To the Editor:

I am sorry to see SEIU supporters engaging in revisionist history in response to Zenei Cortez's article about the contested union vote in Ohio, and the resulting debate between the California Nurses Association and Andy Stern's SEIU. The facts remain: the Ohio employer tried to organize an election for its own workers, with a compliant and business-friendly union, but failed when their efforts came to light. No progressive labor member could support a company trying to arrange representation for its members, and CNA/NNOC will work to alert workers whenever their boss is trying to pull such a scam. The path to a renewed labor movement, and to the national nurses movement, lies through organizing workers-not through organizing employers.

Malinda Markowitz, RN
Member of the Council of Presidents
California Nurses Association



Paul,

Very good article about this proposed Transbay development plan. I have been making the point about the attractiveness of SOMA condos to Peninsula commuters and the inadequacy of CalTrain for quite a while. If I were a condo salesman, one of the top selling points would be "and it's close to the Bay Bridge and 101 South."

I have also been making the point that mitigation concessions need to be in the form of "for every square foot of housing you build, you must provide a percentage of square footage of parks." It is no mystery that SOMA has the least amount of parks per capita of any district. The infill development opportunities exist not just for condos, but for parks also. They should also be required to directly pay for the extension of CalTrain up into the City to serve the new density. The requirement that developers make 20%-26% profit at minimum before they will take on a project is simply egregious compared to other investment returns in this world and there is plenty of room for them to give something in the form of mitigating concessions.

These proposed towers would not proportionally add any new jobs in the City. Construction jobs would be temporarily added, but those people all come from outside the City to work. The service jobs related to these condos would not pay enough to afford to live in the City. The janitorial staff or the concierge or the pool maintenance people would surely not live in these condos. They would come in on the Mission Street buses that are already jam-packed and stuck in traffic. The number of jobs created in SF would be far less than the number of living spaces provided ... essentially, lots of the condos would be occupied by commuters, retirees or the ultra-wealthy, thus invalidating the argument that people would be living closer to their work and solve the transit inadequacies we face.

In addition, the "retired empty-nester" rationale for the development of these condos doesn't add up. If you own a 2000 square foot 4-bedroom home in Walnut Creek and the kids are out of the house and you no longer want to care for a yard, etc ... you can move into a nice condo in SOMA and be near restaurants and entertainment. It's not that easy if you do the math. The home, purchased in 1984 for 275k is now sold for 1 million. The condo in SOMA, 1000 square foot 2-bedroom is going to cost you 800k. Now you have abandoned your prop 13 taxes and are assuming taxes on 800k (12k per year) and you now have HOA dues of 750 per month. You pretty much burn through the 200k you monetized from the sale of your home in 10 years. By age 75, you would hope to have a bigger nest egg to deal with your increasing and ever more expensive need for healthcare. Not a great trade...

As Hogarth said, growth is inevitable, but it has to be done responsibly. It is a fallacy to suggest that a larger quantity of housing, via density, is going to make it more affordable to live here. Manhattan is 5 times as dense, but equally as expensive with a lesser quality of life. The geographical constraint of this peninsula, much like the island of Manhattan, will forever distort this hope of affordability. The only plausible approach is to continue to grow responsibly without compromising the quality of life aspect which includes parks, sunlight, blue sky and views, waterfront access, adequate transit, manageable traffic and parking, public safety and the maintenance and fomentation of neighborhoods and communities opposed to cramming people into anonynimity in large sterile hotel-like towers.

Just a few thoughts to fuel the fire...

Eric S. Dash
San Francisco



To the Editor:

I would love to see a free transit system, but that is a utopia. Here's why:

First, as it stands and with many people relying on their cars still MUNI is overcrowded and unreliable.
Imagine adding all the rest who usually drive. I take MUNI rarely, I rather walk. Only once a week I am obliged to take MUNI when I go to the Sunset to pick up my wife from school and each time I suffer through the ride. My wife goes through that torture from Monday to Friday. I have to wait at least 15 to 30 minutes sometimes for the L-line to arrive. How could you conduct business with such a delay? How could you get to work or meetings with such a delay? Then it takes another extra 40 minutes, if you are lucky, to get to destination. I can go on and on, in a word it is a joke not a public transportation.

Second, take for instance Paris. Although the public transportation is heavily subsidized as it should be, still they have to charge a fare to make it solvable. You need both to have an impeccable transit system. Another hurdle to public transportation in San Francisco is a lack of an underground web that would facilitate the flow of people and create interesting neighborhoods all over the city like in Paris. Alas we were shortsighted when we built BART and MUNI underground, we were thinking unidirectionally rather than multi-directionally.

Since I moved to San Francisco in 1985, I had to rely on my feet to do whatever I have to do. I lost hope with MUNI. But I still fight to have tax money go to our public transportation. I do agree with you it is an affront when I am asked by a controller about my fare. I feel furious. Not that they shouldn't ask, but they should deliver a good transit system then ask for the fare.

Nafiss Griffis
San Francisco



You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:

Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)