The significant traffic and transit improvements planned for the region around and within Candlestick and Hunters points, outlined in your Oct. 1 article, are not contingent on any decisions by the 49ers. They are moving forward rapidly and will receive a San Francisco Planning Commission hearing and draft environmental impact report this month.
A stadium at the proposed Santa Clara site would be a traffic disaster — far worse than Candlestick Park has ever been. The Santa Clara site is with very limited capacity and destinations. There are no links to BART, Caltrain or a robust light-rail line like Muni Metro. There are only 2,700 dedicated parking spaces. Both Candlestick and a future Hunters Point stadium have more than 22,000 parking spaces.
Santa Clara plans to close two of its major boulevards on game days, which frequently can fall on weekdays. More than 80 percent of the 49ers fan base lives north of Santa Clara, so the San Francisco stadium sites are much more centrally located.
Michael J. Antonini, Planning commissioner, San Francisco
What Prop. B could mean
If Proposition B passed, my district supervisor would probably hire a handful of qualified aides to help citizens protect themselves from bloated city policies, regulations and budgets. However, given the option to hire more aides, some of the other supervisors would simply replicate themselves and put city residents on the fast track toward understanding the difference between bad vs. horrid policies. Their bigger staffs would simply set the stage for more legislation to simultaneously diminish our liberties while taking our tax dollars to empower the agendas of highly partisan legislators.
Matt Mitguard, San Francisco
Time for SoMa to stand up
How sad it is for The City’s elected leaders to sell out the residents of SoMa for a measly $68,000 billboard. They must think SoMa is a freeway with extra-wide medians for housing. The taxpayers of SoMa are being treated like they don’t have rights or power. If the mayor thinks SoMa can be dumped on because we are powerless, then let’s vote during the upcoming election to show that he who dumps is dumped.
Paul Page, San Francisco
Wrong approach, Dufty
I was disappointed to read in your Sept. 30 story “Top officials gather for sanctuary policy dialogue” that Supervisor Bevan Dufty was still supporting the legislation to shield illegal immigrant felons.
San Francisco, in so many ways, is a city of self-inflicted problems. Legislation telling people already in the country illegally that if you commit a felony, even a violent felony, the politicians at City Hall will protect you sends a message that San Francisco is a free-fire zone for lawlessness.
If Dufty hopes to be mayor, he needs to understand that the mayor’s primary responsibility is to uphold the law. If the politicians at City Hall send a message that violating the law doesn’t matter, what example does that set for some gangbanger on the street?
E.F. Sullivan, San Francisco