San Francisco Chronicle
Heartbreaking photo symbolizes border crisis
Regarding “U.S. to unite kids separated from families” (May 4): John Moore’s picture of a little girl at the border said much more than 1,000 words about the border. It was adorable, heartbreaking and infuriating at the same time.
That image should be seared into our minds as symbolic of this series of events in our history, as did the picture of the napalmburned girl on another road in Southeast Asia did decades ago. Nick Rizza, Berkeley
Enact a ‘dirty car’ charge
Regarding “State might not refill rebate fund for electric cars” (Page One, May 3): California’s current electric vehicle rebates are available to everyone.
The governor wants to target future EV rebates to lowerincome auto buyers.
Because moving away from fossil fuels is so vital, I believe that we need both types of rebates — for the general population as well as income targeted. But where to find the money to fund both types of rebates?
Buyers of new lowmpg fossilfueled vehicles, or manufacturers of same, could be required to pay a “dirty car” charge which would fund more EV rebates, thus moving us more quickly to a postfossil fuel world.
Gary Farber, Walnut Creek
It’s not all Boudin’s fault
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin is not responsible for the lack of prosecution of so many of these cases. Some years ago, I headed the Domestic Violence Unit at the S.F. Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation. We had a weekly calendar in court, representing the victims of domestic violence.
The more egregious the violence, the less likely that the victim would show up to to testify against the abuser. Culturally, particularly when the victims were Latinas, they had little option but to return to live with the abuser because the violence was deemed to be her fault.
Massive community education/public service announcements might be a start in addressing the problem, not blaming Boudin, who cannot prosecute without a victim’s cooperation. Agatha Hoff, San Francisco
Stop home shaming
Many years ago, my wife and I scraped together every available shred of cash and bought a home in the Bay Area.
We thought that the quality of family life that we were looking for would be most readily available in a singlefamily dwelling located amid other singlefamily dwellings. That was our preference.
It was not as if we had a moral compunction about apartment living, and, as a matter of fact we could only afford a home in a neighborhood that had a mixture of apartments and singlefamily homes.
For many years, our mortgage payments decimated our disposable income, but we were pleased with our choice.
Now, in these recent days, I find it remarkable that there are people elsewhere in the state who do not hesitate to selfrighteously cast shame upon us for not abandoning the living conditions and quality of life that we and our neighbors struggled for.
We are told that we have a moral obligation to make room for the flood of new employees lured to move to the Bay Area with the promise that the bay has an endless capacity for new residents. Demolish those singlefamily dwellings and build multistory highdensity accommodations.
Robert Taber, Palo Alto
Enforce parking fines
Regarding “Make ‘poverty towing’ moratorium permanent” (May 4): The writer of the Open Forum piece on “poverty towing” seems to imply that not paying five parking tickets or having expired vehicle registration is always due to not having enough money. However, many people don’t pay these things simply because they don’t want to.
Before declaring that all tows for parking violations are due to poverty, some deeper evidence should have been presented.
In any case, simply allowing unlimited parking tickets to rack up or registrations to expire with no consequences to anyone is not a solution to the high cost of living in San Francisco.