Debate full of entertainment
Having watched the presidential debate last night, I would like to thank both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for a good job done. Despite Trump’s claim that Clinton does not look presidential, Clinton absolutely acted like one with great confidence, and thank goodness that she did not fall into the problem which cost former Vice President Al Gore his presidential ticket.
As for Trump, he turned out to be one of the best stand-up comedians, so I had a hard time keeping my straight face each time he was a speaker. After November, Trump will be happy back in the world of the reality TV show.
Masayoshi Anzai, San Francisco
Ill-prepared
Regarding “Clinton was good — but Trump was better” (Sept. 27): I have to question whether Debra J. Saunders and I watched the same presidential debate last night. She sees Trump as a clear winner. She bases this opinion on how he tapped into taxpayer dissatisfaction using plain English. If these are his only talents, they do not a president make. This from someone who pays no taxes and won’t release his tax returns.
He was so ill-prepared on every other issue and continued to stand firm on his lies because he cannot allow himself to be wrong or to apologize. Although I believe Clinton won hands down with her calm demeanor, detailed plans, factual examples and longterm vision, Saunders may be right in that at this point, very little can be done to address with logic the passion of the voters fed with lies, bigotry, and false machismo since it wasn’t logic that delivered them to this point.
Evie Groch, El Cerrito
Not paying taxes
OK, so if I don’t pay my taxes, I’m smart. Funny, I always thought not paying my taxes made me a criminal.
Steve Rabin, Mountain View
Bloated Bay Area
Regarding “A town hiding from housing” (Editorial, Sept. 26): Your recent lead editorial parrots the new politically correct mantra of high-density housing expansion everywhere in the Bay Area. Brisbane planners reject a huge new 4,434-unit residential housing development on a tract of open space (thereby doubling its population), preferring instead light retail and office space. According to The Chronicle, Brisbane owes these residential units to San Francisco. Pardon me?
Calling open land empty dirt is the kind of thinking that has brought us the teeming, bloated megalopolis of the greater Bay Area, an ecological disaster which is killing the California Dream. Brisbane is entitled to do what it wants within its own jurisdiction, and some enlightened planning is certainly in order.
Curtis Faville, Kensington
Don’t build here
I live in Brisbane and I don’t want housing on the Baylands, in part because of toxicity. We have no idea what is buried under the dirt. It is an old dump site. At the first Paragon meeting I went to, probably a dozen years ago, their representative stood up in front of us and told us that Paragon had no intention of putting in housing because of the potential for subterranean toxics.
If problems arise, Brisbane could be on the hook for the cleanup. Where will the water come from, and where will the traffic go? My plants are dead and I take 45-second showers. As to traffic, the last time I drove to Berkeley at rush hour, it took me 3 hours. Is there any way that thousands more people between here and the bridge won’t make that commute more hellish?
We can’t make California affordable by increasing the amount of housing without destroying what we love. Everyone wants to live here — the weather is mild and the ocean and mountains are beautiful. It doesn’t matter how many housing units we build — they will fill up with people fleeing cold winters and muggy summers.
Linda Seekins, Brisbane
Transit village
A proposal for Brisbane: Cede the Baylands. You would keep your hillside enclave without any newcomers to vote in city elections and the Bay Area would gain a muchneeded transit village. The development could remain unincorporated (like Contra Costa Centre) or be annexed by Daly City.
Paul Anderson, Concord
Plenty of sugar
Regarding “Justifiable tax on sugar” (Letters, Sept. 25): I have a few questions. The soda tax must not apply to diet soda, because it does not contain sugar, right? The initiative is singling out soda to be taxed while it ignores everything else that contains sugar, right? So instead of buying sugary soda, people will instead buy donuts, candy, cookies, cakes, pies, ice cream, syrup, frosted cereal and sugar itself in all its various forms.
A careful reading of the label on processed foods reveals that almost all of them contain sugar. Even flavored yogurt has quite a bit of sugar. How again is the soda tax protecting us against sugary products?
Gail Erb, San Ramon
Potential disaster
The Millennium Tower partners and the city appear to share responsibility for the tower’s sinking and tilting. Both entities were aware the tower was to be built atop fill from the bay.
Instead of requiring a foundation of “end bearing piles” that anchor into bedrock, the Millennium Partners used “friction piles” that are driven into dense mud that lies beneath fill dumped into the bay over a century ago. Now is the time to begin steps to correct the problem. Each day nothing is done is a day of potential disaster.
Lyle La Faver, Alameda