Letters to the Editor

Editor:
In your June 2006 "Commentary," you misrepresented many issues, including the JFK Drive Closure hearing process. You claim that opponents of the JFK Drive Closure didn't get a fair hearing. Nothing can be further from the truth. It was a hearing in which all participants were heard respectfully, equally and fairly.

It is unfortunate that you engage in fiction rather than fact when describing the tone, tenor, substance and style of the hearing. You accuse me of holding a hearing on scale with a high school pep rally. If you allow your personal prejudices to interfere with honest journalism, your readers will soon call you unethical and dishonest.

I would advise your readers to watch the hearing, which can be viewed online from SFGTV at www.sfgov.org (Land Use Committee, 4/14/06), where they will easily see that you have misinformed them. This is regrettable. I urge you to practice honest journalism and avoid unfounded character assassination. You certainly know from your training that ad hominem argument is the first and foremost of the logical fallacies.

I hope that in the future you will show more respect for your readers or assign stories to other reporters where you have a built in bias against me.
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick

Editor's Note: The article was labeled as commentary and was, by definition, opinion. I think the description of the Land Use Committee hearing is accurate. A copy of the column can be viewed at www.sfrichmondreview.com, in the archives section.
- Paul Kozakiewicz

Editor:
Your commentary in the June issue, "Kudos to mayor and four supes," is right on the mark in as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.

McGoldrick's grandstanding and pompousness on the board is disgusting to see, and his disregard for the people who elected him, obvious. I cannot read McGoldrick's mind to know his motives, but a guess is that he is pandering to citywide groups because he may see himself as mayor by attracting voters from special interest groups.

When the time comes, your paper should consistently remind the Richmond voters of McGoldrick's backstabbing them once elected and the rest of the City that someone who once turned his back on those who elected them will do it again.

We will make sure that McGoldrick's words and actions are remembered at the next election.
Leon Kaufman

Editor:
I have just finished reading your June commentary on the Saturday park closure issue.

Once again, your well-thought-out article was "right on." I also admired your earlier articles on the Geary rapid transit issue, which were also well thought out and "right on."

I am a 30-year resident of the Richmond. It is unfortunate that our elected supervisor lacks an objective perspective. District elections (which may have been the City's biggest political mistake in many years) have contributed to this type of mess. Keep up the good work.
Bill Horton

Editor:
No, we're not all Green Party or uber-liberals. Now that you actually live here, come over to 12th Avenue and Lincoln Way and meet a dozen or so families who would like to see the park as an escape with our kids from the traffic and parking chaos of the streets. It has little to do with politics.

And why not the west end? The cafes, street life (versus car life) is all in the Inner Sunset - a pleasure to walk to and from the park. World class cities around the world have acted to make their parks more than traffic shortcuts or parking areas and have closed off areas throughout the week. Their lives are richer for it.

Golden Gate Park has, rather, seen a large increase in automobile traffic and parking. What's next in the enlightened commentary department? "Sunset residents coddle illegal immigrant cooks?" "Sunset youth rife with pro-choice liberals?"
Patrick Morris

Editor:
I strongly disagree with your suggestion of closing the western end of the park. All you are doing with your shortsighted view is moving all of the parking and traffic problems you foresee for the Inner Richmond and Inner Sunset, to the Outer Richmond and Outer Sunset.

So it's OK as long as it does not affect you and your family? God save us from editors and politicians.
Esteban Tahmazian

Editor's Note: Point well taken.

Editor:
First, let me say I totally agree with your assessment of our "great Jake" and how he does not seem to be there for us in the Richmond District. I agree with Inner Richmond and Sunset residents that the closing of the east end of the park would be a disaster for parking.

If anyone thinks that the new underground parking lot will make a difference, tell them to dream on. If I have a choice of parking for free on the streets or paying for the privilege of parking closer to the de Young, I'll keep the money in my pocket.

I watched the supes meeting on television and watched the SF Bicycle Coalition basically lie. I saw pictures of the park on Saturday showing many cars on JFK. Ah, yes, but that was during construction of the parking lot, and JFK was down to one and a half lanes for both directions.

There were other lies that no one would call them on and, for some reason, the "great Jake" let one person talk for close to 10 minutes because she wanted to.

I do have to say I disagree with you about closing the west end of the park. Why close the park at all? I live in the Outer Richmond and my parking is bad now living on Fulton. If you close the west end, where are the people who want to picnic supposed to park? How are people supposed to cross the park? People in the Outer Richmond and Sunset would have to leave their cars at home on Saturdays since finding a parking spot when you got back would be a "crap shoot."
J. Scott Ganos

Editor:
Just so you know where I'm coming from, if I had my way, all park roads would be closed to automobile traffic, with frequent shuttle service connecting public transportation to the interior.

However, since that will not happen in my lifetime, what I would like to see is an article in your newspaper publicizing the fact that there already exists about a mile-long stretch of roadway which is closed every day. Middle Drive, west of Transverse Drive, has been closed to through-car traffic for a couple of years now.

