City’s anti-cars pol­icy is anti-fam­ily

San Francisco Chronicle - - FROM THE COVER -

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 (“No park 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.

Ju­lian Grant, Paci­fica

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.

Paul Maltzer, Orinda

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

Wal­let watch

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

Signe Wilkinson / Philadel­phia Daily News

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.