|
|
|
Letters to the Editor
Newsom Baggage; Germs 'R Us ...
May. 08‚ 2008
Dear Editors,
In his recent article about the as-yet hypothetical governor’s race (“Newsom Early Favorite in 2010 Governor’s Race,” 4/29/2008), Randy Shaw declares Newsom the “early favorite.”
According to whom? Shaw cites no poll to back up his claim.
I also found it amusingly ironic that just about every criticism that Shaw claims disqualifies L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from running also applies—almost uncannily--to Newsom as well. An illicit extramarital affair: check. Unresolved city problems: (MUNI, increase in violent crime, affordable housing crisis, homelessness): check.
“Los Angeles has too many problems for him to abandon the city for a statewide run in 2010,” says Shaw of Villaraigosa. But it’s okay for Newsom to abandon San Francisco in 2010?
So what exactly is Shaw is building his argument on? One can only conclude that it’s wishful thinking.
I found this part of his analysis particularly bizarre: "Gavin Newsom is a very unusual politician. Although he lacks passionate supporters and close, fervent allies in San Francisco, he has combined an effective public presentation and a savvy prioritization of issues to create an extremely sellable statewide image."
If Newsom has "no passionate supporters nor close allies" in his own city, how is he going to parlay this lack of support into a statewide win?
And what does Shaw mean by "an effective public presentation"? Newsom’s public image created through photos opps and spin? Newsom's has been widely criticized for his fiat via press release and image-pandering. Remember the Getty mansion fashion spread with wife # 1?
And his gay marriage stunt was gleefully outed for what it was even by Newsom cheerleaders Matier & Ross last fall. The mayor, they said, “played the gay card.” They admitted that it was legally meaningless. “The licenses didn't hold up, but the move paid off in political spades. In one stroke, Newsom - who had just squeaked into office two months earlier - jumped in the voter approval polls from just over 50 to over 70 percent, largely on the strength of the gay and progressive vote.”
Most important is Shaw’s claim that Newsom demonstrates "a savvy prioritization of issues." What does that mean? That he's cleverly organizing issues, not according to what is best for the city, but what makes Newsom look good?
How about these ‘priorities’?
Earlier this year Newsom buys $78,000 worth of flat-screen TVs and office furniture and hands out generous raises to some of his staffers, including a ‘climate czar’ (“Director of Climate Protection Initiatives”), to the tune of $500,000 more in city salaries. How is he funding this extravaganza during a time of fiscal crisis? By siphoning monies from the ailing MUNI (MTA) and Public Utility commission funds.
How do you like them priorities?
Or how about Newsom firing efficient SF Public Utilities Commission head Susan Leal for no cause, costing the already financially strapped city upwards of $400,000 in severance fees?
Or how about petulantly demanding across-the-board resignation letters from hundreds of city employees, only to accept a handful--many from environmentalist progressives like SF Bike Coalition’s Leah Shahum (so much for 'Green Gavin')--and not from the arguably most deserving, like widely criticized Police Chief Fong?
On Nov. 7, 2008, the San Francisco Bay was besieged with a disastrous oil spill when the Cosco Busan ship struck the Bay Bridge . Rather than stick around and oversee the disaster, Newsom took off on vacation to Hawaii (to recover from the rigors of an uncontested reelection, no doubt) while the disaster worsened.
Priorities?
And in Jan. 2007, Newsom skipped the National U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, foregoing the opportunity to focus on solutions to his city's problems, to go to Davos, Switzerland (for the third year in a row), with his girlfriend for the World Economic Forum.
Lastly, Shaw refers to Newsom as creating “an extremely sellable statewide image." This doesn’t sound like the description of an accomplished, respected leader who could make his case on a solid record of accomplishment to the most populous state in the nation. This sounds like a long product-placement campaign for shampoo.
In all, it's pretty telling that the minute he is reelected (by a mere 25 percent of the city’s registered voters), Newsom turns his back on San Francisco and aims his limo at the governor's mansion. If anything, Newsom’s “savvy prioritization of issues” adds up to a strong case for Newsom’s recall.
