Lately there has been controversy about the Muni operators’ trust fund payout. The prevailing view seems to be that it was wrong to pay us that money in today’s economic climate.
This money is supposed to be from a trust fund set up in 1968, following passage of Proposition G in November 1967. The fund was set up to reimburse us for the money we had to pay to have health coverage for our dependents, because until this July we did not have coverage for our dependents. It has never been a “bonus” and was never supposed to come out of the general fund.
Former Muni chief Nathaniel Ford was wrong in ordering this fund frozen. It is against the law for the administrators of a trust fund to take or withhold any monies. Said monies are strictly for the beneficiaries, payable on the due date.
Michael J. Benardo, TWU local 250A, San Francisco
I am a regular BART rider to and from work. It is increasingly frustrating that there are still passengers who defy BART rules of no loud music, no eating or drinking on the train and around all BART paid areas. Some passengers have no regard for people around them and they turn on their music very loud.
Similarly, there are a few passengers who eat their take-out and drink their beer on the train in plain sight. Therefore I wonder if the cameras on the trains actually record anything at all. If BART makes rules, then those rules should be enforceable.
It’s not enough making announcements before a train arrives at a station, I think it should be announced intermittently during the trips to possibly create the awareness people need.
John Tanwani, Antioch
Many thanks for your Thursday story on the Natural Areas Program management plan. I wish to correct some statements made by Sarah Ballard from the Recreation and Park Department on the following topics. She stated the plan will “not use pesticides,” which is untrue. NAP uses the greatest amount of pesticides within the department, according to the Environment Department records. She said eucalyptus trees are expendable because “they are non-native.” Yet, these trees are a large part of the urban forest that NAP was supposed to take care of for us — not cut it down to use the cleared land for installing native plants.
The plan goes way beyond the original intent of preserving the remnants of the earlier San Francisco. By removing trails, traditional off-leash areas and parts of The City’s forest, this NAP plan looks to me like an old-fashioned land grab.
Nancy Wuerfel, San Francisco
Leave it to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to once again come up with a foreign policy resolution that has absolutely nothing to do with San Francisco. Why don’t they come up with a resolution to do something about the drunken fools dressed up as Santas and trashing Washington Square Park? Or perhaps the supervisor from District 1 could do something about the Golden Gate Park concerts that most everyone in the district is opposed to. (Wait, he’s too concerned about the Happy Meals.)
Al Wong, San Francisco