One of the ongoing mysteries about Mayor Gavin Newsom is his seeming lack of appreciation for, if not antipathy toward, our city parks (“Gardeners face budget ax,” The Examiner, Feb. 1). It’s especially mysterious given that he evidently understands and values the importance and power of fine grooming — how it fosters admiration and an overall sense of well-being.

Yet his willingness to shear the ranks of our front line and already severely understaffed grooming crews, including gardeners and craftsmen, suggests that he doesn’t understand the contributions they make in trying to keep the parks as natty as he always looks. Maybe he’ll get the connection if those workers are renamed the parks’ barbers and tailors.

Franco Mancini

President, Friends of McLaren Park

This story continues below
Advertisement

San Francisco

Vested interest in Prop. A

Concerning the authors of “Sparse canopy in S.F. leaves us running for the trees” (Viewpoints, Jan. 31), namely Kelly Quirke, I am appalled by her pandering for future tax dollars, something close to $4 million, if Proposition A wins approval. Her company, “Friends of the Urban Forest,” will absorb much of the $4 million. Something your readers should know about FOTUF: They have exclusive rights on all street tree plantings in San Francisco.

Oh that’s right, FOTUF is a 501c3 (tax exempt nonprofit). Is your paper providing free advertorials?

Jan Krajeski

San Francisco

More gaming revenue, sleaze

I never leave a blank space on a San Francisco ballot. I can’t trust our attorney general to write an honest official title and summary — that Proposition 93 masterpiece could have been written by former Mayor Willie Brown. So how to vote on the Indian gambling propositions?

Because I don’t watch television, listen to the radio, read junk mail or take junk calls, I appreciated the summary of the gambling measures offered by The Examiner (“Casino plans depend on ‘good-deal’ vote,” Jan. 30).

There is sleaze in our Republican governor kissing up to Democrats; sleaze in vice revenue suckling and nurturing the politician; sleaze in white-guilt entitlement. But I won’t be voting sleaze — I’ll be voting principle.

President Reagan said that to reduce the size of government you reduce the use of government. More funding: more government. Let’s ask Mayor Gavin Newsom how many climate protection apparatchiks California can buy with an additional $55 million in gambling revenue.

Paul Burton

San Francisco

Rent control reduces units

Previous letters have established that rental apartment units are being held off the market and are probably sitting empty. Sadly, in San Francisco where housing is dear, the rent-control ordinance deprives The City of rental housing.

Even President Nixon, who instituted wage and price controls, learned that government controls don’t work, and gave up on them. Yet it has been 25 years and San Francisco is still saddled with a short-term policy that fails so badly in the long run.

If more moderately priced housing is desired, this city does not have to extort new home buyers — by requiring a percentage of new units to be “low income.” It only needs to return to the free market, a mechanism that, since San Francisco controlled rents, has been embraced by two-thirds of the world.

Steve Lawrence

San Francisco

Don’t like fee? Recycle, reuse

In response to Russel Morine’s letter “Trash added fee on waste” (Jan. 24):

The 69 percent diversion rate quoted by the Department of the Environment is based on weight, not on volume. The bulk of this weight comes from C&D (construction and demolition) and similar heavy materials generated in The City. If you looked at diversion in volume, The City would have a much lower diversion percentage. Example: Plastic bottles, bags and Styrofoam blocks weigh very little, but take up a lot of space in a landfill.

Reusing, recycling and composting is the cheapest and easiest way to immediately reduce greenhouse gases generated by San Francisco. Anyone and everyone can do it, usually at no or very low cost to themselves.

When we don’t recycle, our resources go to landfill, which generate greenhouse gases instead of reusable materials. Even at a 69 percent diversion rate, The City still sends more than 1,000 tons of material to landfill every day. This waste will generate much higher environmental and taxpayer costs than the proposed fee on waste ever could.

If you don’t like the fee, just avoid it by recycling and composting. It is that simple, and will make a huge difference to our city and planet.

Janice Sitton

Vice President, Northern California Recycling Association

San Francisco

To add your voice

By e-mail: letters@examiner.com

By mail:

Editorial Page Editor

The Examiner, 450 Mission St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

By fax: (415) 359-2766