Keep a level playing field through pricing
Congratulations to our city supervisors for trying to reduce traffic congestion in the busy part of the city during rush hours “S.F. is considering downtown congestion pricing. Here’s how much it would cost” ( July 24). However, as an economist, I can state that the way the law is being tried out presently, instead of getting rid of congestion, encourages congestion by people making less than $46,000.
While it makes sense to have people of lower income be charged less, it’s important that something be charged in order to avoid congestion. And that fee must be greater than the cost of a Muni fare. In order to reduce congestion, everyone should be correct to take Muni. This will also capitalize on the city’s drive to create bus and taxionly lanes. Additionally, it’s also important that taxis pay the same congestion charge that ridesharing services pay, in order to keep a level playing field between mature and emerging businesses.
Pankaj Agarwal, San Francisco
Voterowned elections
Regarding “Recall is an opportunity for reform” (Editorial, July 22): It would be a good thing to reform recall elections. But given the French Laundry controversy — which underscored privileged special interest power in Sacramento that helped trigger the upcoming recall election — it would be even better to significantly reform all elections for state offices in California. To that end, California should essentially adopt the campaign finance reform provisions in H.R.1, the For the People Act. Specifically, H.R.1 would establish a publicly financed 61 matching campaign funds system based on smalldollar donations up to $200 for House candidates who demonstrate broadbased support and reject highdollar contributions. It’s similar to the publicly financed 61 matching funds systems used by candidates for local offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. As applied to California, the 61 matching funds system would significantly empower small donors to compete with special interest donors in electing state legislators and statewide constitutional officers. So, let’s urge the Legislature and the governor to enact this reform for the 2024 elections to help advance voterowned elections in California.
Bob Ryan, San Francisco
The public must decide
Regarding “Manhattanize Palo Alto” (Open Forum, July 25): Manhattanizing a city or region is a big deal. It is a change in the nature of a community. In our democracy those are decisions made with full public participation. But Manhattanizing follows the program defined by the nonelected Association of Bay Area Governments Board which set its own priority strategy: concentrating jobs and housing growth in already jobsrich South Bay Cities. There has been no serious public discussion of alternative strategies (as required by law) such as job dispersion, or of the serious consequences of overconcentration, including: the high cost of land and infrastructure, producing the highest housing costs in the country; the resulting income inequalities, with extremely expensive affordable and middle income housing; excluding families with two workers and children. (Manhattan and San Francisco have the smallest share of their population between the ages of 5 and 17 of any cities in the country). Remember: The tech revolution that transformed the world did not happen in Manhattan or any dense city, but in five small suburban cities where mobility of people and ideas was dominant. Manhattanization and its consequences need to be the product of a full public discussion and not an imposed decision.
Gregory Schmid, Palo Alto
Adapt to warmer world
Regarding “S.F. sets aggressive new goals for reducing climate impact” ( July 22) and “It’s too late, baby” (Letters, July 24): The letter writer makes an important point in his letter of doom and gloom. We are now at 420 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is causing problems across California, the U.S. and world. If we stop emissions today, that carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for generations. We need a serious twofold attack on climate change to decrease emissions, of course, but also we must adapt to the new warmer world we already have, including sea level rise of many feet.
Jere Lipps, Oakland