? “4/20 fete will cost San Francisco plenty of green,” Local News, Friday
Chris Roberts’ extremely biased article on the costs of the fun and exuberant 4/20 celebration on Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park read like a news release from the Recreation and Park Department.
I can testify firsthand that this event is attended largely by fun-loving teens from the boring suburbs. They drive in, celebrate and then likely go out to eat and may even do some shopping. Years later, they will return with their families to events in The City, bringing in future revenues.
The event has always been congenial and amicable, and if The City wants to enlist the U.S. Park Patrol and police to try to put the chill on what is truly a “chill” event, then they should not come crying to newspaper reporters about it. The cost estimates are ludicrous, as is the unspoken assertion that people should not be walking or sitting on the grass because it might need to be reseeded at some point. People having fun spontaneously appears to be completely unacceptable to our gentrification gestapo.
I am certain that as part of his “war on fun,” Phil Ginsburg wants to end this event — just as he has done quite successfully with the defunct Power to the Peaceful Festival, the Anarchist Bookfair and other wonderful, community-building events that have been driven out by artificially high fees and regulations. The credo is unless an event or celebration either benefits or is staged by billionaires, millionaires or corporate interests, it should not be happening in our parks.
Harry S. Pariser
? “Stop condo conversions,” Letters, Opinion, Monday
Letter writer David Qrady is misinformed about condo conversions.
Multiple-unit buildings in San Francisco cannot convert to individual condominiums just because owners wish to convert. The City has created a lottery and randomly chooses only 200 buildings a year to convert to condominiums.
Tenancies in common were not created to benefit Realtors; they were created to offer middle-class families a lower-cost alternative. TICs have benefits and costs, and cannot simply be converted to condos to be sold for profit. The proposed legislation to allow current TICs to convert to condominiums does not harm renters in any way, as the proposal covers owner-occupied homes only. No renter will be evicted under this proposed legislation.
San Francisco needs more homeowners, not more renters, and the Board of Supervisors should do all it can to enable more affordable-homeownership opportunities.
Homeowners have rights
David Qrady’s letter demonstrates a major problem in San Francisco — “progressives” who do not believe in the right to own and control private property.
Where do the “progressives” get the idea that once they rent an apartment, they are entitled to be protected from inflation for life through rent control if they choose to stay? Where does the idea that housing providers who are not relatives or friends are responsible for subsidizing their lifestyles, for as long as they wish to stay in property owned by someone else, come from? Why do they think that homeownership is bad for San Francisco?
One of the founding principals of the U.S. is that people have the right to own and control private property, and use the property as they see fit, assuming they meet code and zoning regulations. It’s time that San Francisco “progressives” and the officials they elect join the rest of the people of the United States when it comes to homeownership and property rights in general.
San Francisco Republican Party