Alternative ways to travel
Regarding “City should be more car friendly” (Letters, Feb. 6): Really? I can’t think of a less efficient solution to the increased population of San Francisco than trying to get more cars on the streets.
No one disagrees our traffic has gotten worse, but the least viable solution is to encourage private car ownership. Truth to tell, Muni would be the “correct” answer, in terms of efficiency, energy and overall social and community cost.
Making that true will take a more serious effort than simply trying to meet schedule expectations, but it would benefit us all.
Solving Muni’s problems, in addition to encouraging alternatives like bikes, scooters and walking, would get us all a fairer city.
What is needed is a willingness to stop assuming we can “car” our way out of traffic. In the meantime, try an electric bike. They are affordable, green and go uphill easily. I have seen them regularly outpace commute traffic. Try it. You might just be surprised.
David Mischel, San Francisco
No mass exodus
Concerning “Will 1-percenters flee California over high income taxes?” (Feb. 7): Unlike columnist Dan Walters, I’m not losing sleep at night worrying about whether our wealthiest residents will flee California due to fewer tax deductions.
While us “99-percenters” struggle to pay bills and maintain health insurance, the 1-percenters have been benefiting from inflated property values and bulging stock portfolios for many years now.
And unlike their wealthy New York counterparts who have been fleeing to places like Florida, they enjoy yearround good weather for all kinds of recreation during their leisure time. Don’t expect a mass exodus of these elite citizens from our Golden State, whose envied economy is larger than that of many foreign countries.
Karl Gustaffson, Half Moon Bay
Cut executive pay
Regarding “PG&E fire plan cuts power in wider area” (Page 1, Feb. 7): I read with interest Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s latest plan to shut down power during windy conditions which vastly expanded the areas that would be affected.
While I agree with such a plan, and the expansion of weather monitoring stations, cameras and replacing the current wooden poles with metal ones, my question is simply, what took so long?
Could it be the very high total compensation rates of its management, including Geisha Williams’ $7,600,410 for the year 2017? Many in senior management made in the several-millions-ayear range that year in total compensation.
The expansion of the areas that would be affected say one thing to me, and that’s: “We haven’t done our jobs so far in tree trimming and infrastructure inspection and replacement, so we’ll just expand power outages and hope that’s enough until we actually do some real work on the system.”
I’d suggest they can start by cutting executive pay and stock options. That savings alone should help toward providing safety. Additionally, PG&E is a monopoly.
They have spent more than $37 million on advertising since 2015. For what exactly? To excuse their egregious behavior?
They should put those dollars toward hiring badly needed crews and promoting safety.