Sincerely,
S.M. Peters
Seattle
To the Editor:
I read Tommi Avicolli-Mecca's article "Germs 'R Us" today and, given the heightened attention to medical errors, hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) and prevention methods, I thought you would like to cover one of the most common, but deadly hospital-acquired infections: catheter-related bloodstream infections or CRBSIs.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that in the U.S. hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) account for an estimated 1.7 million total infections and approximately 100,000 associated deaths each year. Of the 1.7 million total infections about 250,000 are CRBSIs, which are the second leading cause of death associated with HAIs, second only to pneumonia. CRBSIs develop when bacteria enter the bloodstream through improper central venous catheter maintenance and
insertion.
Dr. Michael Gropper, Director of Critical Care Medicine and Professor/Vice Chair of Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care at the University of California in San Francisco, is extremely passionate about the prevention of CRBSIs in his hospital. He would love to speak with you about what UCSF, as well as Stanford and some other Bay Area hospitals, are doing to prevent the occurrence of these infections. He can speak on the cost of these infections, and how, with preventative measures in place, UCSF has been able to bring down the incidence rate and save significant money on patient care costs.
Kind regards,
Kaileen Connelly
Racepoint Group
Waltham, MA
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)
More on SEIU-CNA Conflict; SOMA Development; Muni Fare Inspectors ...
May. 07‚ 2008
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)
Growth in SOMA; The Race Factor; Joe Nation ...
May. 06‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Paul Hogarth's column advocating opposition to more high-rises in South of Market made two fundamental false assumptions that the vast majority of people make: "Of course, growth is inevitable - and the answer is not to bring all market-rate housing to a screeching halt." Both of these claims are completely false.
First, growth is not only not inevitable, in the modern world of birth control and abortion options, it is a conscious choice. Only cancer cells have infinite growth as an M.O., growing until they consume their host and then die themselves. Constant growth will have the same effect on the human race; we will continue to consume the planet until we make it unlivable for even ourselves. While urban infill is clearly a much better option than further destroying natural land by building on open space, trying to fix overpopulation and constant population growth by refusing to directly confront those problems and instead using false solutions like urban infill will only temporarily mitigate their harms, not solve the problems. For example, urban infill can only go so far before it turns an urban area into a wasteland, an ecological sacrifice zone. The more people who are crammed into an area, the more pollution will be created and the more waste that will be needed to be disposed of, until those things, in addition to others, become untenable. The attitude we need is that there are already far too many people everywhere and that we need to greatly reduce human population through proper family planning, not that we can just cram people into cities and all will be well.
Second, why in the world would any progressive NOT want to ban all market rate housing indefinitely? Market rate housing in San Francisco just brings in more rich people, thereby driving up real estate values and driving out the people who define this City: artists, musicians, poets, radicals, and other non-conformists. It does nothing to provide housing for these people or for others who need it. Furthermore, these rich people are more conservative than average San Franciscans, and have been a big part of the "end of fun" in the City, as the Bay Guardian put it. They are also more conservative politically and, if their numbers are allowed to continue to increase, will eventually lead to a conservative Board of Supervisors, even with district elections.
As progressives and radicals, we should not accept status quo solutions or assumptions without severe scrutiny. Overpopulation and constant population growth is not inevitable and need to be directly addressed. And market rate housing should be stopped until and unless all those who need affordable housing are taken care of and the non-conformists in this city all have a place to live.
Jeff Hoffman
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Of all the shockers in this astonishing campaign, most unbelievable is the Clintons' trainwreck with Afro-African voters. And that Bill Clinton's own incompetent, race-insensitive gaffes would compound the wreckage. Or that Bill would finally blame Obama for playing the race card!
Hillary and Bill are managing to lose 90% of the most loyal Democratic voting block -- despite countless blacks starting as big Obama skeptics, assuming race would do him in. The Miracle of '08 so far: race didn't and hasn't trumped Obama. I take heart the media-revved farce starring Rev. Wright -- feeding so many fears and stereotypes -- has not truly injured Obama, whose daily Gallup poll lead among Democrats today is 12 pts, 50-38, well up from last week.
Obviously, enough white voters -- taken in for years on the war, terrorism, taxes, and torture -- have become more color-blind, endorsing Obama's unique, genetic rainbow, his candidacy or positions. That the focus moved from race in one week to how Obama talks to regular (white, working class) folks relishing beer and bowling is a remarkable turnabout.
I am speechless -- and bemused -- at the wealthy, ruling class Clintons fabricating their image as just folks while castigating the much poorer, minority Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. A privileged president vs. a modest community organizer from the southside of Chicago, the ultimate working class town?
