Treat essential workers with respect and care
Regarding “Bay Area gets OK to ‘slowly reopen’ ” (Front Page, March 3) and “S.F. janitors fighting for better safety, pay” (March 8): I hope that everyone who read these two seemingly unrelated articles in the paper, one about the reopening of museums and theaters, the other about the struggle by janitors for better pay and safer working conditions, paused for a moment to think about the meaning of essential work.
During the pandemic, nurses and doctors, firefighters and police officers, teachers, grocery clerks, transit workers, mailmen, truckers, factory workers, meat packers and farmworkers have stayed on the job, and some but not all have been publicly appreciated. But there are many other, far less visible, workers who are every bit as essential. We want our theaters, restaurants, schools and museums to open; but do any of us want to be inside of any of these places if they are not kept clean?
Do we want to be in our own homes with garbage piled high on the streets? Our janitors, our garbage collectors, are absolutely essential to our health and wellbeing. We need to treat them with respect in the form of vaccination, safe working conditions and livable wages.
Susan Segal, Oakland
Preserve open space
Regarding “State desperately needs highspeed rail system” (Letters, March 9) and “A win for wilderness” (Letters, March 9): Two recent letters to The Chronicle promote distinctly different views of a future California. One touts highspeed rail as a means to promote “new housing corridors from (the Bay Area) to Bakersfield,” while the second lauds the Protecting America’s Wilderness and Public Lands Act, recently passed by the House of Representatives, to save “over a million acres of public lands and over 500 miles of rivers statewide.” I opine that future generations will thank us if we strive to preserve open space rather than to encourage urban sprawl.
Nancy Barnby, Menlo Park
GOP suppresses voting
I grew up in a Republican family but have been a Democrat for many years. I really cannot believe the state of the present Republican party. Maybe I’ve been naive about the extent of the discrimination problem but this party seems to be openly and cynically trying to find ways to make it difficult to vote, especially in minority neighborhoods.
As former President Donald Trump and many Republicans have commented, the more people vote, the better for Democrats. Georgia and Arizona, among many other states, are trying to create impediments to voting, including restrictions on voting access, ending automatic voter registration, banning drop boxes for mail ballots, eliminating availability of absentee voting and even forbidding the passing out of water to people waiting in long lines to vote. What is happening to this country? Voting rights have always been part of our democratic entitlements, yet we seem to be regressing to a repressive regime. This can’t be happening. We must preserve our democratic rights and do whatever it takes to keep these rights alive for everyone.
Susan Belmont, San Francisco
Relief for Americans
Elections matter and we’re seeing why. Congratulations to the Biden administration and to the American people on a COVID19 relief bill that will improve the lives of families across the country.
Paul Bacon, Hallandale Beach, Fla.
Unequal treatment
Regarding the Equality Act: Could someone please explain why the beliefs of religious people are more important than the rights of LGBTQ people to be treated without overt discrimination? And perhaps someone could also clarify why health care organizations cannot receive federal funds for abortion services, but faithbased groups can receive those same funds while selectively limiting services and employment to those of whom they approve. A nasty, suspicious mind might think believers are attempting to force their beliefs on those of us who do not share them.
William Raffetto, Moraga
Profit not the only goal
In the letter regarding “Wary of allowing Amazon in charge of health care” (Letters, March 7), the author erroneously states “the only goal of any business is to make money, while the goal of politicians is to protect people.”
Yes, making money is a goal of a business but not the only goal. Every business must have a goal of providing a product or service that is needed or desired by customers at a quality at least close to that of myriad competitors in order to stay in business.
Working individuals need to earn money for living expenses, and this depends on the success of their employing organization as well as their own success. The success of our country has been driven by our competitive free enterprise system. By inventing and producing helpful products, companies in business have provided great benefits (automobiles, cell phones, COVID19 vaccines, etc.) to our citizenry. Profit is a strong motivator, yet typically negligible compared to the cost of government inefficiencies often buried in general funds. Politicians often fail to meet admirable goals even at great costs for which no one usually is held accountable (shocking California examples: the train to nowhere and the billions paid to fraudulent applicants for aid).
Lawrence Peirano, Lafayette
Solutions for homeless
Regarding “Dig deeper on solutions” (Letters, March 8) and “A path to abate homelessness” ( Joe Mathews, March 7): A writer bemoans the lack of solutions to the homeless problem. He suggests more comprehensive solutions, including the identification of the core causes, meaning mental illness and addiction and the pooling of resources throughout the state as solutions. It’s interesting because Joe Mathews wrote a very good article about some successful projects in Lake Elsinore and South Lake Tahoe. A number of supportive services were put in place that were critical. It also occurred to me that these more remote places didn’t have an army of drug professionals ready to provide a hit first thing in the morning. I can imagine the thinking that says we don’t have services up here. However, these areas were able to dig deeper and came through. Why not more of this kind of problem solving?
Anne Spanier, San Mateo
Staying home for now
Regarding “S.F. sees muted return to the movies” (Front Page, March 8): Steve Rubenstein writes about the return to movies and museums. As with most of The Chronicle’s COVID19 coverage of restaurants struggling, kids back on playing fields, etc., it confirms my decision to stay away from these venues.
Why? Rubenstein reports that a family “snuck in” some popcorn and conspiratorially agrees not to let the theater know. How cute, right? The reason for having no food is to keep masks on people in the theater so that those of us more susceptible to a severe or deadly case of COVID19 can participate. Now I know not to go to the movies. The photo accompanying this article shows a man with a mask below his nose at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Previous articles showed restaurant workers with masks below noses, or bandannas loosely tied, students on playing fields with masks on their chins. Your reporting and photography proves people will not comply with basic public health mandates, and the venues that claim they need our business will not enforce them. This leaves many of us isolated at home. Thanks for the warning!
Nicole Kowalski, San Rafael