We welcome your letters and constructive opinions. Please limit your comments to 350 words or less. We regularly publish a selection based on relevance, clarity and tone, and may trim letters for length. Send your commentary to email@example.com. Include your full name, email address and city where you live. We do not publish anonymous letters, and will never publish your email address or share your personal information beyond your name and city.
Of foie gras and SB50
State Sen.r Scott Weiner’s approach to city planning (SB50) may be favorably compared to foie gras (recently ruled illegal by the California Supreme Court): stuff as many people and motor vehicles into a city until it’s well beyond the breaking point.
The consequences for existing neighborhoods be damned.
Weiner remains in near total denial of the very sensible connection of increasing infrastructure — such as building out a complete system of safe bike lanes — before embarking on any new plans to increase density in neighborhoods such as the already overstuffed Mission District.
Why does Weiner continue to deny the crucial connection between increased density and adequate funding for infrastructure to serve that added density?
Is it because he is doing the bidding of well-heeled developers who demand maximum profits and minimum concerns with community needs?
The fatal flaw in SB50 remains the absence of funding to increase transit and a commitment to build unquestionably safe bike lanes, among other sensible measures and controls. It’s not surprising that Mayor London Breed shares with Weiner a dangerous contempt for bikers calls for a guaranteed safe system of bike lanes, even while riding the density hobby horse.
Though Weiner runs as a Democrat one might reasonably ask Why his transit last policy seems to bear a disturbing resemblance to the long-standing Republican Congressional policy of gutting mass transit funding. The paradox – or hypocritical policy-making – is that Weiner’s version of city and housing planning says it depends on transit while doing nothing to help these critically under funded services.
Do Weiner and Breed really wish to make San Francisco, to name one city, more unlivable than it already is?
CASA ignores cause and effect
Sacramento’s CASA approach to solving the housing crisis is all wrong. Prodded by eager residential builders who want free rein, the state legislators have ignored the rapacious high-tech moguls who build their empires and make their billions with nary a thought given to external adverse effects. As things stand large and powerful entities are continuing to entice high paid, hi-tech talent to flood into the Bay Area, overwhelming its housing stock and its roadways in the process. These huge corporations and their billionaire insiders should be called upon to pay for the housing and transportation agonies they are causing.
And then there are the false premises upon which CASA is being sold. Here are four:
n “Housing can catch up.” False: In the Bay Area the influx of new job seekers continues to far outstrip the ability to meet housing needs. To make matters worse the current plan would waste much of the available funding trying to jam large amounts of subsidized housing into areas where development costs are stratospheric. It’s a losing game.
n “MTC Can Effectively Control the Program.” Patently False. MTC is an agency that in the last four decades has never stood up for good regional planning or effectively dealt with the region’s ever worsening transportation condition. The framers of the CASA Compact nevertheless deemed MTC qualified to further expand its domain by taking over the region’s housing development program.
n “A second transbay rail tube will make all this possible.” False. Given the Bay Area’s glacial rate of infrastructure development it would take at least half a century to get a second subaqueous passenger rail system (estimated cost $25 billion) up and running. BART says its peak-period transbay carrying capacity will be reached by 2025. What happens between 2025 and 2070?!
n “Housing near transit would materially increase transit use and ease traffic congestion.” False. The inconvenient truth is that those moving into new so-called “transit-oriented” housing would virtually all have cars, thereby making it harder to drive to and park near transit stations and stops. Most trips are non-commute trips. Based upon experience elsewhere it can be expected that unless the Legislators change their current plans and build communities (in outlying, reasonably priced areas) with easily accessible stores, services and jobs, the non-commute travel of the new residents will continue to be mostly by automobile. So much for congestion relief. So much for regional planning.
Gerald Cauthen PE
President, Bay Area Transportation Working Group
“I used to love your city”
I am part of a trade group that has held its convention in San Francisco numerous times. We rotate among Las Vegas, Orlando, New Orleans as well as your city. Many members have noticed the decline through the years. Cleanliness, homelessness, people with mental health or drug issues wandering, panhandling and accosting the tourists. This year was the worst. A semi-naked man sleeping on the sidewalk near Fisherman’s Wharf, people stepping over him. My friend saw a woman defecate on the sidewalk near the convention center. This behavior is just not allowed in other cities.
Our trade group sent a letter today saying that ‘due to this decline, it has kept members and vendors away from your city.” Because of lower attendance in our group, we are now adding Dallas into the rotation.
I used to love your city, but your politicians have allowed it to become seedy and not desirable as a convention or vacation destination.
I hope you can figure it out so I may come back again some day.
Steven Johnson, Zumbrota, Minnesota