Let us give thanks for the Miracle of Obama so far: he's the favorite to win the nomination and, with John McCain self-destructing weekly, we will have our first, not wholly white president not owned by the Washington establishments, and with an African name.
That marvel would help rewrite the racial realities you address. Who would have guessed six months ago? Certainly not Hillary Clinton, transformed from the well-funded, well-heeled, virtual shoo-in to a caricature of the desperate, pandering politician ready to wipe out gas taxes or auction off the White House if it meant her winning.
We will learn more about Obama but what stands out is what we've learned about the Clintons -- for me much of it ain't pretty, nor an omen for better politics.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
To the Editor:
Criticizing Joe Nation for AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, what was arguably one of the first global warming initiatives on a state level, is ludicrous.
And anyone who lives in the Marin or Sonoma County is well-aware of the work being done on Highway 101, including adding lanes.
Joe also believes, unlike Mark Leno, that Indian casinos can be addressed at the state level, and he intends to do so.
I can tell you that from a Sonoma County perspective, one of the best things Joe Nation has going for him is that he's from the North Bay. I for one am tired of San Francisco politicians, who make sure that SF is taken care of, while all we get up here is the fuzzy side of the lollipop.
Pete Jackson
Santa Rosa, CA
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)
Leno-Migden; The Truth About Ohio ...
May. 05‚ 2008
Dear Randy,
Regarding your article "Bay Guardian Backs Leno, Landlords Move to Joe Nation," don't you think Mark Leno deserves equal time here? I'm sure you can find some mistakes made by him as well because he is, after all, human.
And Carole Migden probably would not have endured as much political damage if Assemblyman Leno hadn't tried to unseat a progressive incumbent. Let's play fair here.
Respectfully,
Terrrie Frye
To the Editor:
Apparently not content with having sabotaged a union election for me and 8,000 of my co-workers in Ohio, now the California Nurses Association (CNA) is spreading one fiction after another in an effort to justify its unjustifiable actions.
When I saw what the CNA had written in the April 25th edition of Beyond Chron, I was dumbfounded. According to the CNA, Catholic Healthcare Partners (CHP) was "in talks with both the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Faced with this choice, Catholic Healthcare Partners dropped talks with the AFL-CIO, and made a back-room deal for a snap election with SEIU."
Really? Could anyone at the AFL-CIO or CHP corroborate this? Because I can't. I was involved in a campaign with SEIU for three and a half years leading up to this election, and I never saw hide nor hair of the AFL-CIO.
This latest fantasy, of course, builds on CNA's fabrications about a "back room deal" between CHP and its so-called "hand-picked" union, SEIU. Over time, the stories have become bolder and more embellished. The CNA claims, for example, that we CHP nurses and our fellow hospital workers didn't want to join SEIU, that the elections were canceled due to lack of interest on our part, and that the agreement between SEIU and CHP forbade employees from discussing the union and the election.
If this latter claim were true, nobody bothered to tell us. My co-workers and I were talking amongst ourselves, debating the pros and cons.
The notion that SEIU was a company union is even more absurd. CHP did not, and does not, want their employees to form a union—any union. And I should know. In my 30 years as an RN at St. Rita's Medical Center in Lima, I have seen two other union drives in my hospital that were defeated because of management’s opposition.
This time, however, it wasn’t my employer who stopped us. It was another union.
We worked with SEIU organizers for years to win a free and fair process. It was only as a result of our hard work and the significant public backing we earned that CHP agreed to fair ground rules for an election. At the end of the day, I wanted a chance to join the union that had stood by us from the beginning. That union was SEIU.
Days before the vote we had fought so hard to secure, dozens of CNA organizers landed in our hospitals with the most vicious and misleading union-busting campaign. Of course we had to postpone the elections—not because of lack of interest among my co-workers, but because of the fear and doubts created by the CNA’s hostile anti-union propaganda.
We did not spend years fighting for the chance to make a decision based on facts and honest discourse, only to have aggressive CNA organizers storm our hospitals with dishonest and intimidating material urging us to vote no.
Only the true masters of distortion at the CNA could claim that what they did to us in Ohio—and what they are doing now to raid hospitals in California, Nevada, and other states—is somehow rescuing the nation's workers from "all employers looking to hand-pick a union." As far as I know, this isn’t exactly a big problem, and it certainly wasn’t what CHP did in Ohio.
Fortunately, most people of sound mind recognize the CNA's actions for what they really are: union-busting, pure and simple.
As for the CNA’s claims that they're building a "progressive, democratic, feminist social movement trade union"—well, all I know is that today, because of their actions, I still have no union.
Pam Longlott, RN
St. Rita’s Medical Center
Lima, Ohio
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)
Jeremiah Wright ...
May. 01‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Hold on, Rochelle Metcalfe ("I heard that" -- Black on Black Violence") -- has Rev. Wright truly "killed Obama’s chances for the nomination"? Wright, whatever his angry motivation, is only one (increasingly played out) actor in this week's campaign melodrama. Hillary Clinton still needs a miracle to backdoor the Democratic nomination.
Let's not assume this predictable onslaught from a media already obsessed with race -- pushing high TV ratings, challenging a frontrunner, and relishing the nexus of personal drama with political expediency -- ends Obama's nomination. This lowest-denomination modern circus can't resist sizzling reality political theatre, with new episodes weekly.
Painfully, we learn Wright sounds uncomfortably close to soundbites Obama said misrepresented his pastor's views, raising issues how a candidate so committed to unifying cultures remained oblivious to intemperate preachings in his own church.
And yet, when all is said and done, as bizarre and provocative is Wright's grandstanding, he doesn't undermine our Constitution or civil rights, nor insult entire groups (like Muslims) a President Obama must address. Contrast: when John McCain embraces Rev. Hagee, who reduces American history to a battle between fundamentalist Christians vs. Islamic enemies, the GOP candidate fuels world-wide distrust that feeds terrorism and makes us less safe.
Far more dangerous than Wright to our tarnished reputation or national academic (and thus economic) standards is the torrent of right-wing propaganda equating abortion with murder, denouncing gay rights, distorting Darwinian science, denying global warming (whatever the cause), defending torture and suspension of habeas corpus, suppressing voting by minorities, and disrupting our classic balance of powers.
Wright may be bad news for Obama, but compare his impact to the discredited president in the White House, whose arrogant belligerence in fact killed thousands of unarmed civilians, or entrenched right-wing government officials daily denying human rights, removing environmental protections, or violating clear divisions between state and religion, as with the $1.3 squandered on ineffective "abstinence-only" programs and on and on.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
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)
Obama's Switch; Newsom Running for Governor ...
Apr. 30‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Paul Hogarth's column about Barack Obama going on Fox "News" repeatedly mentioned that Obama has not changed his positions in order to be electable, unlike Hillary Clinton. This is not true. Obama used to support the Palestinian cause, but he switched to supporting Israel once he seriously thought about running for president, because of the huge propaganda machine he would be up against if he continued to support the Palestinians.
This is not to say that Clinton did not switch positions more often or more blatantly. But please don't attempt to delude readers into thinking that Obama is any more than a politician, because he's not. To highlight another example, while Obama runs on his opposition to the Iraq war, the fact is that he will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, will continue the immoral war against Afghanistan, wants to attack Pakistan, and wants to add 100,000 troops to the U.S. military, all instead of reigning in U.S. imperialism, which would be a real anti-war position.
I realize that Mr. Hogarth is an Obama supporter, but he should stick to the facts and tell the truth. It does progressive issues no good in the long run to ignore Obama's deficiencies, even though he seems to be the least inimical to those issues.
Jeff Hoffman
San Francisco
To the Editor:
You forgot to mention Lt. Governor John Garamendi and Treasurer Bill Lockyer as potential candidates for Governor in 2010. Both are far more qualified than the Gavster.
Adam Scow
Randy:
I saw your article about Newsom's possible run for Governor and his supposed 'green' record.
Unfortunately, the Mayor's green image is a total illusion. Mayor Newsom has deep ties to PG&E, and nearly every one of those 'environmental' press announcements and events that you mention were tied to PG&E funding and/or direct involvement.
Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Our City had to gather thousands of hand written constituent letters to get Newsom to only reluctantly come on board to support the -real- clean energy program in San Francisco, the Community Choice renewable energy project. And on the day last June that the Board of Supervisors passed Community Choice, that morning the Mayor and PG&E held a joint press conference to announce a fake tidal power project that they knew would never happen. That press conference and its hi-tech animated video news release, completely stole the press that day from Community Choice. PG&E hates Community Choice and is actively working to kill it all over the state because it threatens to completely replace PG&E's power monopoly with a truly green public power network.