This fact is so unknown to the public that the closure seems to have occurred without the usual screaming match in the press or in the neighborhoods in proximity to it. Instead of fueling another 16 years of debate over the Saturday closure, could you publicize this happy oasis in the western end of the park?
Agatha Hoff

Editor:
Thank you for your June commentary, praising the mayor and four supervisors who recently prevented the closure of the eastern end of Golden Gate Park to vehicular traffic on Saturdays.

Key Outer Richmond groups, identified with Ocean Beach, Sutro Heights Park, Lincoln Park and Lands End, were among the many citywide that wrote and testified against the misguided closure idea.

Your column covered the main issues: Half of all weekends (Sundays) are already closed; Vehicular traffic and parking on Sundays are diverted to adjoining neighborhoods; Normally heavy Saturday traffic and north/south traffic gridlock would be exacerbated; The expensive parking garage does not serve all; Voters have twice rejected Saturday closures;

Public testimony on this plan was severely limited and disrespected; Many families with children, seniors and disabled citizens would be prevented from visiting or working in the park on weekend days; cultural institutions in the park already lose much-needed revenue during Sunday closures; reducing Saturday revenues, as well, would threaten their viability and community services; when the Academy of Sciences re-opens, the need for broad public access on weekends will increase; since neither the DPT nor Rec/Park has collected baseline data on park usage, the deceptiveness of the "trial period" scheme is apparent; our City has other recreation areas which could serve bicyclists on Saturdays.

Unfortunately, your closing paragraphs advocated another uninformed suggestion: "If proponents of Saturday closures are smart, they will propose closing roads in the western end of the park."

Those of us who live and work in this area know that every Saturday morning, the west end of Golden Gate Park is lined with parked cars, as people come from miles around for school-sports events, including rugby matches, organized running and biking for health and charity, picnics, archery, golf and more. On many Sundays, park roads and the Great Highway are closed to accommodate large-scale events, such as the Bay to Breakers. Any sunny day or holiday draws huge influxes of visitors.

We observe that recreational users and civic planners often ignore two inconvenient realities: 1) Large natural areas, such as Ocean Beach, Lands End and Golden Gate Park are not unspoiled nature preserves. Recreational users leave great impacts on them and on adjacent residential areas. 2) Traffic congestion is not legislated away; it is diverted.

Until public transport is expanded immensely and until we own less vehicles per household, San Francisco streets will be clogged. Many vehicles carry families, surfers, golfers, cyclists with their gear; seniors who cannot walk far; and workers who cannot get to work on public transport.

In our area, commuters have greatly increased traffic on the Great Highway and Fulton Street. An outdated Golden Gate Park plan still proposes to close some roads in the west end, thus diverting traffic to busy, dangerous thoroughfares and restricting park access for many, including children, seniors, and the disabled.

Thank you for your concern for our public welfare.
Cheryl C. Arnold
Coalition to Save Ocean Beach

Editor:
I have lived in the Outer Richmond for a decade, on 28th Avenue near Geary Boulevard, and for a couple of years at Balboa Street and Third Avenue. There have been many times I've had to park two or three blocks away from where I live. This has nothing to do with the Golden Gate Park closures on Sunday. If you're normally able to find parking on the street near your house, then you're more fortunate than the rest of us.

The Saturday closure test was going to attract at least one more person to the park. If the main priority of the park is to be a commuting conduit, and parking for its visitors, then changes can be made to address this. What could be done?
• Replace stop signs with timed traffic lights. This would help improve the traffic flow, especially during busy commute hours;
• Add pedestrian bridges so homeless people could sleep on them;
• Make JFK a two-lane, one-way street from Fell to Ocean Beach to increase traffic flow. There would need to be similar changes made to increase the flow from the beach back to the eastern end of the park;
• Improve traffic flow on JFK by allowing people to parallel park;
• Build an above-ground parking garage. It would probably serve the City of San Francisco better if the park's primary role was defined. Then, the focus could be put to improving the park to help it achieve that goal.
Tony Healy

Editor:
Speaking as one of the "uber-liberal" park activists and a long-time Richmond and Sunset district resident dating back to the '80s, I am sick and tired of the nimby-ist automobile-centric slant you, this paper, and PAR consistently spout off about. Our two districts may have the highest rate of home and car ownership in the City, but renters and non-car-owners still make up a very large proportion.

If you're going to oppose transit-centered housing and the Geary BRT, then you should not be living in a city. You cannot continue to demand suburban amenities in a growing urban area. With our population growing, and multi-car households on the increase, car traffic is blighting every street in and outside the park.

And your solution is more parking!

The rest of the country, and the world that pays attention to transportation and recreation and land use issues, is laughing its head off at how backward and retrograde this City is on such matters. Transit First Policy? Newsom as our great environmental hope? What a hoax. Know that your opinions, editor, do not represent many here in the Richmond or Sunset. You have this paper as a megaphone, but that does not make you representative of all of us.
Janice Rothstein

Editor:
Your column on the mayor's veto was a comprehensive and accurate description of the issues, the process and participants. Thanks so much for devoting so much space to this important issue.
Michele Stratton