Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor – Richmond ReView


This letter in intended as a tribute to the late Eugene (“Gene”) Brodsky’s decades of

good work for the benefit of the Richmond District.


Professionally, Gene was an accomplished attorney. As a private resident of the Richmond,

he did a tremendous amount to maintain open spaces and promote our quality of life.


Gene Brodsky. Courtesy photo.

Gene was born in New York in 1935. He received his law degree from Columbia University

in 1959, was an esteemed practitioner of maritime law and practiced in California for

five decades. He also taught law at Golden Gate University, was admitted the U.S. Supreme

Court and was a published author on legal subjects.


As a private citizen, Gene spent decades helping his fellow San Franciscans. He was a

member of citizen advisory committees; assisted in the preservation of the Sutro Baths as

open space (and ultimately part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area); and was a

member of several important civic organizations in the Richmond, including the Planning

Association for the Richmond (PAR), Coalition to Save Ocean Beach (CSOB) and Friends of

Sutro Heights Park (FSHP). He also helped ensure good neighbor relations with the

SF Veterans’ Administration Medical Center through constant attention to its plans

and development.


We are proud of Gene’s lifelong work and we mourn his passing. He will be well-

remembered for his community service.

Jason Jungreis, on behalf of PAR, CSOB and FSHP




This is a clarification of the misleading and incorrect letter on the Geary Bus Rapid Transit

(GBRT) submitted by Winston Parsons of the GoGeary organization.


I also served on the GBRT at the same time. In addition, I have followed GBRT

developments since its inception 10 years ago and observed the ever-changing

staff of the SF County Transportation Authority (SFCTA). At no time was the issue of

“no change” ever considered.


The current improvements under the GBRT, which implemented red lanes (to speed up

bus transportation east of Gough Street) and the addition of more buses, coupled with

better scheduling, have been successful in accomplishing the GBRT’s objectives.


The most glaring mistake of the program is a continuation of the costly and unnecessary

center lane portion involving the destruction of the center median of Geary Boulevard,

between 27th Avenue and Palm Avenue, in order to install dedicated center bus lanes.

This provision means tearing up the street.


I have used the Geary-#38 bus line for more than 40 years and I welcome any

improvements, but it works fine now.


The Richmond District has more seniors than most districts in the City. I have canvassed

many residents and most are not aware of the full GBRT proposal and many do not support

the center lane-removal provision.


As to Mr. Parsons listing of all the hearings and meetings on the GBRT, the final proposal

has never been provided to residents of the district and there have been many changes

through the years.


I support the lawsuit filed by the Sensible Transit group as any further work on the GBRT is



There has been some consideration of extending BART to the Richmond, which makes a

lot more sense than tearing up a part of Geary Boulevard for more than five years –

for no reason.


Again, the mission of the GBRT is to speed up transportation on the #38 line, which has

now been accomplished. There is no need to waste any city money.

Margie Hom Brown, Richmond District resident, 

former member of Geary BRT Citizens Advisory Committee



San Francisco is about to enter a sea-change for all development in terms of building

expansions beyond limits allowed under the current SF Planning Code.


The SF Planning Department’s idea is called the Residential Expansion Threshold

(RET), which will be heard by the SF Planning Commission on Dec. 7, at City Hall,

Room 400, at 1 p.m. Go to the website at www.sf-planning.org/ residential-expansion-

threshold to learn about how large numbers used for commercial lots will be assigned

to residential lots.


Also, another document that by “design” will go against the existing Planning Code for

residential lots will be planning’s “Urban Design Guidelines” (UDGs), which contain vague

criteria that almost anything will go and actually can work together with the RET for

massive buildings not traditionally placed on a lot to be adopted.


Please write letters to Commissions.Secretary@sfplanning.org and

Sandra.Fewer@sfgov.org or call her at (415) 554-7410.

 Rose Hillson



I am a Richmond District property owner. Concerning the “Sound the Fire Alarm” column

by Thomas W. Doudiet in the November, 2017 Richmond Review, the City has had

water/fire protection bond money to protect the Richmond and Sunset districts and Sea

Cliff for many years now, but nothing has been done.


The property owners should give the City 90 days to start working towards a completion

(of the AWSS) in all of the Richmond, Sunset and Sea Cliff areas, or face a serious $100

million lawsuit. Our neighborhoods are at stake.

Name withheld by request

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s