Boudin’s approach to crime works in long run
Regarding “Boudin needs to go” (Letters, Dec. 26): The letter’s statement that “a lack of social welfare is not the problem; the problem is criminal activity increases when criminals are emboldened by lax law enforcement and non-prosecution” seems to assume that “criminals” are people who are criminal by nature.
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s point is that criminality is not inherent in people, but rather that they are driven to criminal activity by addiction, desperation and/ or anger borne of the lack of social welfare assistance. I don’t see any fallacy in Boudin’s thinking. I do see fallacy in the opinions of people who lack any clue about the difficulties faced by those who are less fortunate and who may be living a life they did not really choose.
Approaching the criminality problem from the social welfare side is not a quick fix, but ultimately a much more effective and humane one.
Brian Wright, Belmont
Stop enabling addiction
I have been reading the various articles about drug use and mental illness in Oakland and San Francisco with frustration. For years in both cities we have adopted the policy of harm reduction and supportive advocacy and have seen a ballooning of people in need on the street.
The Chronicle’s recent feature showed a woman in objective need who had no desire to change because being an addict on the streets of San Francisco is easy (food provided, needles provided, emergency medical support, no consequences for theft, acceptance of defecating on streets, etc.).
I am not advocating punishment, or solving this through incarceration, but surely we see that the attitude of nonjudgmental, consequence free support is not working. Having experience with family suffering drug addiction and mental illness, I suggest we have become a society of enablers who are effectively encouraging the situation.
Hoping that someday addicts will just want to change is magical thinking, especially when we functionally approve and support addiction. It is not loving or compassionate to support suffering; we have to move to a model that makes some demands and has consequences for harmful behavior.
Maggie Harmon, Oakland
No-car JFK good for all
Regarding “Keep cars off JFK Drive for good” (Editorial, Dec. 26): Thank you for your fact-filled editorial, debunking many of the statements made by those in favor of returning cars to
John F. Kennedy Drive. We as a city, and the Board of Supervisors in particular, need to make San Francisco a world class city and look at the bigger picture.
We also need to provide safe spaces for all ages to walk and bike, while maintaining transportation via the shuttle for those unable to participate in non-motorized transportation.
I hope the supervisors can look beyond their districts and to the city as a whole when making their decision next year on closing Golden Gate Park’s main road. Remember 75% of cars traveling on JFK did NOT visit the park, but used it as a high-speed commuter highway.
Susan George, San Francisco
Fliers should vaccinate
Regarding “Airlines need vaccination mandate” (Open Forum, Dec. 27): Kudos to Roger Rapoport for bringing needed attention to the foolhardy policy of allowing non-vaccinated people to fly on domestic flights. No wonder so many flights are being canceled because airline workers are in short supply due to COVID.
When I recently made reservations to fly to Portland, I kept wondering when the airline was going to require my proof of vaccination only to finally realize I was going to have to play Russian roulette if I wanted to see my grandchildren for Christmas. Nancy Bartell, Berkeley