On solar specifically, the Mayor has created an equally illusory program which, over the next decade, will replace less than 2% of San Francisco's fossil fuel electricity with subsidized private solar installations, and which will gain the City no renewable energy revenues or savings whatsoever, all while costing taxpayers over 100 million dollars. (Community Choice will replace 50% of San Francisco's fossil fuel electricity with renewables in that same decade, and at no added cost to either taxpayers or ratepayers.)
The sham group 'Vote Solar', which is the strongest promoter of the Mayor's faux solar energy program, gets corporate donations from PG&E, Chevron, BP, and Edison.
Eric Brooks
San Francisco Green Party
Sustainability Working Group
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)
Prop 98 Supporters; Carole Migden and Skyline; Obama and Indiana ...
Apr. 29‚ 2008
Dear Paul Hogarth:
I was surprised to see you slamming Proposition 98 in the same column where you discuss Hunters Point. Wow. Those folks are being displaced twice. Under 98, they would never have that fear again. Major developers - and yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger too - are opposing us. But I thought we might have a shot with the progressives. Guess not.
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
To the Editor:
A previous article written by Larry Gross titled Landlords Funding Prop 98 Have History of Mistreating Tenants is ludacrist! Either this guy is severely misinformed, is intentionally twisting the truth or his political career is going to be questioned for causing panic with his ridiculous statements and misguided allocations.
First of all, let me say that I am a rent-paying tenant and I respect and admire my landlord and the difficulties she incurs. I have witnessed nightmares with deadbeat tenants and the horrific and costly episodes that comes with them. And ... my landlord is a kind and generous person - her rent controlled units are considerably below market - as are her asking prices on de-controlled vacancies. Not ALL landlords mistreat tenants just as not all tenants mistreat landlords. I am also in favor of Prop 98.
Landlords funding Prop 98 just want their property rights back that people like Mr. Gross have stolen from them. Now, he accuses these very owners of mistreating tenants? Please. Tell Mr. Gross to go take a look at some of the City's rental properties - those are the very ones that should be condemned!
Mr. Gross has grossly misled the public to believe that Prop 98 will displace tenants, raise their rents and leave them homeless in the streets. These are blatant lies. Has he not read this measure? Has he not caused panic in the media with every "under-market rent-paying" tenant with his untruths and attack on property owners?
Prop 98 WILL NOT displace renters. Prop 98 WILL NOT allow owners under rent control to raise rents, if passed. Prop 98 will still PROTECT CURRENT RENTERS who are under rent control. It is only when those tenants voluntarily move out that the unit becomes non-controlled, as they should in the American system of free enterprise.
Shame on Larry Gross. I've seen those deceitful ads and I've heard the lies for too long. Why doesn't he also share with everyone the fact that Prop 99 DOES NOT PROTECT ALL OWNERS against unfair eminent domain? There are owner restrictions placed on that one as, if passed, would still allow the city to take property from owners unfairly in certain situations. Perhaps he should read and study up on that measure as well.
Vote Yes on 98! It's the only American thing to do.
Patricia A. Harris
Regional Manager, San Fernando Valley
Apartment Owners Association (AOA)
To the Editor:
Last fall, the San Francisco Apartment Association gave two awards to CitiApartments: one for property management firm of the year and for one of their buildings as "best repositioned property."
That the SFAA would give these awards to Skyline/CitiApartments is understandable. After all, CitiApartments was a "Golden Gate Sponsor" of the Trophy Awards event at the Palace Hotel - along with Trinity Management Services, Villas at Park Merced, Gavin Goombs Rental Radar, and Sunset Scavengers (this last one, presumably, to pick up all the rhetorical trash at the event.) In a sense, Skyline/CitiApartments paid for their own event to pat themselves on the back. The mafia often operates under legitimate businessman's associations.
For some reason, however, State Senator Carole Migden decided to use Senate time and resources to honor Skyline/CitiApartments for both of these dubious and self-congratulatory awards. There are two framed announcements proudly displayed behind the reception desk at 2099 Market Street.
