Gavin Newsom’s column about the California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage (“An important ruling not just for couples but for the world,” May 19) raises some interesting questions. He says that the decision is “historic” and important for the whole world. He clearly sees gay marriage as the defining civil-rights issue of today and for some time to come.

Yet he is a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton and will, it is assumed, support Barak Obama for president. Yet, they both reject gay marriage and have promised to enforce the federal ban on gay marriage that was signed by Bill Clinton. So isn’t that like a proponent of racial equality in 1964 supporting Barry Goldwater? If gay marriage is so critical than should he not be demanding that Clinton and Obama jump on the “equality” bandwagon?

William Baker

San Francisco

Paying a fair share

This story continues below
Advertisement

It is gratifying to learn the San Francisco Examiner believes that the schools and teachers need more money (“The City’s students need Prop. A,” May 19).

However, it is hypocritical to believe that only property owners should pay for Proposition A. A better solution would be to have our local newspapers pay one cent for each paper distributed, which would allow them to pay their fair share for our schools and to pay for some of the cost of cleaning up their trash, particularly with the free newspapers.

Michael Samson

San Francisco

Proposition A is regressive

Your glowing editorial in support of Proposition A, the parcel tax on the June ballot (“The City’s students need Prop. A,” May 19), overlooks the fact that the parcel tax is a regressive tax that discriminates against homeowners. Renters will not be affected because the tax cannot be passed on and large-scale commercial businesses and corporations will be taxed at the same rate as single-family homes.

As a graduate of San Francisco public schools I am in favor of more money for teachers, but since all city residents benefit from better schools, all should pay for those schools. It is unfair to use homeowners as cash cows, particularly those on fixed incomes who own homes in less fashionable neighborhoods.

Roger Ritter

San Francisco

Taxing small property owners

Your editorial embracing Proposition A (“The City’s students need Prop. A,” May 19) came as a bit of surprise to me for what it failed to recognize: the utterly regressive nature of this parcel tax to the small property owners of San Francisco. What your editorial should have noted was that this tax would affect all property owners equally; thus, the corporate owners of Parkmerced will pay the same $198 per year as the owner of a house in the Oceanview district. No wonder large property owners support this measure; it will have absolutely no financial effect upon them.

In addition, your editorial noted with approval that renters would not face a pass-through from their landlords and that seniors would also be exempted from paying this tax. Do you really think it’s fair that renters should be exempted from a tax they can vote to impose on small property owners? And why should seniors be exempt from the tax which they, too, can impose on others? If this proposition is so important, then let everybody be responsible for paying.

I view this parcel tax as a form of taxation without representation and will vote against Proposition A purely out of principle.

David Zisser

San Francisco

Parents should pay for schools

The Examiner’s editorial in support of Proposition A is sorely misguided (“The City’s students need Prop. A,” May 19). Simply put, it is sheer hypocrisy for any voter who does not own property to be able to levy this parcel tax for 20 years on those who do.

A more legitimate source of funding for Proposition A would be fees paid directly by the parents of children attending public schools. This could be a sliding fee based on income levels. After all, these parents chose to have offspring.

Personal responsibility and accountability seem to have disappeared from the public policy agenda.

Larry S. Liederman

San Francisco

Give credit where it is due

With all due respect to Peter Magowan and the financial task force that he led to make San Francisco’s downtown ballpark a reality, how about giving some well-earned credit to Daniel Woodhead, who, in the early 1980s, initiated and aggressively promoted with his Downtown Ballpark Boosters Club the concept of a downtown ballpark, such as Chicago’s Wrigley Field?

Without Woodhead’s initial visionary effort, there might never have been a downtown ballpark and the Giants long gone to another city, leaving San Francisco without a major league ball club.

Daniel Woodhead

San Francisco

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