Letters from our Readers: Handicap ramps placed in illogical locations

City Director of Public Works Ed Reiskin and Susan Mizner of the Mayor’s Office on Disability recently responded to my Examiner letter regarding wasteful handicap ramps. Their letter gave eloquent and logical reasons to have curb ramps for people with disabilities. And I agree 100 percent with every single word.

My complaint was not about ramps but about their sometimes wasteful and inappropriate allocation. The response letter did not explain the need for eight handicap ramps on one block and the immediate vicinity of Lyndhurst Drive in a residential zone with home driveways already built on it.

Just two blocks away is the corner of 19th and Holloway avenues, the primary approach for roughly 25,000 students and hundreds of employees at San Francisco State University. There are only three handicap ramps on this street. Why?

Chris Stahr, San Francisco

Campaign season unfair

Shouldn’t we consider prohibiting elected office-holders from running for their next office before their current term expires? Not only do these officials deprive us of representation while they hit the road to campaign, but they leave behind a mess if they win election.

In San Francisco, we don’t know who our next mayor will be. But we do know that whoever it is will not be elected by the people. This thwarts the entire process and we deserve better.

Tim Donnelly, San Francisco

Pelosi the Dems’ Titanic

Is there a new barometer for gauging success? The press is replete with articles about the tremendous success of Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House of Representatives and how history will rank her with the best of them — another Longworth, Cannon or Rayburn.

It appears to me that Pelosi single-handedly brought about more damage to the Democratic Party than has occurred in last 60 years. I see the praise now being heaped on her as equal to praising the captain of the Titanic for successfully navigating all the way from Southampton to the iceberg!

John Brennan, Corte Madera

One vote per voter

I fully agree with Tuesday’s letter calling for San Francisco to move away from the twin fiascos of district elections and ranked-choice. But, let’s get things right this time, and establish a system with true voter equality and stability, which can be delivered in proportional elections.

The previous citywide elections were a Democrat machine invention meant to keep Republicans out of office. With each person voting for five or six supervisors per election, inequality was still built into the system. Voter equality is only delivered in a one person-one vote proportional system — where you’re still voting for an individual, not just a party.

With 11 seats up for election at the same time, such a system will be far more stable and fair than district or citywide elections ever could be. If we establish that, San Franciscans could really be proud of themselves.

Fredrick Schermer, San Francisco