Deeply concerned about Migden's honors, I emailed her through her website on March 28. In that email, I outlined the major, well-documented problems with Skyline/CitiApartments as a landlord. I summarized both the general complaints and my personal involvement with them as a friend and caretaker to a disabled woman who was one of their tenants for several years. I also included details about Skyline's removal of the ADA-compliant wheelchair ramp at 2099 Market Street and the blocked secondary egress at 675 O'Farrell Street. (I have also contacted - apparently in vain - the SF DBI on these two matters.) My email promised a follow-up letter, which I sent on April 4.
Having not received a reply either to my email or my letter, last Friday I called Migden's San Francisco office. The woman I spoke with at length, Frances Hsieh, could not explain why I had not heard back and asked me to email her my letter. I did that and, as of today, I still have not received even a courtesy acknowledgment from a responsible party.
As a concerned constituent, I am obviously not of any value to a Democratic Senator facing a contested primary. Migden or her office clearly do not want to address this issue with me. Perhaps, then, you might have more success asking her: 1) why she gave Skyline/CitiApartments these awards; 2) if she actually approves of their management style; and, 3) if so, how she justifies that in light of her ostensible pro-renter positions.
In advance of the upcoming primary, the thousands of tenants in Skyline/CitiApartments buildings would be well-served having explanations of Migden's actions. I think, too, that all of her constituents, as well as her colleagues in the State Senate, would appreciate finding out why Senator Migden is in bed with the mob.
Sincerely,
Scott Bravmann
To the Editor:
I read the Paul Hogarth article and it is clear that Obama supporters may be in for a rude awakening. Obama may not be the nominee when it is all said and done. Obama support is slipping and he is looking more unelectable every day especially with Rev. Wright touring all over the place scaring people with his fiery Black Liberation Theology.
Further calling Hillary Clinton's win a false claim is simply sour grapes. The media acknowledges that the win was a double digit win whether it was 9.35 or 10.0 it came close enough to do the damage to Obama's electability and Obama lost in 67 counties in Pennsylvania by huge margins.
It will be an ugly day when the nomination is announced no matter who wins, but I worry that if Obama is not the nominee that the radical left will not be able to accept defeat and take the the streets with fists raised. Is that the America we want, radical, left, activists willing to burn down the country because Obambi got knocked off his high horse.
Hogarth is entitled to his opinion, but he's not correct in asking the media to declare a winner prematurely. Things can change very quickly in politics and there is a possibility of an upset in North Carolina or Indiana. We'll just have to wait and see. Until then Obama is just the other candidate who won't have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination either.
Alex Oliver
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)
Pennsylvania Primary ...
Apr. 24‚ 2008
Dear BeyondChron,
I disagree with Paul Hogarth's view on Hillary's last stand in Pennsylvania. I would say her small net gain in delegates from this primary is less significant than (a) the perception that she has won and can win in November the big states (California, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania), (b) the perception that Obama is weak among white, working-class voters (men and women), and (c) the potential effectiveness of a&b in persuading superdelegates to go for Clinton and the old Democratic coalition and (d) all of the above resulting in an Obama stall at the convention. My other observation is that if California had kept its old June presidential date we would've been the last stop and the real last stand in the primary electoral trail this year. Our impact might have been decisive.
Chris Chow
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Bravo, Bravo, for the story from Paul Hogarth "Re: Hillary Clinton's Last Stand." Living in Australia, I was thinking there mustn't be anyone left in America with any fair and just reporting sense. After viewing Fox News reports day in and day out with constant biased Obama bashing, how refreshing it is to at least see some responsible reporting of the facts as they really are.
Can't believe a leading country i.e. America could have such a stuffed up election process anyway (Florida-Michigan etc) and the silly Super Delegate System. Thank You for a responsible, intelligent, informative comment on the "REAL DEAL."
Ronny Pullen
New South Wales, Australia.
To the Editor:
If reason or logic were self-evident, let alone obvious, few could fault Paul Hogarth's lucid finale: Pennsylvania results "didn’t change anything . . . [nor] alter the outcome of the nomination, because that conclusion has already been reached. And now it’s up to her supporters to acknowledge the obvious."
