Pre­serve ed­u­ca­tion by keep­ing ten­ure

San Francisco Chronicle - - OPINION -

Re­gard­ing “How to im­prove ed­u­ca­tion, hous­ing” (Open Fo­rum, Feb. 5): In the midst of strikes, low pay and teacher short­ages, the sug­ges­tion of also re­mov­ing job se­cu­rity for teach­ers is lu­di­crous.

Do we need yet another rea­son for young people to steer clear of ca­reers in K-12 ed­u­ca­tion? Only teacher-bash­ing logic would con­clude that re­mov­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of ten­ure would im­prove ed­u­ca­tion in Cal­i­for­nia dur­ing our cur­rent cri­sis!

Paul Gi­ganti, Al­bany

Love the de­sign

Re­gard­ing “This flag will dance in the wind” (Open Fo­rum, Feb. 4): I love Jef­frey Burke Whit­ten’s sub­mis­sion for Cal­i­for­nia’s flag! Just the color­ful graphic caught my eye be­fore I knew what it rep­re­sented.

Then I read the ar­ti­cle. The de­scrip­tion, the de­sign, the col­ors ... I can see it danc­ing in the wind. It nearly dances right off the page. Let’s adopt it now!

San­dra Torma, Oak­land

Not the big­gest fan

Re­gard­ing “This flag will dance in the wind”: The flag caught my eye be­fore I read the piece by Jef­frey Burke Whit­ten. I was await­ing a thought about Google Maps’ new logo ... oops, a new flag for San Fran­cisco?! These com­mon pri­mary and sec­ondary col­ors are maybe too rem­i­nis­cent of the om­nipres­ence of tech in our fair city. Also cu­ri­ous that the main point of the star doesn’t point left ... how about up? Too Star Treky? How about another idea we can wrap our­selves in?

Chris Shields, San Fran­cisco

Fo­cus on dis­as­ters

First, it was the ridicu­lous ob­ses­sion with nick­names for San Fran­cisco (50 years in L.A. and I have only heard one term, and that’s “Frisco.” Just deal with it.), and now this made up Make Amer­ica Great Again/base­ball cap con­tro­versy.

Never mind the thou­sands of home­less in the streets, the open drug use and prop­erty crimes, Pa­cific Gas and Elec­tric Co.’s never-end­ing prob­lems, tall build­ings lean­ing pre­car­i­ously, mul­ti­mil­lion­dol­lar tran­sit sta­tions idling like a waste­land and, thanks to Uber, Lyft and the late Mayor Ed Lee, traf­fic is at near grid­lock most days. Could we pos­si­bly just drop the hat non­sense and per­haps try and solve one of these on­go­ing dis­as­ters?

Marty Fos­ter, San Fran­cisco

NIMBY is­sues

In re­sponse to “Large crowd blasts plans for Mis­sion de­vel­op­ment” (Feb. 8): There should be no mys­tery who’s re­ally to blame for to­day’s crip­pling short­age of hous­ing. The NIMBYs and an­tide­vel­op­ment naysay­ers have found San Fran­cisco a nat­u­ral habi­tat for their per­sis­tent cry of not here, block­ing one hous­ing de­vel­op­ment af­ter another, turn­ing too many de­bates on hous­ing in San Fran­cisco from how much hous­ing do we need to how lit­tle hous­ing can we get away with. These ac­tivists are trapped in the mis­taken ze­ro­sum game that build­ing more of one type of hous­ing means build­ing less of another, and that re­strict­ing hous­ing de­vel­op­ment on po­lit­i­cal grounds is cost-free. It’s any­thing but free. It helps cre­ate the hous­ing short­age that is driv­ing our hous­ing cri­sis.

They fix­ate on pro­pos­als that fall short of a per­fect ver­sion of San Fran­cisco hous­ing, killing good pro­pos­als that might al­le­vi­ate the hous­ing short­age. This is how the vot­ers have or­dained it and will only change when vot­ers start mak­ing dif­fer­ent po­lit­i­cal de­ci­sions. Un­til then, when it comes to hous­ing, we have met the en­emy, and he is us.

Frank Sullivan, San Fran­cisco

Vex­ing sit­u­a­tion

Re­gard­ing “Big rigs by­pass smog-check law” (Open Fo­rum, Feb. 5): I was ex­tremely vexed read­ing the ar­ti­cle about big rigs not hav­ing to bother with smog laws. Here’s why: I run a small busi­ness and re­quire a small truck and a van to do so.

Last year, I had to let my van get towed away be­cause I couldn’t get it to pass smog, even though it ran great. Then I had to spend about $700 on my lit­tle pickup to get it to pass smog. Af­ter the work was done, I was told by my me­chanic to drive 30 miles at 50 mph to “set the sen­sors.” My lit­tle busi­ness has suf­fered greatly as a re­sult.

Roy Dieck­man, San Fran­cisco

Change at­ti­tudes

Re­gard­ing “It’s not just about RV park­ing” (Ed­i­to­rial, Feb. 7): While cre­at­ing park­ing spa­ces and ser­vices for people liv­ing in RVs is a wor­thy ob­jec­tive, the real chal­lenge is to change the at­ti­tudes of people who don’t live in them. Their com­plaints about ex­ces­sive noise, leak­ing flu­ids, and the loss of park­ing spa­ces caused by the oc­cu­pants of these RVs is, to be quite hon­est, driven by prej­u­dice against any­one who might ad­versely af­fect their prop­erty val­ues.

Res­i­dents in such ar­eas should re­mem­ber this phrase the next time they con­sider com­plain­ing about those who are liv­ing in RVs on their streets: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

Carolyn Craw­ford, San Fran­cisco

Jack Ohman / Sacra­mento Bee

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.