09-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: There will be consequences for S.F. Mayor Lurie if free parking in Golden Gate Park ends
Regarding 'S.F. Mayor Lurie wants to end free parking in Golden Gate Park' (San Francisco, June 5): Golden Gate Park is a treasured urban refuge and one of the last free things available to residents of San Francisco. Eliminating free parking will ruin the park.
Mayor Daniel Lurie should focus on cutting irresponsible city spending, not on increasing taxes. Yes, like tariffs, charging for parking is actually a tax, except that it won't fund any new park projects or services, and it's highly regressive.
If the mayor insists on going ahead with this ill-conceived idea, I can pretty much guarantee that he'll lose the support of many voters, including me.
Stan Barnett, San Francisco
Consider for a moment what San Francisco has done to its streets.
The city has restricted driving on numerous (do we know the number?) of roads, designating them as 'Slow Streets.'
In addition, the Upper Great Highway is now closed to cars, ditto for many of the streets in Golden Gate Park.
Other streets around the city have been reconfigured to include bike lanes, reducing the number of traffic lanes for cars.
Do the math: If streets and lanes that cars can drive on are reduced, there are fewer places for vehicles. This forces the remaining open streets to carry more automobile traffic. This will lead to more congestion.
I don't believe this is an unintended consequence; it is the desired outcome of the city's Transit First policy, which seems to be intended to make driving in the city so unattractive that people will be forced to take the bus to go grocery shopping for a family of four.
Please, let's not pretend that no one knew this is what would happen.
Military going backward
Regarding 'Trump reportedly to strip Harvey Milk name off naval vessel' (Politics, June 3): Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth seems hellbent on restoring America's warrior values by eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and other alleged woke policies that were aimed at making people of color and women feel that they were part of the team, not just tolerated.
Hegseth has brought back the names for Fort Bragg and Fort Benning and their Confederate connotations. He has banned transgender people from serving. Now, he plans to strip Harvey Milk's name from a Navy ship.
These reactionary policies are likely causing our military to lose thousands of qualified potential recruits who feel they wouldn't be welcome. Seasoned military members are undoubtedly not re-enlisting in this atmosphere of hate.
With the United States facing threats from our enemies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, now is not the time to divide our military with anti-DEI ideology, but to unite it in defending our country.
Paul L. Newman, Merion Station, Pa.
Newsom can't win
Regarding 'What Newsom understands about power that other California Democrats don't' (Open Forum, June 3): Gov. Gavin Newsom's strategy of pandering to conservatives demonstrates how he is out of touch.
Newsom is unelectable outside of California because when he was the mayor of San Francisco, he helped to legalize gay marriage. Many of us find this an admirable legacy, but all those misogynists who would rather vote for a felon than a woman won't vote for Newsom, either— even if he bashes trans athletes.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, has said that the Democrats are going to pick a 'safe' white man to win in 2028. Sadly, I agree, someone straight, married and ideally with some military background.
I don't know who, but not Newsom. The governor would be a great senator, but he is unelectable nationally.
Democrats doing the same thing over and expecting different results is one of the definitions of insanity. There's no point in nominating another woman.
Kathy Johnson, Mountain View
