The park and public opinion

In his letter supporting the closure of a portion Golden Gate Park on Saturdays (Opinion, May 9), John Rundin states that “some things are not for the voters to decide.”

This was referring to the fact that the idea for closure has already been voted down not once, but twice. Mr. Rundin seems to be acknowledging that a majority of San Franciscans don’t want their park closed on Saturdays.

I think his viewpoint would be much more appropriate for the Beijing authorities — they more closely share his view about the inconvenience of public sentiment that doesn’t mirror their own.

I hate it when someone tries to tell me his opinion is more important than mine because he knows that the court of public opinion doesn’t support his specialness.

John Dillon

San Bruno

Boosting city work force

It is bizarre that after several years of city layoffs and hiring freezes, Mayor Newsom wants to begin another ill-fated hiring boom (“Newsom hangs up ‘Help Wanted’ sign,” May 9). San Francisco already has the highest employee-to-citizen ratio of any major U.S. city, and yet the potholes are still there, the streets are still dirty and many services are still sorely lacking.

Until Mayor Newsom, DHR and the Civil Service Commission get serious about civil service reform, more employees simply add to the inefficiencies in most city departments. When San Francisco had nearly 30,000 employees before, many services were still poor, so it is unlikely that manpower alone will improve them.

Mayor Newsom needs to do more than pay lip service to reform — he needs to understand how large and unwieldy the city bureaucracy has become. There is no good reason to hire for the sake of hiring until fundamental structural changes are made first.

David Latterman

The City

City debt policies

Rich Bodisco is to be applauded for his letter on city debt (May 8). A positive first step would be to rescind 2002 Proposition E, which stripped the voters of San Francisco of their historical right to control the issuance of revenue bonds. Among other things, Proposition E gave this power to the Board of Supervisors.

A good example is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. In 2002 they said they had a plan to fix Hetch Hetchy and that what was required was the right to issue revenue bond debt. Proposition A allowed the SFPUC to issue an initial $1.6 billion to begin the Hetch Hetchy fix-up.

A group of wary suburban customers, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, pushed the state to pass AB1823, which set two completion milestones for finishing the fix-up program — 50 percent by 2010 and 100 percent by 2015.

As of this writing, the SFPUC has spent approximately $134 million (3.1 percent of the now estimated total cost) while approximately 26 percent of the time allowed under AB 1823 has passed. Are we trying to give Hetch Hetchy away?

Brian Browne

The City

Condo conversion

I was very disappointed to see Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s anti-homeownership legislation pass the Board of Supervisors by a 7-3 vote on Tuesday (City Hall Watch, May 10). Not surprised, but disappointed.

What was surprising was the participation of Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Bevan Dufty in this attack on would-be homeowners. In a time when evictions are at historic lows, when there were fewer Ellis Act evictions this year than last, and when the middle class is being driven out of San Francisco by an affordable homeownership crisis, I never would have expected Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Dufty to turn their backs on middle-class renters and tenancy-in-common owners in this way.

The most ironic aspect of this vote is that it will do nothing to stop evictions, as property owners will continue to want to go out of the rental business as long as The City continues to demonize them, and as long as the demand for homeownership in The City continues unaddressed.

No impact on evictions, and a big burden on would-be first-time homkowners. That’s not something to be proud of.

Mike Sullivan

Plan C San Francisco

The City