Alas, as Hillary-fan Maggie Layne testifies, the "obvious" for the outraged and put-upon is less about winning I think than not losing, not being disrespected, not ever again getting bashed. Your analysis falls by the wayside, disagreements reduced to absurd "garbage." Clearly Layne's "obvious" links to her sense of victimization: Hillary had no choice, tellingly identified as "a woman" (duh? --- the most famous presidential wife), who just had to go belligerent to present all those "stories the media refuses to put out."
Are we not being asked to confuse the major league basher with the gentlemanly bashee? Obama faces no scrutiny while Saint Hillary is assaulted -- here by that giant media bully, Beyond Chron, for either 1) nasty bashing, or 2) making Hillary even nastier, or 3) helping her get the nomination. Puts you in good company, alongside Hillary helpers: "Thank God," Layne exclaims, the ABC debate finally started asking "tough questions."
Thank God indeed, for here is faith alone, not facts, determining what is true, moreover morally suspect by justifying their noble end justifies any means, however nasty or insulting to our free speech. I suspect delusion rules: Hillary isn't really behind, that's just biased media fabrication: these folks are mystified that politics is so hard, that it is impossible their candidate is flawed and won't win.
So many of these letters make it hard to know which non-thinkers are more dangerous, the ideological GOP fundamentalist or ideological Democratic fanatic. Here, for those curious how it works, is the kind of distraught Hillary fan so upset about getting constantly bashed John McCain looks good.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
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)
Pothole Story; SEIU-CNA Fight; Pennsylvania Prediction; More Clinton Supporters Strike Back ...
Apr. 23‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Thanks for the great article on the pothole stencilling project of last Saturday. Daniel Powell was right there through the whole event and clearly captured the spirit and purpose of the volunteer bikers in his report. With BeyondChron's help, SF streets hopefully will become safer and easier on the bikers and bikes!
Michael Helquist
To the Editor:
I can't believe you printed a hit piece from the SEIU against the California Nurses Association. The CNA is one of the most progressive unions in the country, and the SEIU, in direct and stark contrast, is a pro-corporate, top down union that supports right wing companies like Wal-Mart. Andy Stern and his minions in the SEIU have been feuding with the CNA lately, and this hit piece is obviously a part of that feud.
I have no idea whether the factual claims in the hit piece are true and/or correct, but that's not the point. It is completely illegitimate to focus on details to the exclusion of the large issues. Whether the CNA actually did what Yvonne Martinez claims does not change the dynamics of this situation. If BeyondChron wants to support progressive politics, it should limit its union support to progressive unions, which the SEIU is no longer due to Andy Stern's heavy handed tactics, top down strategies, and corporate friendly policies. The CNA, on the other hand, has always supported progressive causes and operates in a grass roots manner. Shame on BeyondChron for publishing this junk!
Jeff Hoffman
San Francisco
To the Editor:
In no poll (out of more than a dozen over the last few weeks) does Barack Obama do better than 44%. Most polls put him at this number, while a few others showed him ranging as low as 41%. Assuming that Obama cannot beat 44%, Clinton will win the Pennsylvania primary with a margin of 12 percentage points winning 56% of the vote.
William Arnone
Paul,
Thanks for your recent article, "Clinton Supporters Strike Back." You really hit the nail on the head. Hillary has made no secret of the fact she enjoys negative attacks and slime politics. With our country is such bad shape due to the Republicans, it's even harder to take what will come to be known as the "kitchen sink" political strategy. By embracing neocon tactics, Hillary has disqualified herself from the presidential race. Now she needs to buy a clue and withdraw from the race.
Regards,
Steve Arnold
Mountain View, CA
Dear Editor,
It is absurd that a person can write an article about a woman, Hillary Clinton, who is campaigning for the Democratic Nomination for President that is so horribly nasty, while having the gall to call her campaign tactics nasty and even more absurd, that as the editor, you would publish the trash. Americans who are voting for Hillary Clinton are glad to see her get nasty and articles like Mr. Hogarth's is the very reason why she has had to do this. We not only understand why she is doing this and forgive her for it but we condone it as well. And here is why: Barack Obama has had the backing of the media from the very beginning while Hillary Clinton has had to tolerate so much bashing from people like Hogarth that it is incredible.
Thanks for your help in getting her the nomination-you may not realize it but you are helping her because most of us are sick of the way she has been treated while giving Obama a free ride. Thank God that the ABC debates finally started asking Obama the tough questions. And by the way, you can also thank guys like Hogarth and newspapers like yours that publish his garbage, for making the Clinton campaign run the ads that she has to run-it's to get out the stories that the media refuses to put out about their favorite candidate! Somebody has to do it and we certainly have not been able to depend on the media to tell us the truth!
Maggie Layne
Medina, Ohio
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)
Clinton Attack Machine; McCain-Clinton? ...
Apr. 22‚ 2008
To Paul Hogarth:
I googled your Hillary Clinton letters, and of the sample I searched, each turned up mid- to high-level Clinton donors. I'm guessing your 4/17 column got passed around some email newsletter, and that Clinton is trying to get grass-roots in her campaign's dying days.
Most of those emails were completely on Clinton's message - Obama's not electable, he's too liberal, be wary of the skeletons in his closet, etc. I really wish Clinton would either get out of the Democratic boat or at least stop poking holes in it. Great work.
Yes we can,
Ian Hart
To the Editor:
I honor you for printing so much hate mail, though half would have sufficed. Note the eerie similarities -- angry harshness, extreme defensiveness, racist overtones, and repeated character attacks -- typical of an organized political hate machine. Equally telling is zero in-depth political analysis, even passing nods to unarguable facts about electability: Obama's consistent leads (today by 7%) in national Gallup Democratic polling plus all meaningful primary measurements: popular vote, number of states, campaign donors, total fundraising, and pledged delegates.
Further, observe total oblivion about Hillary's high negatives, or her dreadfully-managed campaign, or well-publicized "kitchen sink" strategy that going negative was her only hope (however backfiring). She is the saint throughout and Obama the unelectable sinner. Notable by omission: zero acknowledgment the two Democrats agree 98% of the time on policy.
I suspect dirty tricks, even Limbaugh-style sabotage (with Rove-like talking points) to punish Obama, seasoned with nasty attacks on you, right to free speech, gender, and inflated impact (as if little ol' Beyond Chron causes major campaign divisiveness or commands scores of primary voters). You are hardly the loudest voice arguing Hillary should leave, thus I sense fake outrage here, especially considering the unusual out of state geographic origins.
I think Beyond Chron has been Swift-boated by those wanting the more vulnerable Hillary in the General Election and/or to besmirch Obama's chances. After eight years of the worst GOP rule, what loyal Democrat or true Hillary supporter would attack Obama so viciously while questioning your right to speak, all the while leaving offensive John McCain untouched?
I await another deluge when such irate hordes are challenged for soiling your pages.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
Dear Editors,
Re: "McCain Running on Substance, Not 'Gotcha' Issues" and "Clinton Supporters Strike Back" (4/21/2008), it should be noted that:
(1) During the debate in Philadephia, Sen. Clinton attacked Sen. Obama regarding his serving on a board with Professor Ayers in Chicago and tried to impugn Sen. Obama's integrity based on that fact, and in the next breath, Sen. Clinton said that such attack will come from the Republicans.
(2) On April 20th, Sen. McCain attacked Sen. Obama on the same basis, and demanded that he condemn Prof. Ayers.
ABC's Charlie Gibson's co-"moderator" asked Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton whether each would serve as the other's Vice Presidential nominee. One poses this question, "Is Sen. Clinton preparing to serve as Sen. McCain's Vice Presidential nominee?"
Sincerely,
Anh Le
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)
May. 06, 2008 -- Chronicle Publishes “Yes on 98” Cartoon
May. 06, 2008 -- Turk and Hyde Lot Gets Cited!!
May. 06, 2008 -- Prop 98 Boxes Us In
May. 06, 2008 -- Germs 'R Us
May. 06, 2008 -- Growth in SOMA; The Race Factor; Joe Nation ...
May. 05, 2008 -- Lennar’s Prop G: A Vision or a Mirage?
May. 05, 2008 -- Chronicle Cheerleads Mass Luxury High-Rise Boom
May. 05, 2008 -- May Day, City of Oakland – 2008
May. 05, 2008 -- Racial Realities in the United States
May. 05, 2008 -- Leno-Migden; The Truth About Ohio ...
May. 02, 2008 -- Bay Guardian Backs Leno, Landlords Move to Joe Nation
MAIN ARTICLE ARCHIVE
Copyright © 2005-2008
Beyond
Chron.org. All rights reserved.
RSS News Feed
|
|
May 9, 2008
