The Examiner’s editorial (“Felon sanctuary misguided,” July 8), accused city officials of turning a “blind eye” by protecting immigrant minors from federal deportation. Contrary to the recent news reports, there was never a covert effort to abuse San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance or circumvent federal immigration law. In fact, San Francisco’s policy of reuniting undocumented youth with their families was enacted with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Immigration Naturalization Service (INS), the predecessor to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The City’s policy was drafted in 1996, around the same time that the INS was sued in a class-action lawsuit — Flores v. Reno — for its practice of housing undocumented minors in juvenile justice detention centers. The Flores settlement stipulated that detained children would be placed in the “least restrictive environment” and that INS would make every effort to reunite minors with their families.

The regional INS office reviewed and approved the policies of Juvenile Probation, which clearly set forth San Francisco’s family reunification efforts, including its practice of returning children to their families in their country of origin. The regional INS representatives approved of San Francisco’s practice because it was entirely consistent with INS’ policy at the time. There was no effort to circumvent federal law, as your editorial suggested.

Jeff Adachi

This story continues below
Advertisement

S.F. Public Defender

San Francisco

Sewage treatment name

Howard Epstein, chairman of the S.F. Republican Party, bemoans the attempt to name a sewage treatment plant after President Bush (“Ballot-box satire inappropriate,” Letters, July 13). I believe the effort very appropriate — in a city many regard as the “toilet of America.”

James O. Clifford. Sr.

Redwood City

Burn the fireplace fine

Your article (“Pollution sparks wintertime ban,” July 10) regarding new fines for using a fireplace on “spare the air days,” seemed reasonable at first blush — it just didn’t sit well.

I’m a big fan of clean air and don’t have a fireplace, so why should I be bothered by a well-intentioned mandate that protects the air we all breath? Because of the heavy-handed authoritarian way it was implemented. One day it’s perfectly fine to use your fireplace and the next the police are knocking on your door to issue you an expensive fine because someone decided that it was a bad thing.

Our laws are drafted by large bodies of legislators that we vote into office and other elected officials with veto powers. There is a process of “hammering out” that a potential law goes through. This new law skipped that whole process. It was put in place by political appointees with no public accountability. I don’t doubt that they are well meaning, but it’s just not how we are supposed to be governed. This is not China. To allow unelected officials to arbitrarily decide these matters is a very slippery slope.

Tim Donnelly

San Francisco

Keep plant on standby

I have followed the long controversy about closing the Mirant power plant in Potrero and building gas-fired peaker plants, and would like to add my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps a deal could be negotiated with the owner of the power plant that The City wants to do away with, which would allow its closure, but maintain it in a standby status so it could be restarted in an emergency.

The appeal to this is that in the event of a major disaster that disrupted our supply of natural gas, and or the electrical supply, the diesel unit at the Mirant plant might be the only power available in The City. The advantage of diesel is that, although it is dirtier than gas, it can be stored on site, whereas a disruption of our gas supply would render the peaker plants useless anyhow.

Bob Rose

San Francisco

People ruining Ocean Beach

Ocean Beach is certainly one of the “secret treasures” of San Francisco.

We are delighted to see the recent attention to its preservation as a treasure, and could not agree more with the letter (July 10) offered by Mary Cantini. To paraphrase her, the problem at Ocean Beach is a “people problem,” not a money or government problem. To keep the beach clean is a matter of behavior modification of those who come to the beach and haven’t the courtesy to pick up their refuse and carry it off at the end of their visit.

Ken Flowers

Board of Directors, Ocean Beach Condos

San Francisco

Adult bodies, juvenile brains

Many people agree, the hands-free cell phone driving law is a joke, because it’s the lack of concentration that causes accidents.

But mandating a “no talking while driving” law is tantamount to trying to get a class full of 5-year-olds to shut up.

But think about it — when we were 5 years old, didn’t mom teach us not to talk while eating?

Jeffrey Tong

San Bruno

To add your voice

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

By e-mail: letters@sfexaminer.com

By mail: Editorial Page Editor

The Examiner, 450 Mission St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

By Fax: (415) 359-2766