically charged issue. Multiple things can be true: Not all people in encampments pose a threat, and homeless people deserve assistance and grace. Neighborhoods and public parks should be clean and safe. To ignore this neglects one of the key facets of a thriving community. Allison Bond, Berkeley State can do more Regarding 'Why Governor Newsom's new California homeless encampment plan is just cheap PR' (Emily Hoeven, May 12): Has homeless fatigue turned to homeless animosity? Emily Hoeven is rightly lamenting political posturing and remedial Band-Aids as well as the absence of real solutions to our homelessness crisis. When the rains return, with tents absent, expect wet bodies and blankets on our streets. Cities and counties can never fully eradicate this problem. In the pre-Reagan era, there were more federal government housing policies and support programs. Now that California is the world's fourth-largest economy, it can and must take on that role for this state. Hartmut Gerdes, San Francisco Stefani's record is good Regarding 'She was S.F.'s most moderate supe. Why is she now pushing so many irresponsible pension expansions?' (Emily Hoeven, May 10): Catherine Stefani founded the San Francisco chapter of Moms Demand Action and has been a longtime, powerful advocate for firearm safety. Stefani's courage to fight the National Rifle Association is unparalleled. As an Assembly member, she has authored several bills to protect Californians from firearm injuries, including AB1363, which would help prevent record-keeping failures that allow someone subject to a restraining order to obtain guns. Stefani has also authored bills to prevent human trafficking, stop elder abuse, address license plate evasion, promote clean energy and other important topics. I hope columnist Emily Hoeven will take a balanced and closer look at Stefani's legislative record. John Maa, member, Brady Northern California Regional Leadership Council, San Francisco GOP missing in action President Donald Trump's intention to accept Qatar's gift of a luxury 747 to use as Air Force One is an outrageous violation of the Constitution. The Qatari government is, of course, free to offer the plane, but only as a gift to the U.S., not to Trump personally, just as the Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French government to the U.S. The silence of most Republicans in Congress about this is even more outrageous. Imagine their reaction if Barack Obama or Joe Biden had accepted such a gift while president. Republicans should be responding that way now.
