Editor:

Unbelievable; the stall tactic of the SF Planning Commission is typical of a corrupt

group.

I wonder how many and the amount of bribes that were paid. Jean Quan was a

failure as a mayor and she is a failure to the Asian community.

Jan Naft

Editor:

Our L-Taraval streetcar stops at 44th (both directions), 35th (inbound, near Sunset

Boulevard), and 17th (inbound, across from Safeway) avenues are once again at risk.

The SF Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) wants to be certain that those who

support retaining stops know this entails a loss of parking spaces because of boarding

islands. Save Our L-Taraval Stops! wants to be sure readers understand the trade-offs for

removing stops. We also want neighbors to know they have a say in this decision:

Please, if you’re approached to take a Muni survey (at least 300 people will be polled), do

participate and understand the trade-offs ahead of time. We hope you’ll vote to

keep the stops.

We previously convinced Muni to keep the stops at 44th and 35th avenues because

it’s a great hardship for many seniors and those with disabilities, among others, to

have to walk two extra blocks to catch the L, often uphill, at night in the cold and

dark, and in a hurry. This decision is now in question.

Last fall, the Muni board directed staff to try to keep the inbound 17th Avenue

stop across from Safeway after many residents, including elderly and those with

disabilities, complained it would be a hardship to walk with heavy grocery bags

the extra two blocks up the hill to 15th Avenue.

Early this year, at both inbound and outbound stops at 44th Avenue, Muni painted

“clear zones” (where boarding islands will be built in 2018), eliminating some parking.

Merchants complained about lost business and some residents complained about the lost

parking spaces. At 17th Avenue, if the inbound stop is kept, a boarding island

will be built.

Whether the inbound stop at 35th Avenue is kept depends on a number of

factors. Boarding islands (most marked with placeholder stripes) are Muni’s requirement

for retaining most stops. However, at five inbound “pilot” stops, including 35th, where

there were no accidents in more than five years, boarding islands will not be built if at

least 90 percent of drivers remain behind the L when it stops at these locations for riders

to get on and off.

If the pilot is not successful, boarding islands will be built at four of the stops. But, at the

inbound 35th Avenue stop, Muni is surveying riders and merchants on whether to keep

the stop and build a boarding island, or remove the stop.

We empathize with those concerned about the loss of parking, but feel it’s more

important to keep these stops for better access by seniors, those with disabilities,

students and others who use them.

So, please take the survey if you’re asked and vote to keep the stops in question.

Contact us for more information. And drivers remember, when the LTaraval

stops, you must stop. It’s the law!

Paula Katz, Save Our Taraval Stops!

Editor:

Do you feel the Inner Sunset has too many parking spaces, too little visual pollution,

too little signage and too few “parakeets”? If not, then hold on to your seats because

things are about to get much, much worse! If an elitist-driven proposal, ironically

called the “green benefits district,” passes, struggling homeowners will have

up to $500 extorted annually to allow a small coterie of privileged and well-connected

individuals to determine how their neighborhood is “beautified.”

Murals, statues, an “entrance” to Golden Gate Park, rainbow-colored crosswalks,

signs pointing to the California Academy of Sciences (a major backer of this proposal),

tacky murals and “focal point” statues, lighting, maintenance for the SF Department of

Public Works’ (DPW) “themes,” funds for the creation and renovation of more parklets,

as well as other wonders of urban gentrification on steroids will soon be enroute.

The DPW has already spent thousands of dollars funding this effort, and a “weighted”

(rigged) vote by property owners will not come cheap. As well, administrative

costs will be high.

If it passes, a small number of individuals – ones who believe that public funds

should be spent to close down a recycling center and build a gated “community” garden

at a cost of millions; privatize our parks and plazas; bring more visual clutter to our

neighborhood; further commercialize our streets; and, in general, lock out everyone who

has a dissenting opinion — will have control our public commons.

And, if you do not live in the Inner Sunset, don’t think that you are immune.

This is the new model for the entire city: regressive property taxes used to privatize

services that government provided in the past, while locking out public input and

handing control of the public realm to a select few.

Harry S. Pariser