Editor:
Geary Boulevard is screaming for a makeover. I'm not talking about intrusive plastic surgery and countless hours of rehabilitation - just a simple polishing of the surface.

The proposed beautification project known as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is just the ticket. Sure, a faster, safer, cleaner, more reliable commute would be nice, but I just want a beautiful boulevard.

I mean, have you seen the proposed plans? Beautiful! Palm-lined streets, manicured landscaping, two fewer lanes of noisy traffic and quiet, clean, modern buses with their own dedicated lanes. Not to mention the bus stops look more like outdoor lounges -shaded garden seating and all.

Now, I make no claim to be an urban planner or economic developer, but it seems intuitive that such an environment would enhance the shopping and strolling experience along Geary. The proposed improvements would not only stimulate more local foot traffic, but our boulevard could possibly be transformed into a shopping and strolling destination. Seems like a Barry Bonds home run for neighborhood residents and local merchants alike.

So, who is going to pay the piper to get this done? At an estimated $200 million, this is a relatively cheap investment in our City. Financing is not anticipated to be a hurdle and various funding efforts are already underway. In any case, the project is expected to pay for itself within 10 years of completion.

The real burden will be borne by local merchants. They will suffer more than anyone during the planned 6 to 8 week (per block) construction period. For merchants who rely on foot traffic, especially the many "mom and pops," this is a big pill to swallow -even more so if the 6 to 8 weeks turns into 12 to 16 weeks as it so often does with urban projects.

So, primarily for this reason, the merchants along Geary Boulevard are generally opposed to the proposed BRT plan.

While I don't claim to "feel their pain," I do feel merchant opposition is extremely shortsighted. For starters, the project isn't slated to start until 2011 or 2012. So, if I may ask in a respectful tone -how many of the opposition voices will even be in business five years from now? Probably not the majority.

Secondly, the merchants are not raising their voices against the pay-offs, just against the initial investment. Isn't five years enough lead time to plan for a 6 to 8 week disruption? I, for one, certainly think so.

As an aside, several merchants are also concerned about losing parking spaces along Geary. Let's put this argument to rest once and for all - the proposed plans have a negligible impact on parking and in some cases even increase the number of parking spaces along Geary Boulevard.

Please remember BRT is an investment whose return will benefit all of us, merchants included.
Jay Seiden

Editor:
The San Francisco Green Party opposes the current efforts to recall Supervisor Jake McGoldrick.

McGoldrick was first elected in 2000 and was re-elected in 2004. Both processes were democratic and represented the will of the majority of District 1 residents.

However, under current city charter rules, if the recall proponents gather enough signatures to put the recall of McGoldrick on the November ballot and should a majority of District 1 voters support the recall, the mayor, not the voters, would be able to choose a successor to McGoldrick. That person would then be an incumbent going into the 2008 supervisor races in the city's odd-numbered districts.

We believe that the power of recall should be used sparingly and only when gross negligence or abuses of power have been committed.

We also support proposals to amend the City Charter to create a two-part system for any recall efforts. Under such a system, if recall proponents succeeded in getting enough valid signatures to put the recall on the ballot, voters would be able to vote the recall effort up or down and then vote for candidates of their choice, using ranked-choice voting.

As the San Francisco Green Party is against this recall effort, we also discourage District 1 residents from signing the current recall petitions.

The backers of the recall effort need 4,000 valid signatures. However, the SF Department of Elections only verifies a small percentage of the signatures because verifying all of them would not be logistically possible.
Sue Vaughan
San Francisco Green Party County Council - District 1

Editor:
I read your editorial calling for the recall of Jake McGoldrick. Let me respond by saying that I have worked with McGoldrick in the past and found him to be a man of principle and conscience.

I am a resident of the Richmond, but until a few months ago was a resident of the Marina. I was part of a neighborhood group that fought an oversized hotel that the sponsor wanted to build in a largely residential neighborhood that would have placed 44-foot-tall walls on the property line of neighboring residences. (See savethemarina.net.) This monstrosity was approved by the SF Planning Commission.

After the commission's approval and even though we were not even in his district, Jake agreed to mediate our dispute. And when the sponsor refused to budge, he proposed a compromise that was approved by the Board of Supervisors. He again went to bat for us when the Planning Department decided to ignore the board by adopting an absurd interpretation of his compromise motion.

Without Jake's help, the original motel would have been built and we would have been staring at the brick walls of this monster.

As I look through your list of issues, it simply doesn't make sense to me. Many of his "crimes" are things a majority of the supervisors also voted for. Do you really think that a supervisor appointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom would be better?

As a supervisor, Newsom frequently recused himself from a super-majority of cases. That's the same as voting "no." I don't agree with Jake on everything, but when I worked with him, I found him to be an honest man who truly cared.
Andy Fields

Editor:
As a Richmond District resident and reader of the "Richmond Review," I commend your efforts to publish a local journal of news and information of interest and importance to the Richmond District community.

But your commentary, "The Case for Recalling McGoldrick" in the May issue, as well as similar past diatribes, is over the top! Not only is it poor journalism, but to stand on your soap box and rant about a recall of McGoldrick is an irresponsible and abusive misuse of your position as editor.

The responsibilities of an elected official are to represent a consensus of interests including the best interests of his or her constituents and of the community at large, and to legislate what is best for the future of the City.

McGoldrick is not irresponsible or a maverick among his colleagues in this regard. For the most part, his advocacies are supportive of the current collective interests and will of the City. Many of McGoldrick's positions and initiatives address the issues of social responsibility and urban growth, including fiscal requirements to maintain and improve the high level of community services that help make this city the finest, most livable city in the world.

His support of the BRT for the Geary Corridor, which has gone through extensive research and study, public review, and scrutiny by the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee, is aligned with the long standing, and vitally important "Transit First" policy of the City.

It is clear you are against BRT and the front running proposal for dedicated center bus lanes despite the fact that residents of the Richmond District and government agencies largely support BRT and recommendations of the current study.

Urban growth will require higher density development in pocket areas of concentrated public and commercial services along major transit corridors. Therefore, we must improve and expand mass transit systems in support of this growth and to redefine uses and densities of selective zoning districts accordingly.

Wake up and smell the roses. Amidst the overwhelming realities of global warming and urban growth, your clutching to the status quo and a suburban mentality are notions that will lead this City and our planet down the tubes.
William Pearson