Since the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion, the public is now more aware of what is going on with PG&E and other utilities that are supposed to be closely regulated. A number of agencies are investigating the disastrous fire, including the National Transportation Safety Board.
The first thing politicians want to do is create more regulations. But obviously there were laws and regulations already in place. We don’t need more safety laws, we need to enforce the existing ones.
But public disclosure of vulnerable pipe location must be measured carefully. Politicians want a list of the 100 most vulnerable pipelines released to the public. Releasing such information would do us absolutely no good and could even be an increased security risk.
Richard King, Palo Alto
No freebies for nannies
The Golden Gate Mothers Group says that the San Francisco residential parking program has forced full-time nannies to move their cars periodically to avoid parking tickets.
The City’s residential parking program was designed to deter out-of-town commuters from grabbing up all the residential parking spots. And yet, the nanny in your Wednesday story is just that — a daily commuter from Vallejo. Well, I’m a San Francisco resident who has to move his car when parked in a permitted residential area. So why should an out-of-town commuter get relief when an S.F. resident doesn’t?
The interviewed nanny said it is a safety issue that she is forced to leave the children alone every two hours while looking for parking. And she needs her car “just in case of an emergency.” I can see that could be a problem, but dialing 911 will get professional emergency help quicker than it takes to drive the children to the emergency room.
Charles Nieman, San Francisco
How to help nannies
There’s an easy solution to the “nanny needs a parking permit” issue. Residents could give up one of the four permits they are now allowed to have for live-in drivers. But that would require changing The City rules.
Andrea O’Leary, San Francisco
Why Whitman is spending
What does Meg Whitman hope to gain in return for spending more than $119 million of her Silicon Valley fortune on campaigning for the Governor’s Office?
Perhaps she wants to be a corporate CEO again. She has received an additional $24 million in campaign contributions, largely from CEOs and Fortune 500 corporations.
This suggests to me that corporate America is investing capital in Whitman because they expect her governorship to help increase their profits when needed. My vote is free, so I highly doubt she is paying all that money to buy into my good graces.
Paul Page, San Francisco