In response to Russel Morine’s comments about the proposed waste fee (letters, Feb. 6), those of us who did attend the Environmental Commission meeting held in January, which was open to the public, know that the waste fee is only one of three programs being considered to help fund the reduction of greenhouse gases in San Francisco. All three proposals are being discussed well in advance of any action to ensure public awareness and participation in the process. In addition, Jared Blumenfeld, director of the Department of the Environment, specifically noted that any new fees on waste could not be implemented until the rate report is reviewed again, to ensure proper process is followed. This will not take place until July 2011.

In addition to the their work in reducing greenhouse gases and increasing The City’s diversion rate through recycling and composting programs, the Department of the Environment is trying to avoid, or reduce, an inevitable increase in the amount San Francisco residents pay for disposal. The Altamont landfill, where San Francisco waste currently goes, is slated to be at capacity sometime between 2013 and 2015, depending on our diversion success. When this landfill closes, any materials San Francisco is unable to recycle or compost will be hauled farther distances, perhaps as far as Nevada. With transportation costs soaring, the cost to city residents and businesses for disposal could skyrocket. If residents and businesses do not achieve a higher diversion rate, we will pay a higher price for disposal regardless of whether a fee is imposed.

Janice Sitton

Vice President, Northern California Recycling Association

This story continues below
Advertisement

San Francisco

Troops are needed, Berkeley

Pray tell, from what “pool” will the troops arrive if not but from the young and idealistic? Does the Berkeley City Council think Berkeley to be off-limits to the recruitment of fighting persons? Sailing along with the assumption that these same people are gaining an education and can think for themselves, they do not need the Berkeley City Council to fend off the offers. Our free expression of ideas and opinions is being secured by those who have already volunteered.

William J. Coburn

San Francisco

Corporations run the show

I voted for Sen. Barack Obama. But there is another side to the story.

In the U.S., we know that the two final presidential candidates, Republican and Democrat alike, are going to each have to raise something like half a billion dollars. And that’s not going to come from us. Primarily that’s going to come from the people who own and run our big corporations. So the G8 is this group of countries that represent the biggest multinational corporations in the world and really serve at their behest.

It doesn’t really matter whether we have a Democrat or a Republican in the White House or running Congress; the empire goes on, because it’s really run by what I call the corporatocracy, which is a group of men who run our biggest corporations. They really are the equivalent of the emperor, because they do not serve at the wish of the people, they’re not democratically elected, they don’t serve any limited term. They essentially answer to no one, except their own boards. They are the power behind this. Today, corporations exist for the primary purpose of making large profits, making a few very rich people a lot richer. That shouldn’t be.

Ted Rudow III

Menlo Park

Dream ticket common sense

Common sense will prevail in the Democratic Party presidential race.

I predict a ticket with Hillary Clinton as president and Barack Obama as vice president.

And, I approve this statement.

Albert M. Bourla

Redwood City

Personal safety key on Geary

Your Jan. 26 editorial, “Geary idea worst of the year,” was particularly myopic, as it ignores the larger issue of personal safety, of which pedestrian safety is a part. Moreover, it ignores elderly and other mobility issues. To explain the real perception and concerns over the very vulnerable road users of the community, pedestrians are mugged at these overpasses.

Additionally, many of the substantial elderly community have difficulty crossing at these grade-separated elevated structures. Hence, an alternative — and a very unsafe one — is to cross Geary Boulevard directly and at sites where there is no crosswalk, or to walk several additional blocks. This is an egregious situation, particularly for the substantial elder population in the area.

Please remember that this is not San Bruno, and the roadway operator is not Caltrans. This is a real community of multiple road users within the city and county of San Francisco.

Jim Misener

Transportation Safety Research

Program Leader California PATH,

UC Berkeley

Berkeley

The Examiner gives preference to letters containing fewer than 150 words. Please include name, phone number and city of residence.

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