State desperately needs highspeed rail system
Regarding “Highspeed rail: It’s about jobs, climate and justice” (sfchronicle.com, Open Forum, March 8): State Sen. Scott Wiener is right: we need to fund and complete the state’s highspeed rail system. As reported in The Chronicle, the development of housing in the Central Valley is proceeding at breakneck speed in response to the high cost in the Bay Area.
This has already led to nightmarish traffic problems and choking pollution issues, and these lousy aspects of life in the Valley are only going to worsen in years to come. We need to give commuters a convenient, affordable and fast alternative to spending hours a day on the road in choking traffic so that they can buy a home of their own. Linking the South Bay, and eventually San Francisco, with the new housing developments covering the freeway corridors from here to Bakersfield will be crucial. There really is no time to waste.
Mark Valentine, Oakland
Worst way to finance
Gratified as I am that the COVID19 relief bill finally passed the Senate, Republican complaints about its cost are on target in one respect at least: It picks the worst possible way to finance expanded access to health care.
The bill would make more people eligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance, and require the federal government to pay the insurance premiums for workers who lost their coverage along with their jobs when the pandemic hit. The $34.2 billion price tag will provide coverage for 1.7 million people. But it will not help with the deductibles and copayments that already discourage many who have insurance from getting the treatment they need. Worse, as much as onethird of the money will go not for medical care, but to insurance companies that industry whistleblower Wendell Potter points out have been making record profits during the pandemic. An alternative bill would have simply authorized Medicare to pay the doctor bills of anyone without coverage for the duration of the pandemic. Medicare’s lower administrative overhead would have made it possible to cover significantly more people for less money.
Peter Shapiro, Oakland
Disappointed with Dems
It has been disappointing to watch Democrats let the opportunity to provide real relief to those most in need slip through their fingers. And if they continue down this path, their majorities in the House and Senate will slip away, too. For years Republicans, recognizing that their priorities are not favored by the majority, have chosen the strategy of voter suppression to win elections. For reasons that defy logic, Democrats, whose programs provide more of the things the people of this country need, have chosen to water them down to make them more appealing to Republicans. Isn’t the purpose of government to serve the public?
When elected officials enact laws that keep their constituents employed, housed, fed and safe, they win people’s trust as well as votes. We live in the Bay Area. Could any of us afford rent on $15 an hour? Or survive on the compromise unemployment benefit? In this time of crisis, people deserve more.
Susan Segal, Oakland
A win for wilderness
Last week the House of Representatives passed sweeping public lands and rivers protections for California. The Protecting America’s Wilderness and Public Lands Act passed with bipartisan support and will safeguard over a million acres of public lands and over 500 miles of rivers statewide. These protections will help forests, habitats and communities throughout California become more resilient to our changing climate. Following the Biden administration’s commitment to conserving at least 30% of our public lands and waters by 2030, this victory in the House demonstrates that our public lands are a key solution to addressing the climate crisis. I’m grateful to California’s leaders — Reps. Salud Carbajal, Judy Chu, Jared Huffman and Adam Schiff — for leading this effort. Now, it’s the Senate’s turn to pass the bill, and deliver these wins for our public lands, for our climate, and for all Californians.
Jonathan Parfrey, Los Angeles
The fourplex problem
While generally I am in support of fourplexes in singlefamily neighborhoods in Berkeley and Oakland, I am afraid that such upzonings might, perversely, make things worse for people of color and lowincome renters and owners. To assess such danger, it is important to develop an economic analysis that would show the economics of the tearing down of existing units and building new structures, which neighborhoods would be mostly affected, how, and if land prices would increase. I am concerned that prices would increase as a result of the additional density allowed, making things worse for future buyers of the houses in those neighborhoods that would be upzoned. Finally, the placing of the fourplexes on the lot is essential to consider. Senate President Pro Tem Tony Atkins’ SB1120 — that luckily did not pass last year — would have allowed four separate units on an existing lot, with the units on the back as close as 4 feet to the backyard line and three stories high; an unjustifiable attack on the privacy and light access of existing owners. There are already existing examples of fourplexes in Berkeley and Oakland that can achieve the same densities without harming existing residents.
Nico Calavita, Berkeley
Oppose military strikes
I oppose President Biden’s recent military attack upon Iranian forces in Syria. This strike resulted in many deaths and has not done anything to end or even lessen the many years of war and horrible destruction in this volatile part of the world.
The many areas of chronic unrest and war in the world are not improving despite the United States’ huge spending and military involvement in these conflicts. One has only to remember the Vietnam War as proof that the military might of our troubled nation has only brought more violence, death and chaos to a world that has remained on the terrifying brink of nuclear war since the 1950s. The impending catastrophes of global warming and the nuclear arms race are the most powerful reminders that military force in today’s world is proving absolutely useless — in fact harmful — in healing the deep wounds that keep the human race divided against itself and in urgent need of greater solidarity and mutual understanding. It is becoming more clear that the only hope for humanity’s survival and future safety and happiness rests with our ability to replace thousands of years of international rivalries with world peace.
Rama Kumar, Fairfax
Dangerous arrests
Regarding “Cop video shows man who died cried ‘I can’t breathe’ ” (March 6): Stores have secret shoppers to assess customer service. Medical residents are sometimes required to complete the hospital admission process, including lab draws, long waits, paperwork and undressing behind a curtain. In nursing school, my classmates and I practiced everything on each other, from breast exams to IV starts. Until now, I’ve wondered why police officers in training are not required to personally experience what it feels like to be arrested on the street or why undercover officers aren’t deployed as “secret shoppers” in neighborhoods where there are many police brutality complaints. After reading about the death of Joseph Perez, who was restrained when police sat on him with a hospital backboard while he was facedown on the ground, I understand: it would be too dangerous. Police are public servants encountering people who are presumed innocent. If being arrested is too dangerous for undercover officers or those in training, perhaps it’s too dangerous for the public.
Elisabeth Ochs, San Francisco