Golden Gate Park car restrictions

Opponents of the proposed Saturday closure to cars of a portion of Golden Gate Park should speak for themselves and not for the presumed scores of “elderly and disabled” who would suddenly lose access to museums (“Ban on cars in park hits roadblock,” May 3).

Probably one percent at most of the visitors is disabled. And most elderly visitors need, partake in and enjoy the exercise the park can provide far more than they enjoy the noise, congestion, pollution and danger imposed by the automobile. If access ever did become an issue for those with special needs, The City would make exceptions and probably even provide shuttles.

Opponents should also please stop claiming that the will of the voters was ignored. Some things are simply not for voters to decide. What if this same motorist-majority proposed legislation to ban pedestrians from the park? What if they came up with a measure to eliminate all parking fees? Should The City acquiesce?

John Rundin

The City

Ken Garcia decries the “one-issue, special interest” San Francisco Bicycle Coalition as “anti-car activists who simply don’t want to share.”

One issue? The SFBC has been devoted to and responsible for the following: Encouraging cycling as a viable alternative to driving, striping many city streets with safe bike lanes and awareness decals, providing free bike parking at numerous events, sponsoring an annual Bike-To-Work-Day, building the SF Bike Network, offering the public scenic bike rides of The City and the Bay Area, partnering with other socially and environmentally aware groups to improve life in The City, and many more.

Real San Franciscans want fewer cars, less pollution, alternative and healthier lifestyles to dominate our unique, scenic and narrow streets, which are not suited for the SUVs imposed upon them.

James Miller

The City

Laguna Honda measure

The Examiner’s editorial on school funding is instructive, depicting funding sold to voters for one purpose that is then diverted to other purposes by a roomful of lawyers combing through legal fine print to justify spending voters hadn’t approved (“Diverting funds burns S.F. voters,” April 27).

It’s not an isolated problem. The 1999 Laguna Honda Hospital rebuild bonds were clearly “sold” to voters by the then-Mayor and then-City Attorney, claiming Prop. A would preserve skilled nursing services for elderly and disabled San Franciscans. Those funds are also being diverted.

Prop. A sent a clear message to City Hall that San Franciscans want Laguna Honda preserved for rapidly aging senior and disabled citizens. Violating the will of Prop. A voters guarantees they’ll reject a San Francisco General Hospital rebuild bond measure.

Patrick Monette-Shaw

The City

Bush on hydrogen

President Bush’s recent touting of hydrogen demonstrates three things: He does not understand energy physics, national energy policy or the economy.

First, hydrogen is energy and not fuel. It is not only highly dangerous but also difficult to contain and, if it escapes, causes great environmental damage.

Second, through conservation and renewable energies we can immediately achieve vastly more than the meager future potential of hydrogen. As a simple example, if everyone drove a Toyota Prius we could utterly cease all middle eastern oil imports, which would also have profound positive foreign policy effects.

Third, our economy is being destroyed — as well as our environment, climate and health — by fossil-fuel imports. Yet, hydrogen will actually require increased fuel imports for conversion or electrical production.

By contrast, conservation employs Americans in every branch of the economy, and keeps our money here.

Jason Jungreis

The City

China’s example

Andrew Carnegie, widely portrayed in our history books as an exploitative capitalist and robber baron, could produce three times as much steel annually at his Homestead Works, with 4,000 men, as could be produced by 15,000 workers at Germany’s Krupps Steel. Such efficiency greatly reduced the cost of product, and brought increasing wealth into American society.

Today, the Chinese are performing similar miracles, and Americans are buying the product.

We would be smart to follow the German example of Carnegie’s time — copy the efficiency and stay in business. Name-calling doesn’t produce wealth, nor does government looting.

Paul Burton

San Francisco