Letters to the Editor

Editor:
The news from City Hall periodically report that yet another effort is to be made to "beautify" San Francisco. Most recently, the mayor himself has been behind this goal. This posturing neglects many important facts, one being that San Francisco is the most beautiful urban city in this country, maybe anywhere, and that the issue is a fight against "uglyfication" before attempts are made at beautifying.

Our own Inner Richmond offers a microcosm of the problem. The Inner Richmond is an incredibly rich environment with something for everyone and every need, and what is not available is easily accessible. It would seem that this unique jewel would be respected and well cared for by its residents and those who benefit from it:

But a walk through the streets quickly disabuses one from such a consideration. The streets are filthy and strewn with trash and detritus. A quick walk never fails to find at least a couple of mattresses, some vacuum cleaners and at least one other appliance, old computer equipment, all forms of furniture, old paint cans, clothes left in piles, and food. The food is left sometimes on newspaper boxes or mailboxes (this is presumably for the benefit of the "homeless"), or on the sidewalks for pigeons and other birds.

One will see containers full of uneaten rice, noodles, and whatever else was too much or did not please. Of course, as befits animals who eat, symmetry demands and finds droppings, including the occasional dog pile in the middle of the sidewalk. We will also find in our walk trash -lots of trash.

The poster child for trash is the 200 block of Fifth Avenue. But there are many others. It's too bad there is no silver bullet to solve the problem, but there is not. It is hard to dispose of large or toxic items in San Francisco, and not everyone has the means to take them to the facility near Candlestick.

Sunset Scavenger does have a limited number of large item yearly collections, and can schedule a limited number each year for a household. People cannot always wait for the general one, and many do not seem to know that they can schedule some each year, or do not care to do it. The DPW 28-CLEAN number is also available, and again, it is not being used enough.

Education is a help with this aspect of the problem, but not enough to solve it. There has to be a better enforcement of sidewalk cleanliness and better cleaning of the streets by DPW. Owners should be responsible for their sidewalk, and sidewalks can easily be inspected weekly. This can be done in conjunction with street cleaning.

The traffic control people who precede the mechanical cleaners have easy view of the sidewalks and can cite households as well as cars. This brings us to another problem: mechanical street cleaning. The machines are highly inefficient and I have noticed that half of what is in the gutter ends up ingested by the cleaner, and half is thrown by the rotating brush back onto the sidewalk.

We also need to enforce laws against public urinating and defecation. We can do our part too to help, not just by not soiling our environment, but also by speaking up when we see someone doing them. Do not be afraid to speak, politely but loud enough for others to hear and be drawn in, when you see someone drop trash, let their dog soil and not clean up, leave food out, and break other laws and ordinances. None of the solutions I advocate will solve the problem, but they can help create an atmosphere where our environment improves and there is a sense of pride among our populace.

We can become a much more pleasant San Francisco.
Name withheld by request

Editor:
I wish to express my disappointment with your recent headline, "Hundreds attend Town Hall Forum hosted by mayor," in the August edition.

This meeting was held in District 1, represented by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who co-hosted the meeting and whose office also organized the event. I believe in giving credit where it is due.

Also of concern is the Richmond Review's almost single focus coverage of this event, specifically the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal. The article gives the greatest coverage to this issue despite the fact that the meeting was organized to speak to all concerns of the community, and there were many. Very little space is devoted to other topics of importance.

Finally, not all Richmond District residents are against BRT; some of us realize the important benefits of this issue and are maintaining an open mind. Thank you for being more attentive to detail in the future and also representing other points of view.
Mark S. Weinberger