Parks story lacked both points of view 

Your Sunday cover story, “Paying for the parks,” resembled a press release from the Recreation and Park Department rather than independent journalism. For example, the article indicates the new boathouse vendor at Stow Lake will generate $50,000 a year in additional revenue. But as a member of the family that operated the boathouse for decades, I can tell you we offered a $55,000 higher minimum annual rent than the New Mexico group that has been given the new contract. That is at least $1 million lost to The City over the term of the lease.

Both bidders agreed to fully refurbish the boathouse. Also, my family’s bid agreed to provide 70 percent more boats to better serve the public.

Cal Tilden, San Francisco

Walmart discriminates

Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s Sunday op-ed is misguided in its assertion that “Walmart has been a target of trial lawyers because its employees are not unionized.”

For most people, bringing a lawsuit is gut-wrenching. Nobody would sacrifice 10 years of their life and income if they weren’t sure their employer’s practices were harming them and others. Because Walmart’s female workers are paid less than male employees, it’s harder for literally millions of families to make ends meet, or save for a child’s education or retirement.

With the Supreme Court’s sharply divided 5-4 decision, the justices sent a message to large companies: Have a documented pay policy and you’ll likely be protected from a lawsuit forcing you to change your pay practices. Meanwhile, Walmart’s women must find another way to change a broad, discriminatory company policy that impacts millions of Americans.

Roberta Guise, San Francisco

Taking away voting power

While I hardly agree with 100 percent of the initiatives The City’s voters have passed over the years, the amendment initiative being proposed by my local supervisor, Scott Wiener, would ultimately have the power to negate the voice of the electorate, no matter what “unintended consequences” are involved.

What does it mean that only “certain” initiatives would be affected by Wiener’s proposal? Who decides?

Instead of spending precious supervisor time debating toys in Happy Meals, how about some substantive discussions about tightening the ballot measure process to prevent the last-minute filing of “sloppy legislation” by a handful of rogue supervisors? Wiener’s amendment proposal would ultimately promote oligarchy.

Carol Mowbray, San Francisco

About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation