Latest news with #SFChronicle.com
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Don't overlook these negative impacts from Bay Area casual carpooling
Regarding 'Some commuters want to bring back the Bay Area's casual carpool. Here's when' (Bay Area, June 24): It's important to differentiate the 'casual' practice from actual carpooling. In the 50-some years of taking on an extra rider or two to skirt the Bay Bridge back-up, drivers have congested traffic in HOV lanes and skimmed fare-paying riders from AC Transit's transbay service. Before COVID, the line serving San Francisco from my neighborhood had fewer than half as many buses scheduled for the morning commute as there were returning in the afternoon. Carpools are great for people who are heading to the same off-the-transit-grid destination, who share resources, and who are granted parking or a stipend for making the effort to minimize one driver per car commuting. Casual carpooling promotes personal car driving and is, essentially, a fare-jumping tactic for would-be transit riders. Cynthia Ahart Wood, Oakland Upzoning is un-Berkeley YIMBY arguments misstate the excesses of the proposed Middle Housing upzoning. It will encourage dense, taller market-rate rentals (5 to 7 units per lot). The increased bulk is counter to the intimate scale and openness that people seek out in Berkeley. The outcome of the proposed upzoning will make land even more expensive; the rosy vision of equity building for economically disadvantaged residents, as touted by Owens, will not happen. We don't need this gentrifying upzoning. Previous zoning regulations can provide more cost-accessible infill housing. Huge numbers of high-rise developments have been built or approved; we can reach our quota of state-required units without adopting extreme infill upzoning. For the Chronicle to disingenuously advance the developer-serving YIMBY arguments is a real disservice. Peggy Radel, Berkeley Attack may unleash Iran The U.S.-Israel strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have inspired two opposing narratives. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton calls them a decisive blow, potentially triggering the end of the Iranian regime. He envisions a crumbling theocracy, weakened by unrest and economic strain, and believes the attacks may finally eliminate a looming nuclear threat. But Carnegie Foundation's nuclear policy expert, James M. Acton, offers a more sobering assessment: Iran's program is damaged, not destroyed. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium was likely moved beforehand; its scientists and technical infrastructure remain intact. Iran could easily reconstitute its program within a year, or sooner. More troubling, Acton warns the strikes may push Iran to abandon its long-held threshold status and build a bomb. The message to Tehran is stark: strategic ambiguity no longer ensures security. Worse, the attacks risk unraveling global nonproliferation norms, especially as Iran further reduces cooperation with the IAEA. Military action cannot erase expertise. Small, hidden facilities could soon replace bombed-out ones. If diplomacy is not revived, the strikes may mark a dangerous miscalculation. We've seen this movie before — in Iraq and Libya. If Acton is correct, the ending may not bring resolution, but an emboldened nuclear adversary. Andrew D. Forsyth, Berkeley Create real fixes Regarding 'Adding freeway lanes doesn't fix traffic. Why does California keep wasting billions on it?' (Open Forum, June 24): I have heard that building wider freeways is like loosening your belt to solve your obesity problem. The difficulty stems from how much our state government is siloed, making it hard to share resources to most effectively come up with solutions to problems that cut across departmental boundaries. As the op-ed points out, affordable housing, highways, public transit and climate change adaptation must all be factored into a truly holistic solution.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Allowing denser housing in Berkeley won't rectify past wrongs. Here's why
Regarding 'Is Berkeley finally ready to atone for its single-family housing sins?' (Open Forum, June 25): Darrell Owens, a former California YIMBY staffer (not mentioned in the Open Forum), says that Middle Housing will redress historical redlining and displacement in Berkeley. But, in a letter to the City Council, I, along with representatives from South Berkeley, the historically African American neighborhood, write that, 'These proponents of MH are engaging in moral grandstanding at our expense. MH will destroy our already impacted communities' by accelerating gentrification. As a city report states, Middle Housing projects are more feasible in neighborhoods where existing housing is relatively cheaper, and they will be most impacted. The affluent hills will be exempt because of fire concerns. Owens is also wrong about Middle Housing ending exclusive single-family zoning. He does not mention SB9, which allowed up to four homes on an existing parcel, effectively eliminating single-family only zoning. While the photo published with the op-ed shows beautifully articulated facades of buildings, the proposed Middle Housing rules will allow three-story, box-like buildings. Nico Calavita, Berkeley Another office tower? Regarding 'S.F.'s first new office tower in years is closer to construction, even as vacancies remain high' (San Francisco, June 24): The latest proposal to 'set the stage for San Francisco's future' — with a 41-story glass monolith — is irresponsible. The new building would diminish the prominence of the nearby elegant, iconic Transamerica Pyramid and undermine the thoughtful preservation of historic Jackson Square and its harmonious surroundings. Although the development promises benefits for the city, why does it have to be so big and uninspiring? We already have too many empty office buildings and hotels. If this is the future of San Francisco, we are doomed to mediocrity. Aesthetics matter. Please, do not build this monstrosity. Richard Hutson, San Francisco Keep widening freeways If the population of drivers were fixed, then widening roads would improve traffic. But road widening projects are too slow, so at best, they keep up with the increasing number of drivers, and traffic congestion remains mostly unchanged. But it's magical thinking to assert that improving the roads doesn't alleviate traffic problems. If roads had not been constantly improved and widened in the past, we would be suffering utter paralysis now. Projects such as widening Highway 37 are decades overdue. As a side benefit, they are also good for the environment because cars will once again whiz through the area instead of grinding along in a stop-and-go fashion. Mike Drew, Vacaville Masks invoke terror Regarding 'Mask bill misdirected' (Letters to the Editor, June 23): The letter writer objects to state Sen. Scott Wiener's proposed law to ban police from wearing face masks because it also doesn't ban masks worn by demonstrators. This is perhaps a valid critique, but it overlooks a crucial point. It is now common for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and officers from other agencies to wear masks in public. The explanation is that unmasked officers may be identified and subject to retaliation. Masks make their wearers seem robotic, less human. They inspire terror and hopelessness, which is one reason why masked police are the hallmark of despotic regimes. Phil Kipper, San Francisco War nothing to celebrate Regarding 'World is safer now' (Letters to the Editor, June 23): Paul Bacon's letter applauding President Donald Trump's order to strike Iran's nuclear sites is a dangerous mix of blind loyalty and warmongering. Celebrating military escalation as 'decisive leadership' ignores the human cost and global consequences of pushing us closer to nuclear war. Trump didn't make us safer — he gambled with millions of lives, destabilized the region and once again made America look like a bully, not a leader. Real leadership is diplomacy, not dropping bombs and daring a nation to retaliate. War isn't strength. It's failure. And letters like Bacon's prove how easy it is to cheer for war when you're not the one sent to fight it. Alex McMurray, Castro Valley
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- Automotive
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Is parking in San Francisco too expensive or too cheap?
Regarding 'Three ideas to save S.F. Muni that have nothing to do with cutting service' (Open Forum, June 23): Joe DiMento argues for more regressive taxation targeting drivers in his Open Forum. But people drive in San Francisco because they need to, and not everyone works for Bain Capital. For many in the city, $200 for a residential parking permit is a lot of money. Then there are the other steep parking fees, the dearth of parking, and the rising cost of gas and tolls. Make the Bain Capital billionaires, hedge fund managers and other elites (such as those who can afford to take Lyft and Uber) pay their fair share. Working people need cars to generate income, visit their aging parents, pick up their children from school and go to a job that starts in the middle of the night. Wealthy people need to get out of their bubble and get a clue. Harry Pariser, San Francisco I pay close to $4,000 every year to park my car in a private garage. Cars are private assets, and their storage in public spaces should not be subsidized. Car owners will no doubt object because they have been pampered so long by a society addicted to using cars. I hope the mayor and other relevant authorities are listening and will begin to make car owners in the city pay their fair share. Bill McClanahan, San Francisco Join the 21st century Regarding 'This obscure rule is one reason San Francisco can't build more housing' (Projects, June 21): Isn't it incredible that the city at the forefront of the artificial intelligence revolution is held back by building and safety codes written when copper wires wrapped in paper insulation carried electricity and America was still decades away from transistor radios and television? The story says, 'Agencies in both San Francisco and California governments are currently reviewing how to safely allow taller single stair buildings.' If much of the rest of the world has been doing it safely for decades, what kind of 'review' is needed here? Levi Armlovich, San Francisco Sharks not the villain Regarding ''Jaws' at 50: How Steven Spielberg's shark movie changed my life and cinema forever' (Arts & Entertainment, June 20): I was one of those moviegoers who joined in the feeding frenzy over 'Jaws' in June 1975. I had just graduated from high school and was on my way to studying marine biology in college. The movie was big, the weather was hot, and the futuristic dome-shaped Century 21 theater was packed to the gills. Like any of the best summer blockbusters to follow, 'Jaws' did not disappoint, and the movie left quite a cinematic legacy. Unfortunately, director Steven Spielberg's movie and the book it was based on by Peter Benchley also perpetuated a legacy of misinformation about sharks that justified killing them for recreation or just for their fins to make soup. Since 1975, researchers have learned much about sharks, and Spielberg and Benchley have apologized for their roles in demonizing them. Let's hope that our understanding of sharks has matured enough that we don't repeat bad behaviors as we recognize this cinematic milestone. Geoff Brosseau, Menlo Park I was raised with dogs since I was a baby and consider them as cherished family members. They are loving, loyal and faithful, unlike a great many people I have known throughout my life. Only an uncaring and thoughtless person would discard a dog because it becomes an inconvenience. When you adopt a dog, it is a commitment for the life of the dog. At this point in my life, the more people I meet, the more I love my dogs. Maria Nowicki, San Francisco
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Did Trump make the right, lawful decision to attack Iran?
I am disappointed that President Donald Trump chose not to seek congressional approval before attacking Iran. Iran was anywhere from weeks to years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Therefore, thinking that Iran might launch one within the next week to 21 days is ludicrous. That should have been enough time for President Trump to seek approval from Congress. Instead, the president decided that only he knew what was best for our country, even though the situation was not an emergency. Making war is easy. Making peace is often difficult. Are we a nation seeking the easy route, or do we seek to work through the problems to create peace? Since there was no evidence of imminent danger, Trump failed in his responsibility to uphold the Constitution and respect the opinion of the American people. Andrew L. Norton, Dallas World is safer now President Donald Trump made the right call to deploy American forces to strike nuclear sites in Iran, and he should be commended for his decisive leadership. Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Thanks to the resolve of our commander in chief and the courage and professionalism of our armed forces, America, Israel and the free world are safer. Iran should now stand down and abandon any thought of retaliation against the U.S. or be prepared to face the consequences. President Trump proved again that the United States of America is the leader of the free world, and America stands with Israel. Paul Bacon, Hallandale Beach, Fla. Trump wrong on immigration Regarding 'Trump keeps promise' (Letters to the Editor, June 22); Letter writer Christine Larsen rightly notes that Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2024 with promises to crack down on undocumented immigrants. There are many unsolved immigration problems in the U.S. but President Trump is not solving these problems. Instead his tactic involves terrorizing all noncitizens, Democratic members of Congress and blue states to make the U.S. an undesired destination for immigrants. It matters how our problems are solved. But Trump does not seem to understand or care if he is creating more wounds than the ones he set out to heal. What ever happened to the noble principle that a proposed remedy should first do no harm? Steven Rodriguez, Napa Supportive housing drawbacks Regarding 'S.F. activists fought for affordable housing in the Mission. Now they're pumping the brakes' (San Francisco, June 21): The assertion that 'neighborhoods generally do not see an increase in crime or other related challenges after supportive housing for the homeless opens in the area, but a lot of it hinges on the implementation' needs more clarity. This was the argument presented to residents of Mission Bay before the opening of a 141-unit complex in the neighborhood, and promises of tight implementation were made. After it opened, we experienced drug dealing, nightly screaming, fights and other problems. It was only after the advocacy of residents and