“Brand new San Francisco parklet vandalized days after completion,” The City, Sunday
Richmond parklet vandalism senseless
I felt like your article was insinuating that the vandals tagged the parklet as a sign of their disdain for it. I would like to suggest that it is completely untrue. They tagged it because it's there. Taggers tag homes, businesses, sidewalks and cars. Down the block someone sprayed a continuous line across the fences, walls, doors and windows of three homes in a row.
The neighborhood still loves the parklet, but taggers are going to tag. They probably were excited to be the first ones to mark it. It's all a game to them.
Venus Savage, San Francisco
Tagging bound to happen
Really? A “big debut” for a rat-infested, homeless parklet? Exactly who is paying you to write this; The City or the contractors? Boo-hoo, some jerk tagged it. If it wasn't there, that wouldn't happen. Taggers are senseless and sloppy and disrespectful. What's your point?
Jan Naft, San Francisco
“California needs to take earthquake prediction more seriously,” Opinion, Aug. 6
Seismic shift in thinking
I wish to thank The San Francisco Examiner's editors for placing the important matter of seismic forecasting on their public forum in the Bay Area.
In the days since my op-ed ran, I have received emails from a number of world-renowned experts who read the piece and seem a bit confused about statements to the effect that science has already investigated whether or not gravitational tidal triggering of earthquakes is factual or not, and found the answer to be negative. Any interested investigator can determine for himself that this is far from the case.
To peruse hundreds of peer-reviewed papers indicating the current scientific view regarding this topic, one need only type “tidal triggering of earthquakes” into the search field at the NASA/Harvard Astrophysics Data Base (adswww.harvard.edu) to read quite a number of opinions that buttress what The San Francisco Examiner found compelling enough to place on its commentary pages.
David Nabhan, Pittsburgh, Pa.
“Market Street Safeway recycling center slated to close in September,” The City, Tuesday
Recycling centers vital
It's time for San Francisco, a city that has led the state in its recycling goals and programs, to consider the implications of recent recycling center closures.
The economic benefits of the Bottle Bill are measurable and impressive, supporting over 10,000 California jobs. Recycling centers at supermarket sites are where most consumers choose to redeem their beverage containers for cash.
If anything, San Francisco is an underserved community with only one center for every 38,000 residents, compared to the statewide average of one per 18,000.
This in a city that has worked so hard to build its reputation as a pioneer in recycling programs. Many different consumers choose to redeem their CRV, including seniors, families, recent immigrants, small businesses, bars and delis. This won't change.
Curbside recycling is, and always has been, complementary to CRV; it's not a substitute. Curbside is funded in part by the Bottle Bill because the CRV is donated to the local government. Closing recycling centers compromises the state-certified CRV system's effectiveness.
Under the Bottle Bill, there must be a location within a half-mile of supermarkets to redeem bottles and cans; otherwise, supermarkets must allow in-store redemption or pay a fee of $100 per day to the state. Consumers at these two San Francisco sites will now either have to redeem in-store or pay higher grocery costs to offset the fee.
Recycling centers and their customers are vital to California's recycling economy; they should be valued, not marginalized.
Mark Murray, Executive Director, Californians Against Waste