Letters to the Editor

Editor:
The recent election is moving San Francisco in a terrible direction. Proposition F, an ordinance requiring SF employers to provide paid sick leave to all employees, is another blow to micro businesses in the City. I define micro businesses as businesses with five or less employees. It is apparent that San Francisco does not want micro businesses to start and grow in the City because it puts up economic barrier after barrier on start-up businesses.

Most start-up businesses employ part-time employees in the early stages because that is all they can afford. Since most businesses lose money in the first two years, the added cost of sick leave to part-time employees comes right out of the savings, not profits, of the fledgling shop owner.

To add to the cost of starting a business in SF, the minimum wage will increase 3.6 percent on Jan. 1, 2007, to $19,011 for a full-time employee over the course of a year. That is to say, if a shop owner wants to hire a high school grad to cover phones and do light filing, the cost with payroll taxes, sick leave, and workers comp would be more than $20,000. This makes the break-even costs, with rent, phones and utilities, in the area of $50,000. This is well before purchasing equipment, supplies, computers, software and inventory, which might drive start-up costs to the $100,000 range.

What does this do to the people in San Francisco? Every increase in start-up cost enslaves the economic lower class to stay in the economic lower class. Only businesses with substantial financing will survive the increased cost of doing business in San Francisco.

The City will only have large chain stores, multi-state franchise businesses, and no locally owned establishments. Micro businesses will not have a chance to grow with the constraints put on them by city government and anti-business legislation.

Local people in San Francisco will own no businesses and only work for large corporations.
Rudyard Vance, EA, MBA
Vance Economic Services

Editor:
I have just read Jake McGoldrick's latest column and it appears he is speaking with a forked tongue. He states clearly his position and the city's policy to retain neighborhood character and not destroy older housing, which is considered more affordable, yet he later states he is chairman of the SF Transportation Authority, which supports Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which in turn will promote new high density housing along the corridor.

The (proposed) Better Neighborhoods Plan (BNP) will allow the demolition of rental units along the corridor. If this does not change the character of the neighborhood, with traffic diverted to parallel streets, what will? This is the supervisor who is chairman of the SF Transportation Authority and has backed BRT and the Better Neighborhood Plan, yet directly quotes city policy which states as it goal, to "retain the existing supply of sound housing and that the supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced. It is also city policy that existing housing and neighborhood character be preserved and protected in order to ensure the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods."

It is interesting that he puts blame on the SF Planning Commission when the SF Board of Supervisors has prevented the commission from doing its job. The tack now is to introduce amendments to the Administrative Code at the Board of Supervisors to bypass the planning process and procedure.
Barbara Austin

Editor:
As a resident of the Inner Richmond, I have come to rely on traversing the Geary corridor. Some 50,000-plus persons do so daily on the largely ineffective Muni #38 line, which is seldom prompt and often overcrowded. The solution to more timely service with increased capacity is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

Costs and time line for completion are a fraction of light rail, afford greater flexibility and have a more favorable environmental impact. Increased ridership (15 to 25 percent and potentially beyond) will far offset potential traffic congestion as commuters leave their autos at home!

A recent poll of SF voters revealed that 78 percent supported the creation of a BRT network in the City (David Binder Research). It stands to reason that the Muni #38 line would be first in terms of the necessity for a more efficient transit solution.
Andrew Dombrowski

Editor's Note: the following letter was sent to U.S. Park Police Commander Major Gerald F. McCarthy concerning recent vandalism at Sutro Heights Park

I was quite pleased to receive your ... Nov. 8 letter regarding the dangerous vandalism incident in Sutro Heights Park that occurred on Sept. 21. I was glad to see that the appropriate preventative measure will be undertaken to prevent further such occurrences.

As a neighbor of the park and a member of Friends of Sutro Heights Park, I appreciate this solid demonstration of responsive and responsible government. Your letter indicates that ... the Golden Gate National Recreation Area will soon effect a remedy to prevent a similar such vandalism incident (in which a vehicle was driven through the park, thereby seriously damaging it).

The park is only accessible to unauthorized vehicles through its eastern border, where at present most of the border is edged with wood posts. We request that posts be placed in the remaining section of the border and that all posts be linked by cable.
Jason Jungreis