Jealousy won’t halt Santa Clara stadium 

Your lead paragraph concerning the Santa Clara stadium project (Editorial, “Niners sacked Santa Clara with bad stadium deal,” Friday) is effective, as it encapsulates your attitude about the project in one key principle — jealousy.

“That’s what you get, Santa Clara,” is hardly an unbiased analysis. The deal did not unravel in June 2010, and the complexity of the financing is based on the key point that no general fund money will be used for the stadium.

As for the deal falling apart, I suppose the construction work for the stadium could always be tweaked to construct the world’s largest pizza restaurant.

I do think the stadium is going to be built in Santa Clara. I know the throwaway newspapers are angry, and I know some people are mad enough to engage in childish antics directed at stadium supporters, but at the end of the day, the bridges got built, the Moscone Center was completed, men got to the moon and the Santa Clara stadium will open in 2014.

James Rowen
Santa Clara

Blame Sutter, not CPMC

I find it disingenuous to continue blaming California Pacific Medical Center in the controversy over the terms of the seismic upgrade project. The real architect behind this shell game is Sutter Health.

This “nonprofit” organization has multiple CEOs making million-dollar salaries. Reviewing Marin General Hospital’s struggle to extricate itself from their grip is instructive.

For example, a July 30, 2010, editorial in the North Bay Business Journal reported the following: Between 2002 and ’09, Sutter moved a combined $648 million out of Marin General and CPMC. Sutter justified this by stating that it was company policy to “move dollars from one entity to another based on need.” It should therefore be
normal practice to subsidize St. Luke’s, if necessary, by moving funds from its more profitable operations.

Follow the money.

Patrick Monk
San Francisco

Don’t allow drivers to text

When I heard state lawmakers are going to allow texting while driving  with the use of a hands-free device, I had to do a double take. This is a very terrible idea!

It almost contradicts the spirit of the law that was passed in 2009, which said people should not text at all behind the wheel because it is distracted driving.

Composing a text message requires thought and attention that is better utilized by paying attention to what’s on the road. In all cases where I’ve seen people looking down at their electronic devices, they’re not aware of what’s going on around them. They sit at green lights for almost 10 seconds longer than necessary when they should be driving. Doing it on the freeway is even more dangerous because of the increased possibility of being involved in an accident of their own creation.

They should rescind this piece of legislation allowing people to text while driving, and have people pay attention to the road. Otherwise, what’s the point of all the public-service announcements and billboard ads advising against texting while driving?

Edmund Lee
San Francisco

Fess up, ‘Omitt’ Romney  

Perhaps Mitt Romney should call himself “Omitt,” as he seems to be leaving out many crucial details about his life and business dealings, especially related to Bain Capital and his tax returns.

Kenneth L. Zimmerman
Huntington Beach

About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It

Speaking of...

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2019 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation