I am writing to express my disgust at how the Board of Supervisors is totally destroying The City with its counterproductive behavior. All I hear about is how supervisors want to raise all sorts of fees (taxes) and they don’t care who is opposed to it. They think they know what’s best for The City, but really they do not.
If the supervisors actually thought about it, reducing or eliminating fees and inviting business instead of saying “no” all the time might actually reverse this horrible trend of huge deficits and the lack of jobs. Let’s give people a reason to come here instead of leaving.
Edmund Lee, San Francisco
Water bond will hurt state
I applaud the governor’s proposal to remove the $11.1 billion water bond from the November ballot. Regardless of the merits or demerits of this bond measure, California is now in a budget crisis and cannot afford it.
If passed by the voters, the bond would ultimately cost taxpayers $22 billion when interest is included. Until California’s fiscal house is put in order — or at least until a fiscally sound budget passes — the prudent course is to avoid taking on new debt, even for seemingly worthy projects.
The bond would pay for a much-needed overhaul of California’s aging and overburdened water system. However, groups like the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition on Water and Food and Water Watch are among those opposing it because they believe that it is bad water policy.
Ralph E. Stone, San Francisco
Riots are inevitable
Oakland residents are worried there may be rioting when the Johannes Mehserle verdict is decided. People in Los Angeles rioted when the Lakers won. People also riot when their team loses. There will be rioting regardless of the Mehserle verdict. Every city seems to have an element that will take any opportunity to misbehave. So Oakland better prepare. It’s going to happen.
D.A. Dougan, San Francisco
No immigration reform
While in Ecuador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made news by revealing that the Obama administration will sue Arizona over its law that enforces federal immigration law at the state level. Clinton said, “The federal government should be determining immigration policy.”
The notion that immigration policy should be handled at the federal level sounds unassailable. But how does the Obama administration justify opposing Arizona’s law when it has never lifted a finger to oppose “sanctuary city” laws that prohibit city employees from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement with immigration investigations or arrests?
The Obama administration discourages immigration law compliance and encourages deliberate subversion of federal immigration policy.
Jim Hartman, Berkeley