Beth Winegarner’s article on dogs in our park (“Pet owners getting dogged looking for a place to park,” Examiner, May 12) raises important points. First of all, there is no evidence, other than guesses, that the dog population exceeds the population of children in San Francisco. We know how many kids are in San Francisco, based on reliable census data, but the fact remains that only about 12,000 dogs are registered, as legally required, in San Francisco.

Thus, relying on solid data, we have to say that children outnumber dogs, both numerically and “rights-wise” as nonregistered dogs do not have a voice in the data world. Secondly, the Duboce Park experiment with a “no dogs” area is still a work in progress, as child care center children and staff are finding plenty of dog feces in the supposed “no dogs” area. Only time will tell if dog owners will prove respectful enough to allow children and families to have a cleaner area to run, tumble and frolic.

Peter Vaernet

San Francisco

Timed use for dogs in parks

The article on Miraloma Park (“Pet owners getting dogged looking for a place to park,” Examiner, May 12) states that there are “29 off-leash areas for dogs and 11 acres of playground space.” This misleading statistic confuses apples (areas) and oranges (acres). A more accurate comparison would be: There are 29 off-leash areas and 128 playgrounds.

People naturally want to recreate in their neighborhood park, whether they have kids, dogs or neither. They don’t want to have to drive miles away from home just to play with their kids or their dogs. Yet, that is precisely what the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department forces people with dogs to do — drive across town to a “legal” off-leash area, while neighborhood parks stand empty. Is it any wonder many people with well-behaved dogs choose to be with their neighbors in their neighborhood park?

Sadly, the Rec and Park administration has chosen to fan the flames of conflict in neighborhood parks by insisting on turning increasingly large portions of parks into single-use areas — natural areas, athletic fields. No other uses are permitted, even when there is community demand for them.

The department has also chosen not to institute the “timed use” policy recommended by its own Dog Advisory Committee. With timed use, dogs are allowed off-leash at certain times of the day — generally before and after work when there are few other park users present — and required to be on-leash the rest of the day. It has proven extremely successful in New York City. Yet San Francisco’s Recreation and Park department has chosen not to take this step that would ease tensions in many of our neighborhood parks.

We need multiuse open spaces in which people can walk, play catch with their kids and fetch with their dogs.

Sally Stephens

San Francisco

Healthy San Francisco

As one of the 734 businesses that complied with the Healthy San Francisco April 30 deadline, I feel cheated and betrayed. My nail salon business gave half of its net income to The City, waded through the nearly incomprehensible regulations and fulfilled its legal obligation. At the same time, we are trying to compete with countless salons in San Francisco that didn’t comply with the ordinance.

This is just the latest in an ever-growing series of regulations, taxes and legal requirements that we do our best to satisfy, only to see our competitors ignore with impunity. They pay employees cash “under the table” to avoid withholding and employer contributions. They don’t pay for workers compensation insurance. They ignore spa chair-cleaning requirements because of the high cost of chemicals and the time necessary to satisfy state regulations.

The net effect to us is that we cannot compete on price — actual costs of legal compliance is often higher than the charges for services offered by our competitors. At a minimum, I sincerely thought that The City would take reasonable action to enforce the Healthy San Francisco requirements. No, instead, it has added one more obstacle to a lawfully conducted business being successful.

At a minimum, it would make sense for The City to release the names of the 734 businesses that have complied. We know who our competitors are, and know if they offer health care that otherwise satisfies the ordinance. It would be helpful if The Examiner confronted The City with the need to shed some sunlight on this matter. It might just expose some of the businesses that have not contributed.

Rob Weaver

San Francisco

Support for E-line fleet

Muni is hoping to begin a five-year plan to overhaul its entire historic streetcar fleet for the E-line, running from Fisherman’s Wharf to Fourth and King Streets. Simple addition tells us this is a sure success. Historic cars, plus The Embarcadero route, plus tourist and local demand equals success.Let’s get on with it.

Katy Liddell

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@sfexaminer.com  

By mail:

Editorial Page Editor

The Examiner, 450 Mission St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

By fax: (415) 359-2766