Supervisor Matt Dorsey that the management of the building was forced to remove the most troublesome residents. However, the drug dealing in front of the building continues. Supportive housing is a fine concept, but it is not without significant challenges. I'm in favor of the Mission District project, but nearby residents are right to be concerned. Dave Scheff, San Francisco All philosophers matter Regarding 'Great Black thinkers are also philosophers ' (Open Forum, June 19): Justin Ray cites James Baldwin in exhorting us 'to create ourselves without finding it necessary to create an enemy.' Wise words, which Ray would do well to honor. Contrary to his assertion, study of the canon of philosophy is indeed 'intellectual history,' not 'intellectual mythology,' because it is primarily Greek, medieval and Enlightenment thinkers (not Ubuntuists or Ethiopian rationalists) who decisively shaped — for better and for worse — the lineaments of modern consciousness. To be sure, let's read Baldwin — alongside Schelling's 'On the Essence of Human Freedom' — without prejudice against either party. Daniel Polikoff, Mill Valley
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Forget the laptops and AI, schools need to go back to the basics
We congratulate the schools that are eliminating phones from classrooms. However, phones are only half the problem. Kindergarteners do not need iPads. We need to get technology and artificial intelligence out of the classrooms. Everyone tells me we need to prepare our kids for the future workplace, that technology is inevitable. Research shows that putting kids behind Chromebooks may not help them learn. Global test scores show that we are falling behind. All this screen time filled with unfocused distractions is not neurologically appropriate for proper brain development, studies show. The scrolling, swiping and gaming are not teaching our children the skills they will need to succeed when they graduate from high school. Administrators like the tidy workflow that tech provides them. But at what expense to our future generations? We need to prioritize printed textbooks, handwritten note-taking and hands-on assignments. We should return to the old proven methods of learning. Patti Fletcher, Roseville, Placer County Take care of pets Regarding 'San Francisco is euthanizing more stray dogs. Here's why' (San Francisco, June 20): It hurt to read about the 'easy-going and friendly' pit-mastiff mix with no medical issues, 'but after a short time in the facility, the dog became so anxious that he had to be put down.' At least the words 'put down' were a welcome reality check in what is too often a sea of euphemism. Every definition of 'euthanize' notes the intent to relieve pain and suffering, yet we misuse the term to make ourselves feel better about killing healthy animals that we have failed to find homes for. Would we use 'put down' if we were killing humans under similar circumstances? Let's abandon language designed to alleviate the shame of our sins and work on doing better by the animals over whom we have claimed dominion. Karen Dawn, Santa Barbara Mask bill misdirected Regarding 'Can California make officers show their faces during protests? Experts appear doubtful' (Politics, June 16): State Sen. Scott Wiener's proposal to ban law enforcement officers from wearing masks is political grandstanding and an effort to appease his base. It would be more productive to ban masks from the demonstrators who destroy Waymo vehicles, deface buildings and create a lawless atmosphere. I am sure they choose to wear masks to hide themselves from law enforcement, their families and employers. John McGurk, San Francisco Applause for theaters Regarding 'End of an era nears as San Francisco movie theater owners seek buyers for historic venues' (Arts & Entertainment, June 16): Thank you to Frank and Lida Lee for bringing interesting foreign and independent films to the Presidio, 4 Star and Parkside theaters over the years. As a movie fan who prefers the quirky, unique stories that have traveled the film festival route rather than the Hollywood production formula, it has been great to have the Lee's theaters showing quality films. I hope there is a buyer out there who can continue this tradition of excellence. Charlotte Seekamp, San Francisco Keep the peace When I visited my son in the Peace Corps, his wife met me, and as we walked down a main street, a tank came rolling down, with military men and guns, and I grabbed my camera. But before I lifted the camera to take the photo, my daughter-in-law pushed my hand down and said, 'No!' quite firmly. Not safe. Not a democracy. Different rules here. I took many pictures on that trip, but of nature — gigantic birds, forests, monkeys running through tree-tops. But not the tanks with guns pointed at us. That was also breathtaking, but not worth the risk. Different country, different culture, different life. It made coming home to the U.S. with no tanks pointed at citizens truly grand. Hopefully, with luck, we can keep it our way.
