Opposing housing is not just being a NIMBY
Regarding “No time for state to backtrack” (Editorial, Oct. 10): The Chronicle’s Editorial Board once again reaches for the insulting and derogatory term “NIMBY” in discussing controversial housing plans. It even goes as far as “white NIMBY.” Are we reaching back for 1960s journalism that called anti-war protesters “commies?”
There are many reasons to oppose California’s misguided housing policies without simply opposing developments in one’s own neighborhood.
SB9 failed to order any increase in rainfall. Yet SB9 also failed to explain where water will come from if housing is always built to meet demand. California is largely desert. Building without limit (or even a thought of when to limit) will eventually put California in perpetual environmental crisis, and eliminate agriculture. If there is not enough water for everyone, the state will have to allocate the water to people over plants.
If housing is limited, some people will live elsewhere. If unlimited, more people will come. And while we welcome diversity and growth, there is a limit to sustainability.
Agree or disagree, there are many reasons and not all opposing views on housing are “NIMBY.” The Chronicle should bury this insulting term.
Randy Warren, Reno
Build or pay more
Regarding “House the mentally ill” (Letters, Oct. 8): Marilu Donnici suggests housing the mentally ill homeless — solid agreement on that point. But then she says that others should work and go elsewhere if they can’t afford to live here, adding that affordable housing is not the answer.
If we want people to work in our restaurants, clean our offices, run the cash registers at our shops — and hundreds of other kinds of jobs — we have two options: build more affordable housing or bump up their pay so they can pay market prices.
No one is going to want to commute two hours from an affordable area for a low-wage job in San Francisco.
Siobhan Ruck, San Francisco
Policing makes sense
Regarding “Look at real perpetrators to combat anti-Asian hate” (Bay Area, Oct. 10): I appreciated Justin Phillips using the assaults on Asians this year to launch an unmoored ideological screed. I especially appreciated this quote in the article from Alvina Wong: “Increased money into policing does not equate to more safety.” Highly sober, intelligent analysis — definitely not abstract, headin-the-clouds ideology detached from the current reality.
Eric Roddie, San Francisco
Unite against racism
Regarding “Asian Americans need to be more inclusive” (Letters, Oct. 8): We are troubled and saddened by Rhonda Williams’ letter. These types of messages create wrong assumptions, raise racial mistrust and ignore the fundamental problems of racism in the U.S.
Each ethnic community should speak out against prejudices and discrimination about their own and other communities. Many Asian Americans have done so.
In the Black Lives Matter movement, Asians joined Latinos, whites, Blacks and others to fight together for justice. When rampant anti-Asian hate crimes were occurring, many of us spoke out that it is the wrong message to call it an African American versus Asian American issue.
This year, Ashlyn So, a 13-year-old Chinese American fashion designer, organized a rally that joined Asian and African Americans against racism and featured mainly African American singers. The LGBTQ community also rallied against anti-Asian hate.
We need to unite to fight racism against all races and stop the blame game. Stop Hate and Stop AAPI Hate are not inconsistent. United We Stand, and Divided We Fall.
Lillian Sing and Julie Tang, San Francisco