Letters from our Readers: Micromanaging evictions impacts rental openings 

If housing is a right that every property owner should be compelled to provide without cost or impediment, why isn’t food a similar right? Shouldn’t Safeway and Trader Joe’s simply be in the business of giving food away for free?

In the rest of America, renters have eviction protection. It is defined in their lease; what will get you evicted if you do it. Mature adults sign leases they can live with because they are responsible for their commitments. Don’t sign the lease if you don’t like the terms. Only in the People’s Republic of San Francisco do politicians feel they need to intercede in a binding contract between two parties, favoring one party at the expense of the other.

As many testified at the Land Use Committee hearing, extending eviction micromanagement into post-1979 construction would have a devastating effect on availability of rental properties for decades to come.

Ted Loewenberg, San Francisco

War about freedom, safety

The only resemblance between our conflicts in Afghanistan and Vietnam will be if we cut and run, leaving the oppressed to fend for themselves. We need to wake up and understand that Afghanistan is neither Bush’s war nor Obama’s war — it’s our war. This is democracy’s and freedom’s war, and it will certainly know no international boundaries — killing millions of innocent people worldwide — if America and our allies cut and run. This war is not about Afghanistan; it’s about innocent women and children being able to board airliners and trains without fear of some fanatical murderer blowing them to pieces.

Barry Bradley, San Francisco

Bombing a way to peace?

The president sounds so compassionate about having to add more troops to an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. One feels sorry for his need to kill more innocents, including our own soldiers. Bringing democracy at the point of a gun is a hard task. Our troops need to destroy infrastructures, bomb indiscriminately and raid into people’s homes. We all know this is the only way to peace.

Denise D’Anne, San Francisco

No boost in school police

Your Nov. 27 story, “Increasing police presence on campuses questioned,” was factually incorrect. The $40,000 referenced is part of a $500,000 School Community Violence Prevention grant from the California Department of Education. It was awarded to San Francisco Unified School District in 2007 to increase safety, create a positive school climate and coordinate services for students affected by violence at the middle-school level.

The administrators at each participating school are aware of the required grant components. One requirement is collaboration with local police. The San Francisco schools contract with the Police Department to maintain school resource-officer presence in schools. To clarify, this is not “boosting” police presence; this is maintaining the presence of the school resource-officer which began in 2007 as part of the state-awarded grant.

Ilsa Bertolini, Student Support Services Department, San Francisco Unified School District

About The Author

Staff Report

Staff Report

Bio:
A daily newspaper covering San Francisco, San Mateo County and serving Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara counties.
Pin It
Favorite

Speaking of...

More by Staff Report

Latest in Letters to the Editor

Sunday, Feb 18, 2018

Videos

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation