City’s anti-cars policy is anti-family
Some thoughts on the push for no cars in the city: First, parking is about 30 percent of construction costs, so developers are certainly for this. But more importantly, when was the last time you saw a soccer mom taking her kid to practice on a bike or scooter? Pursuing the no-cars policy to fruition will leave San Francisco with no young families. Sure, young singles and couples will love to work in the vibrant, edgy environment, and retirees like us will do fine, but without the core of families and schools, the city will be a sterile place.
Karl Wustrack, San Francisco
Many left behind
Regarding the Dec. 7 editorial (“Nopark city”) favoring, with mild reservations, the elimination of requirements that new construction in San Francisco include parking: Did the person who wrote that read the previous day’s frontpage article about Muni’s shortage of drivers?
This is hardly Muni’s only problem — just ask riders who live on the west side. Is it any wonder that their supervisors voted against the new plan? In the absence of reliable mass transit, how are seniors, single parents and persons with disabilities expected to go grocery shopping, to school or to work without a car? On scooters?
The editorial called the plan “unsettling.” No, it is discriminatory and outrageous. Janet Giannini, San Francisco
Democracy in peril
So, President Trump has nominated William P. Barr, a former attorney general during the first Bush presidency who supports strong executive power. And this comes after his nomination and Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, who questions whether a sitting president can be indicted, to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
This winter season, what’s roasting over an open fire aren’t chestnuts. It’s our democracy.
Quite a comparison
What a great stage the George H.W. Bush funeral service turned out to be for a public shaming of the sitting president.
Definition of delusion
The president stated this week that, were it not for the Mueller investigation, his approval rating “would be at 75 percent.” Guess what, Mr. President: Were it not for gravity, we could all fly.
Al Comolli, Millbrae
Julian Grant, Pacifica Paul Maltzer, Orinda
Regarding “Apple Watch adds features to watch your heart” (Daily Briefing, Dec. 7): In addition to providing a watch that can notify its wearers of an irregular heartbeat, Apple should create a “Tourist Edition” watch with a feature that watches their wallets.
As any visitor to San Francisco or any other major metropolitan area knows, there are pickpockets everywhere. Wouldn’t it be helpful to get notified as soon as your wallet goes missing?
Corinne Villanueva , Daly City
Out of control
Regarding banning “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”: What is next? Boycotting Disney’s “Snow White”? After all, the prince kissed an unconscious woman! Robert Williams, Half Moon Bay
Back to Business
Does “Lyft poised for its Wall Street debut” (Dec. 7) belong on the front page of this newspaper? With all of the problem plaguing our state, including drought, wildfires, homelessness and the high cost of living, it’s unseemly to focus on the fact that Lyft is outpacing Uber in the race to go public. Stories about IPOs and new stock opportunities for investors belong in the business section. Luisa Westbrook, San Francisco
Baby, it’s absurd
Regarding “Is ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ about rape or romance?” (Open Forum, Dec. 7): The importance of the #MeToo movement is diminished by those who have chosen to reinterpret this classic winter song as having to do with sexual assault. “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” has been played millions of times without a hint of controversy, because it has everything to do with romance and nothing to do with rape.
What’s next, a claim that “White Christmas” is about racism and that “Santa Claus Is Coming To Town” supports child abuse?
Eileen Fitzgerald, Pacifica
Not taxpayers’ burden
In response to Sen. Kamala Harris’ aide resigning after disclosure of a $400,000 payout from the state to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit, I’m still wondering why we, the taxpayers, continue to be held responsible for these payments. Mr. Wallace should have shelled out that $400,000 from his own bank account. “We the people” are not the harrasser’s or abuser’s piggy bank.
Judith Keenan, San Francisco