San Francisco officials ignore residents’ needs 

Thanks for Ken Garcia’s Sunday column about the destructive impact of San Francisco politics on The City’s families. I agree that the Board of Supervisors continues to pass laws that discriminate against productive local people, and families are the biggest victims of this agenda.

Our “leaders” behave like fanatic crusaders preaching poverty as some kind of a moral ideal we should all strive for. They hate business (big and small) and wish to transform San Francisco into their vision of a utopian paradise where commerce and for-profit institutions have no place.

They forget to ask themselves whose earnings will provide for the homeless, the old and the unable in their “nonprofit” heaven. I grew up in such a paradise — communist Poland. And believe me, it was no paradise.

Agnieszka Bernstein, San Francisco

Leave the leaves be

I have never understood the tolerance for leaf blowers in an area that is supposedly smart and aware of threats to people’s health and the environment. I stand in amazement, watching little bits of nothing being blown off parking lots, driveways, gutters and the like. The air is filled with dirt and debris and the gas smell is obnoxious. Even the electric ones blow particles in the air and are noisy.

What is the point? Do we really need our yards perfectly manicured? And your Sunday article gave many more inches of space to the tired excuses of the Bay Area Gardeners Association than to the facts from the American Lung Association.

C. A. Kennedy, Menlo Park

Walmart case not over

Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s June 26 op-ed, “Lawyers’ war on Walmart,” missed the point. The U.S. Supreme Court decided “there was no proof” Walmart discriminated against the plaintiffs, but it did not address the substance of the underlying sex-discrimination claims.

This decision left open the possibility that women might be able to sue as storewide or regional classes, where it will be easier to demonstrate that they were affected by common issues.

The author opined without basis that plaintiffs Betty Dukes and Edith Arana did not have meritorious claim because they faced adverse actions after complaining of unfair treatment, but the evidence shows a long campaign of retaliation by Walmart against these women, rather than misconduct.

Arcelia Hurtado, Executive director Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco

About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It
Favorite

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2015 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation