Redevelopment funding used to serve agendas 

Eliminating state redevelopment funding may seem a drastic move, but to assume that local politicians have been promoting economic development in San Francisco is a cruel joke.

Instead of promoting jobs, housing and tax revenue for The City, our politicians have done everything in their power to interfere with business and turn more land over to tax-exempt, nonprofit developers and organizations that they control.

The San Francisco Controller’s Office of Economic Analysis determined in 2008 that the eastern neighborhoods rezoning plan would reduce property values by almost $6 billion and result in a loss of 100,000 good-paying high-tech jobs in order to preserve 16,000 low-skill jobs.

The land-use plan was designed to “land-bank” huge swaths of commercial property for tax-exempt government housing in the future.

Judy West, San Francisco

Traffic will become worse

Recent ads by Cargill claim that developing the Redwood City salt ponds will reduce traffic and air pollution because fewer workers will need to commute into Redwood City. That’s nonsense. More people residing in Redwood City doesn’t equate to less traffic. As in any community, some will work close by and others will not.

Some will use public transportation, most will drive.

We already have traffic overload on the Peninsula. Adding30,000 more residents east of U.S. Highway 101 can only worsen it.

Ramona Ambrozic, Redwood City

Unpleasant life in SF

After reading the Friday front-page San Francisco Examiner story, I just wondered what difference does it make whether a bicycle has brakes or not? Cyclists don’t stop anyway. They are a self-important part of the ever-increasing throng of entitled San Franciscans who make this a frustrating and unsafe place to live and visit.

Carl Hoffman, San Francisco

Register your dogs

Yes, it is a good idea to require professional dog walkers to be licensed, as reported in the Feb. 18 San Francisco Examiner. To raise even more revenue for The City, why not also insist that all dogs be licensed as the law requires? Only 12,000 are licensed, while various dog-advocate groups and city agencies “guess-timate” that San Francisco has more than 100,000 dogs.

Let us require all dog owners to follow the law to license and vaccinate their dogs. That would be a nice income boost for The City and would give us real numbers to work with when we try to gauge the need for dog-run areas.
One license equals one vote for dog owners; no license equals no voice.

Peter Vaernet, San Francisco

About The Author

Examiner Readers

Pin It

More by Examiner Readers

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2019 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation